in finding that there was an unconstitutional and compensated taking in those claims were not yet right and that's what brings me to courts question  amendment claims because without finding that their son takeable interests and protected property interests that could be taken and obviously there's not going to be a taking that there's also not going to be any of the other  terminations arguably not there certainly there was not when the federal court case was filed because it was filed on the same day that the appeal to the citation was so that hearing had not yet been hel possibly it's right there and joining the course of the litigation because of either the hearing held on the citation or the later hearings held in connection with the settlement agreement but the city has never had an opportunity just to look at the question of whether or not for example it would grant their hands you know i don't think that this rise to the level of futile although if i was a betting woman i'd  in the district court's application of the california statute that's exactly right and we have nothing from the district court that i can tell that speaks to the first amendment claim because he put them aside having reached this resolution sit there and try to reason it out and say well gee there must sort of be a first amendment finding in favor of the city there because otherwise the plaintiff would still have a cause of action for relief on that but i'm already got the feeling  please the court my name is gary mob leon the attorney for the plaintiff who is also the respondent cross appellant in this matter you are honest the present case raises the basic straightforward issue of my client's right to change copy on to  the record neural science illustrates the problems created when the city attempts to regulate speech based on content because the entire dispute here are rises from the fact that the city had no problem with your original mural size in the content of non art or drawing a distinction between the substance of the message that is the change from being a veterans memorial to a more overtly commercial advertising for both it is  is from art to commercial copy on one of the signs that's the the east wall sign that was determined to be illegal it's the subjective determination of the content of the message on the other side because  proved below the city had no problem with it with a sign advertising a favorite message to the veterans memorial fund the only problem we had is when my client advertised to jurassic park that was not their favorite message let me stop you there is a factual matter what's the basis for saying the city had no problem with an advertising of the memorial fund two reasons the original near all signs that were put up were in september of two thousand the on both signs was changed in december two thousand both to one was a change of copy of the veteran's memorial fund sign that was a more explicit advertisement or promotion of the fund i'm talking about earlier in time what is it that you point to and i'm really asking are you pointing to the december eleventh two thousand letter as evidence of the city's approval of the u s because if you are in that letter it's pretty clear in saying that presumes there's not that it's art or that it's not an advertising message i agree i agree the words the city approval of the the textual messages preach change that's what i was trying to address the subsequent change of copy and after later in december after that letter was issued change the copy on both sides of the andy warhol copy changed to i believe that was a camel suki on and the other side the veterans memorial fund was a more explicit promotion of the memorial fund there was no problem the city had with that change of copy if you have anything affirmative to point to reflecting city approval of that shelf sign no no but there is no objection and that is in the record and established then the copy is changed a second time and in june of two thousand  distinction that the city was drawn between messages that they deemed acceptable and those who didn't ok so that's your first amendment claim and that's what you argued in the district court actually it's actually it's fundamental to to constitute advertising displays is defined in the outdoor advertising act and under the act my client has an absolute right to change copy as an incident to the fact that these are legally protected all property in you so you have a legal property interest on the fifth amendment now why then under fifty four twelve of the outdoor advertising or under the fifth amendment what what happens well you say just the state taking so this is purely a there's no fifth you can and run the supreme court clear mandate and williams that you must go through the that there's no fifth amendment violation until there's a denial of compensation live in no denial compensation  compensation that in that case the court imposed two standards for right that's number one you have to have a final administrative decision number two you must pursue a claim for compensation if the corporate the rationale of the williamson county case  claim for declaratory and injunctive relief that an ordinance cannot or order cannot be applied because it would cost to taking the only the only holding in williamson county dealt with an door we'd never be able to address a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief if we had to pursue an action for compensation without it in the presence or the right that's that's the question because the city the n county first williamson county only involved a claim for compensation it did not involve an action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking also we do understand however the santa barbara case daniel versus santa barbara recognized that an action under the fifth amendment can be brought to seek declaratory relief that the action itself was unconstitutional unless it prevent the county from accepting the easement even upon payment of just compensation agreed agreed but of course but the way i read that case is the court found under the facts of that case which is a pretty unique set of facts that there was no right by the pla to challenge in a declaratory relief action the validity of the taking action which in that case was an election to to accept a proposed to revoke a policeman that was based on the facts  property owners argument is that the municipality has no authority to dot the ordinance in other words it's a challenge to the right of the local government to actually sized this taking and counsel you that can't be that can't be what it means because basically what you're saying then is that every property owner who wants to claim that his property can't be taken comes in and says you can't take you can't do this therefore i don't quarter's aware of the fact that in california you cannot pursue an action for inverse condemnation until you first challenge the validity of the administrative action itself on the basis that it constitutes a taking ye where have you done that's precisely what we've done here in the in the state court in the ministry to process this this is a challenge what we're talking about now is a challenge to the regulatory authority if you look you have a remedy you haven't alleged that you don't have a remedy in state court you can go to through the process the administrative process and say hold on a minute ok so then we'll be a rookie just sure i don't want to interrupt you so you go through and in the inverse condemnation proceedings was clear you know you wrote an opinion clarifying whether the california law in the rent the mobile home area  so we're familiar with that kind of process and it is clear even under williams and if there is a state process where yes you establish a property interest and you go to the through the process and if it's and if you can't demonstrate it's futile to go through it then you go through that process and then if they deny you compensation they take your ability to put the wall signs up then you have a right claiming for just compensation and if they don't give it to you you have a fifth amendment takings claim correct but under the williamson county right mr analysis in footnote thirteen they  contrast judicial proceedings to seek review of the commission's award versus a claim for compensation for damages the first the review of the order to challenge that the order constitutes a taking a property you must provide for compensation entitled to do what with that to get a determination that the city cannot compel removal of the displays without payment of compensation so what you get is a federal ruling which is then raised  against west hollywood and then you go and you don't have to go through the california state courts to determine whether you've got a protectable interest whether or not there was you know they want to pay you compensation required under california law now let's assume that we disagree with you on that is are you is what would be the procedure if we said sorry we don't think it's right ok you disagree with i understand are you  then foreclosed under state law from ever getting compensation if you were right on the merits that is i don't know and i'm down in order to answer that question i'd like to discuss a california case that's cited in our opening brief  patrick media group versus california coastal commission it's cited on page fifteen of our opening brief that's a case that involves the california coastal commission imposing a condition on a property owner that wanted to develop this property yes but one of the conditions is remove the billboards that's a violation of state law off the property owners force the sign to be removed patrick media group the billboard company filed suit for that the order cannot the order constitutes a taking and has for vice for compensation and therefore since you didn't pursue that remedy and the time to pursue that is run you're out of court even though they had a viable condemnation claim and the reason that the california courts have imposed that kind of a requirement is that they want to protect local government from members condemnation cases and particularly instances where a local government takes an action and later learns that it constitutes a taking so the california courts want to give the local governments the opportunity an option to either compel removal of the taking of the property and pay compensation or reverse or rescind the order that the the rationale for that is explained in why are you suggesting that you couldn't go to california go through the process before the west hollywood  planning commission the order from them the you must take the sign down that you will not be paid for it and then take him to california's the chords to trial and that that could have been done although the issue was raised in the administrative proceeding but it's but it's my contention it's not required to be done in this situation and what situation wouldn't be required in you know obviously every everybody with a takings claim could do what you've done actually most of the cases in the santa barbara case discusses this most of the taking cases the only remedy is damages because the taking has occurred inverse condemnation is generally designed to provide compensation where a taking has occurred and there's been no condemnation proceedings and in an eminent domain this is an unusual situation in that the taking was threatened and my client elected to file suit challenging the right before the taking had occurred and it is true that that action can be brought in state court but it is not true that my client doesn't have a right to litigate that issue in state court and that's for two reasons because under the case declaratory relief is no your honor i respectfully disagree with that because i think the court is being hung up on the concept of rightness for a fifth amendment takings claim and whether this states a claim for relief because it's an actual current controversy this is an actual i don't students state court or federal court we sought a declaration city you cannot do what you're trying to do unless you pay compensation now they have a choice they can and that's the choice that the patrick justifies this two step procedure fifty six that case involving property owner who sought administratively view of the application of the historical landmarks ordinance to prevent him from remodelling and rebuilding his property after an adverse decision by the local planning agency he thought essentially rid of the ministry to mandamus in state court it was removed to the federal court on the basis that there were constitutional claims stated for  process equal protection in the fifth amendment takings claim the case and proceeded the state to federal court got a decision adverse to the plaintiff and he appealed it claimed on appeal to no you can't do that these this claim should have been brought in state court with all due respect i think that's precisely what the justices are suggesting here the u s supreme court said no it was perfectly proper to to hear and determine those pendent state court claims under supplemental chicago case because if the court feels that this is that you still can't it's not right for a fifth amendment constitutional claim we still have trouble subject matter jurisdiction under the first amendment due process and equal protection cla therefore this should be analyzed under supplemental jurisdiction which in this case the court obviously assumed jurisdiction and decided this dispute there was never any objection by the defendant below submit that that's the best and most efficient way to present these issues particularly when you have an interplay of several different constitutional claims the reason we filed in federal i don't really understand and we will need to sort it out i think years now and i would honestly say that this issue of the taking scase is probably involves the most complicated issues procedural issues i've ever seen i just like to make one more comment before i conclude my comments on this issue and  then must quote as the other questions i'll just leave it before i leave the rightness issue i did want to point out that williamson county should not be interpreted extensively well let me just call your attention are you familiar with the  seven we hold that the williamson requirement applies equally to takings claims for damages in equitable relief brought against the states and gilbert versus city of cambridge nine thirty two f second fifty one f circuit ninety ninety one the williamson course rightness analysis would be completely neutered if its holding were applied to damage claims alone you can play with those notices know none of those cases  three points i want to make the first is and i don't mean to belittle course but the trial court can't make a declaratory finding that there's a constitutional uncompensated taking then that segues nicely to my second point which is and the reason that he says that he would like to do it that way is because the california courts are protecting cities and governments writing these wrongs and avoiding and taking your position is correct now deciding to just assuming what would be the proper way for whether they can do it now or not but what would be the proper way under california law