Virtual Media Group, Inc. v. City of San Mateo

Full title: VIRTUAL MEDIA GROUP, INC.; Valley Outdoor, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellants…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 27, 2003

66 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

66 Fed.Appx. 129 (9th Cir. 2003) VIRTUAL MEDIA GROUP, INC.; Valley Outdoor, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN MATEO, a California municipal corporation, Defendant--Appellee, Outdoor Media Group; Jung Choo; Albert Aubry; Corey Faulkner, Counter-defendants--Appellants. No. 02-15926. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 27, 2003

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2003.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Billboard advertising companies brought action challenging city's sign ordinance. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, J., 2002 WL 485044, entered summary judgment in favor of city, and companies appealed. The Court of Appeals held that billboards did not qualify as legal, non-conforming uses.

Affirmed.

Page 130.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-01089-MMC.

Before: CANBY, KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Virtual Media Group, Inc., Valley Outdoor, Inc., Outdoor Media Group, Albert Aubrey, Jung Chou and Corey Faulkner ("Appellants") appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of San Mateo. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. ¹

1 We also grant San Mateo's November 28, 2002, motion to strike documents impermissibly included in Appellants' Excerpts of Record. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077-78 (9th Cir.1988) (stating that papers submitted to the district court after the ruling that is challenged on appeal should be stricken from the record on appeal).

Appellants' billboards do not qualify as legal, non-conforming uses under § 25.04.060 of the new San Mateo sign ordinance because the billboards were constructed in violation of § 23.06 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, which required Appellants to obtain building and electrical permits prior to construction. ² Appellants' argument that applying for such permits would have been futile is not supported by sufficient evidence.

2 San Mateo alleges that Appellants' billboards also violated structural and electrical safety requirements set out by the code. Appellants have not presented any defense to this assertion. Our decision does not depend on this allegation, however, because Appellants' billboards admittedly violated the building code's permit requirements.

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.