good morning will brody for appellate paramount contractors and developers i'd like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal the bottom line is that the claims in this case were not addressed in the prior cases and could not have been addressed in the would you actually start with telling us what claims are still left in this case yes the only claim that is still left is paramount contractors claim that the city wrongfully denied permit applications under the amended hollywood i c d ordinance and that is not in by itself a federal question that is not by old query whether we should be deciding this issue i mean i understand why and how it got here because it was joined with a federal issue but i believe that issues gone so this is we're reviewing a purely state law question here correct well it's a city law question ok so even even more distant from federal court a city law guess i know there's been a lot of litigation in this case over these signs but i'm wondering why this case should not be in state court now that the federal claim is gone shouldn't this case is a state state or local law claim why shouldn't this case be and just like to stick with well we do think it should be sent back to the trial court and you know we haven't addressed the issue of whether it should be in federal or state court as as it stands now there are no federal issues yet left so that would be correct as a stands currently we have a district court decision in the federal court saying that we cannot proceed with the case so at this stage we need the federal court to do something about that city wrongfully deny permits under the new ordinance is a correct yes under the amended ordinance and as i was reading the application or the or the nature of the claim expressed in the complaint it related to it seem to say that paramount should have been given a permit under the old ordinance and had it been given a permit under the old ordinance then it would be eligible for a grandfather permit permit under the and it or against am i reading that correctly or is there a different way to look at that in our current complaint in this case yes  there is a different way to interpret that ok well what the claim in this case says is that under the amended ordinance there's a section six k that's the grandfather one right that's the grandfather and as you did you never actually got a permit so you don't have anything to do to be grandfathered well grandfathering in this case is a specific statutory thing that the city created it's basically the law says that if you have what's called  project permit approval which is not a permit it's some sort of kind of pre permit in document engineering type document if you have that if you've done the work with respect to super graphic signs you're entitled to go see it's not a permit and there's a specific code provision that the city put it in i think it was two thousand and ten saying that they're calling it grandfathering but you can call it whatever you want it says if you have this the ban on super graphics doesn't prevent you from getting a permit and so you the position of the city is that you have that document is at the position of my client paramount as we have that document that's what we allege in the complaint very clearly that we have project permit can approvals which paramount does for super graphics and therefore when it applied in two thousand and fifteen to get super graphic signs under this provision six k the city should have granted  that these claims either were or could have been raised and were resolved in paramount two because the second and the i guess that both the first and the second and complaint were after challenge to the constitutionality of the amended hollywood s u d o ordinance and it raised one question it with respect to grandfathering investing it said had paramount's permits under the old it old ordinance been granted paramount what have been vested or grandfathered so did you not have the relevant documents at the time paramount did but what the issue was that they hadn't applied for those permits yet so the city had wrongfully denied them permits at the time paramount believed that it already had already had a right to rent permits under the old earnings which are a little different than the new ordinance and it was seeking damages under the old lauren it's and in fact signs were up for a long time to a during the pendency of these cases when we raised the issue that had the permits under the old ordinance been issued it would have been vested and grandfather that was a damages claim the district court actually said in paramount to that paramount couldn't bring that claim because paramount had not alleged that its permits had been wrongfully denied under the amended ordinance and ordinance had not been applied to paramount in other words the district court says we couldn't bring the claims are breaking now because they are nothing had happened yet to deny paramount claim so now the city is arguing that that prior case bars us from bringing those claims again when in fact there was nothing we could have done to bring them at the time because the city had never evaluated whether paramount was entitled to permits under the amended ordinance and the court of never evaluated it and in fact the court refused or said it wouldn't even look at it it wouldn't be a relevant issue so now we're bringing those claims that we could bring before looking at the second man and complaint from paramount two in the way that the argument was framed was pla also seek a declaration that under the amended hollywood as you d its permit applications are or should have been grandfathered sounds like that's a request for a declaration that the city was required to grant the permit that you're now arguing it wrongfully deny that that is not exactly were saying we are saying that had we been issued those permits we would have been grandfathered or vested in any  with the district court said is we couldn't make that claim yet it's pretty clear in the district court's ruling moving dismissing the second a minute complaint department to that we had no claim for wrongfully in that case the issue of wrongful denial permits under the amended ordinance and section six k is nowhere to be found but how was how was the requested declaration anything different from a claim that as a matter of law the city was required to grant your permit under the amended s u v well the declaration here we're saying that paramount that the city did something wrong by not denying it by by not granting it permits at the time there was more it would have been a theoretical declaration and in fact what paramount was arguing was that it's permits under the old ordinance should have been granted when the when the paramount to was originally filed the amended ordinance wasn't even in effect so that's what that case concerning me you know we said case after case after case and when circumstances change when the facts change raise you to cut it doesn't apply and that's exactly what happened here in two thousand and fifteen of the when for the very first time we filed a new permit application which the it just to make sure i'm clear so you argued in paramount to that you were eligible for permits under the new under the amended ordinance and that's different from your claim here read we want to declaration that under the amended hollywood s u d r permit application is or should be grandfathered yes because that would be that would involve the permits under the old the permits applied for under the old ordinance i thought you told us grandfathered was a true have our which includes having a particular document which you have at the time you you made this complaint it is that concerns project permit approvals so what we are arguing there is it was more of a damages it was a damages issue in other words it said had the city given us those permit applications we would have had given those permits they would have been effectively vested going forward this case is saying we applied with the project permit approvals and that you said the project permit approvals is what entitles you to grandfathering so if if we read into the complaint because we had applied for the old and because we have a project permit approvals we were entitled to permits within that cover your current claim  well if that's how you read it which is not how i read the amended complaint if you read the constitutional claim there's a section there where it says had para paramount's applications under the old ordinance been granted it would be vested or grandfathered that's how i read the that complaint if you read it you're suggesting it could be read the issue then becomes whether we could have even made that claim because we hadn't applied and that's what the district court amended ordinance if you hadn't applied we all are asking what we were saying there was a damages issue so had had this had the city granted paramount's permit applications there's different types of grandfather in paramount those applications would have been vested a grandfather under the old permits so by not doing that paramount had been damaged in this case we're saying  something entirely different the city should have looked at and granted our applications in two thousand and fifteen and i'd like to arrive two minutes left if i can reserve  it good morning your honor i don't really have that much to add i just wanted to clarify a couple of things this series of litigation has been going on since two thousand and seven so i think i want to clarify that in what we call paramount to which was the second lawsuit in two thousand and ten the city adopted the amended ordinance the amended hollywood special use district which is now at issue in the case you and then a few months later also in two thousand and ten paramount brought its second amended complaint in the paramount two case and there's a whole series i went through i don't want to go through them in exhaustive detail but if you look at the paramount to ninth circuit decision which is a five f subsecond nine seven seven if you look at page ninety four  there is a discussion of claim number two which is grandfathering related to the amended s u d and then on page ninety five there is a discussion of claim number five which also relates to the grandfathering exception page ninety five claim number six of paramount it's an as applied challenge to the amended s u d because what they said then is you know only large companies could afford the sign takedown and were discriminated against because we're a small company and then finally on page ninety five of that opinion  there's a discussion of claim number ten where it's the deck relief claim that you've been talking about where paramount says that it's permits should be deemed grandfathered under the amended s so the amended s u d it's already been litigated in paramount two and now they're trying to resurrect that claim and read a litigator you know slightly different arguments  that's sort of your ticket to get into federal court so to speak so at that point in paramount to the city and paramount were litigating over the city's application of its ordinance to  paramount's appliqued application for permits then the city amended its regulations and of course paramount filed an amended complaint challenging the city's new set of regulations the amended s u d so of course those were at issue in that case and paramount was arguing that it was still entitled to approvals or permits for its signs under the amended regulations so it's already been litigated and i don't think that it makes any difference that now they are specifically  it's really the same transactional set of facts you can describe it in slightly different ways but it's the same case let me ask you this as i read paramount one in two it's all about these super graphics yes when i read paramount three yes it seems to be about temporary sign displays or ts d s and super graphics if i understand them to also be saying about wall finds yes and w signs i understand are different than super graphics yes well the but woke ok ok don't you don't need to make that concession let me ask you this as to wall finds what earlier decision or litigation specifically dealt with wall signs as opposed to super graphics or temporary signs place well let me address that by asking you to consider the the sick the city sign regulations the city has different types of approvals that it allows under the amended s u d and parties because i've i've dealt with many of these applicants for sign permits what they do is they look at the s it's physically the same sign they may need to adjust a little bit for example and i don't have the ordinance in front of me but for example you might the ordinance might allow you to have super graphics to be of a certain size and then you can also have wall signs and they might be slightly smaller but it's essentially the same sign so if you go through the amended s u v and then also through the city citywide sign regulations many times there there are different routes to the same physical sign it can be called the wall sign it might be called the super graphic it might be called something else in certain situations and you have to comply with that part of the ordinance sometimes there's slightly different size restrictions but other than that there are still applying for the same physical signs on their property and but what i hear you saying is that none of the cases specifically addressed wall signs they address some form of sign in your argument is with that's for race you to cop purpose this close enough yes it is close enough and they're saying well they have a lot of arguments but that's the wall sign issue i think they're saying no it's not close enough well with the yes the issues will all be the same if the grandfathering is still the same in order to qualify for grandfathering they have to argue that they have a project permit compliance for a super graphic sign so i really think that that's the key part of their argument is the grandfathering and that all relates to super graphic it is a district court as i read this to court's opinion in this case it rel heavily on paramount three as to the wall fine issue but paramount three didn't address wall signs and addressed temporary sign displays which i understand or i mean this is going to be very confusing all the differences between the i guess my general impression is that we have litigated almost every issue in this case and i would be surprised if all signs hadn't come up at some point and paramount one two or three before this case but i don't know if i didn't see i didn't see it so i was i was hoping you could say oh well of course it's in paramount one page twenty five and then i'd be ok good we've talked about wall signs but i didn't see any ordinance it's just a slightly it's a different i mean route yes it's a different route but physically they're the same size and you know the city could have drafted its ordinance saying you only have this one type of sign but you know historically and for other reasons there are you know different labels for what is physically the same thing so for looking at paramount three them or looking at it it's the same place it's the same primary right yes it is the same primary right same physical sign same right to have large signs on their properties and hollywood  can i go back to the first question i asked your opposing counsel yes the so the only claim left in this case is not a federal one correct i believe so it's just it's a statutory interpretation case of a municipal code section of the section if we were to send this case back to the district court and just say just a court you have the discretion or thirteen sixty seven to hang on in this case or get rid of it you decide i know that's probably not what you probably want this thing to be over with and i appre judicata grounds yes i don't i don't know whether you would do that i would suggest at this late stage you've already looked at this you're already you know in the minutes before your decision i think you can right you have the authority to render this is or not i would ask you to do so do we have the authority not to render a decision how would we do that well i haven't thought about that but as far as i can tell you have authority to do a lot of things well we do a lot of things the authority question is sometimes different yes exactly i haven't thought about that i think conceptually i couldn't see any reason why you couldn't but there are a lot of procedural hurdles and i think i've i've covered most everything i wanted to cover i just wanted to briefly touch on the issue what type of permit paramount had they had a permit for what is called a temporary special display this is a type of sign that the city used to issue under the old s u v but no longer issues and so that that permit expired after one hundred twenty paramount had their signs up for several years after that and they never had a a an approved project permit compliance they went they applied for the process but they never got that type of permit so they have a temporary special display but that doesn't qualify for them for grandfathering under section six k of the amended issue to this if they have a project permit approval which is a document qualify them for grandfathering well i think they're arguing that they're temporary special display and the fact that they applied for the project permit compliance but they never got that approved so so the whole idea in the amended s u d is that you have grandfathered rights to a super graphic sign if in the past you have gotten an actual permit approved for a super graphic sign it's so simple that it almost doesn't need to be in the city's amended s u d but it was put in there just to clarify that if you already had that permit of course you get a grandfather it and you get to keep that permit but we're here on a motion to dismiss is it your contention that all of those facts that you just laid out are undisputed at their own disputed yes the  district court granted a motion to dismiss here so do are we in a position to delve into whether their version of the facts or your version of the faxes i actually write well but i don't think it's necessary because the decision is based on race judicata and i think there are certainly facts from all the prior litigation and in this case that make it clear that you can decided race judicata grounds the court did not reach the statutory interpretation issue of section six k well it hasn't been briefed in this case to the court in the district court did reach that they had enough yes there were enough facts to decide that issue undisputed facts yes undisputed facts yes all right thank you not including a denial for wrongfully did not permit this is paramount in looking at the grandfathering question it says paramount's contention fails because paramount has not played the claim that its permits were wrongfully denied that's a page nine five of the just the course decision and paramount to in other words paramount was denied the chance to bring these claims then the district court says you can't do it you haven't applied so that puts paramount in a terrible position because now it's applied doing what the district court it needed to do and the city is saying well it's too late should've done it before and that's why i should be allowed to continue litigating this case the city claims that this case has been litigated before that is simply not good not true at all that's a misrepresentation of the record we have not address section six k there are factual issues the city raised as to the scope of the permits whether they're temporary special displays or not those are not on the record this is a motion to dismiss we do contend that the scope of the permits and these are issues that a court has never looked at had it been this would have been on the record in paramount to with respect to wall signs the city's position is basically nonsense the code the municipal code in this is that our briefing specifically says super graphics do not include wall signs they are distinct types of signs like a billboard is a type a sign a marquee sign and the rights