T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R A Y M O N D R E U D Y ; M A R K K E V IN H IC K S , D B A A dv ert i si ng D i spl ay S yst em s, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. C L E A R C H A N N E L O U T D O O R , I N C ., a D e l a w a r e c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15986 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 2 - c v - 0 5 4 3 8 - SC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S a m ue l C ont i , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r5, 2010 S ubm i s s i on w i thdr aw n N ove m be r9, 2010 R e s ubm i tt e d A pr i l 18, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED APR25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H on orabl e M atthew F . K ennel l y, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C ourtf orN orthe rn I l l i noi s , C hi c a go, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 B ef ore: A L A R C Ó N and R Y M E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K E N N E L L Y , D i stri ct Judg e. ** Ra y mo n d Re u d y a n d K e v i n H i c k s , db aA d v e r t i s i n g D i s p l a y Sy s t e ms (“ A D S ”) , fi l ed thi s a ct i on i n st at e c ou rt . C l ear C hann el O ut do or, Inc. (“ C l ear C hann el ”) re m ov ed the m att ert o the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i stri ctof C al i forni a bas ed on di vers i ty j uri sdi ct i on . A D S appeal s f rom the di stri ct c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g its m o tio n to r e m a n d a n d g r a n tin g C le a rC h a n n e l’s m o tio n to di s m i s s w i th pr e

j udi c e i t s c l a i m s br oughtunde rC a l i f orni a ’ s unf

a i rc om pe t i t i on l a w, C a l i f

o rn i aB u s i n e s s & P r o f

e s s i o n s C o d e § 1 7 2 0 0 e ts e q . ( th e “ UC L ” ) . On N ove m be r9, 2010, w e i s s ue d a n or de rva c a t i ng s ubm i s s i on of thi s m a tt e ra nd re m andi ng t o the di stri ctcourtfor the l i m i t ed pu rpose of r equest i ng the di stri ct c o u rt to e n te ra n o r d e rc la r if y in g th e b a s is f

o rth e d is m is s a l o f

th is a c tio n w ith prej ud i ce . O n N ov em ber 29, 20 10 , i n res po nse t o thi s C ou rt ’ s order , the di stri ct c o u rt f ile d a n o r d e rc la r if

y in g th a t it h a d r e lie d o n C a lif o rn ia ’s d o c tr in e o f

e q u itab le abs t e nt i on i n di s m i s s i ng thi s a c t i on w i th pr e j udi c e . O n tha tba s i s , w e a f f i rm the di sm i ss al of thi s m att erw i th p re j ud i ce . I A D S c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n abs t a i ni ng f r om r e vi e w i ng the3

m e r i t s of thi s a c t i on a nd di s m i s s i ng i tw i th pr e j udi c e . “ W e r e vi e w w he the rthe r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rab s te n tio n h a v e b e e n m e t de no vo , an d th e d istrict co u rt’s deci si on w hether t o abst ai n for an abuse of di sc re t i on . ” S. C al . E dison C o. v. L ynch , 3 0 7 F .3 d 7 9 4 , 8 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A c ourtm a y abs t a i n f

r om e m pl oy i ng the r e l i e f pe rm i tt e d by the U C L i f ( 1) “g r a n tin g th e r e q u e s te d r e lie f w o u ld r e q u ir e atr ia l c o u r t to a s s u m e . . . o rto i nt er fe re w i th the funct i on s of an adm i ni stra t i ve agency” ; (2) “ the l aw sui ti nv ol ves de t e rm i ni ng c om pl e x e c onom i c pol i c y , w hi c h i s be s tha ndl e d by the L e gi s l a tur e or a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve a ge nc y ” ; or( 3) “ gr a nt i ng i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f w oul d be unne c e s s a r i l y bur de ns om e f orthe tr i a l c our tt o m oni t ora nd e nf or c e gi ve n the avai l abi l i ty of m ore e ff

ec t i ve m eans of re dres s. ” B lue Cross of C al i f orni a, Inc. v. Su p eri o r C o u rt , 102 C a l . R ptr . 3d 615, 632 ( C a l . C t . A pp. 2009) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). T he re gu l at i on s gov erni ng ou t do or advert i si ng i n S an F ranci sc o (the “ C i ty” ) a r e c om pr e he ns i ve . A gr a ntof i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

c oul d i nt e r f

e r e w i th the f

unc t i ons of the C i ty ’ s pl a nni ng de pa rtm e nt . F ur the rm or e , the C i ty pr ovi de s ar e m e dy f or v io la tio n s o f

its p la n n in g c o d e th r o u g h in v e s tig a tio n a n de n f o r c e m e n t b y its p la n n in g d e p a rtm e n t. See S .F . P lan . C o d e § 6 0 1 et se q . B ec au se th e C ity’s re gu l at i on of ou t do or si gn age i s c om pl ex, grant i ng i nj un ct i ve re l i ef w ou l d p l ac e an4

u n n ec es sa rily h ea v y b u rd en o n th e d istrict co u rt to m o n it o r a n d en fo rc e th e C ity’s p la n n in g c o d e . W h e r e ac o u rt ab s ta in s u n d e rth e U C L , d is m is s a l w ith p r e ju d ic e is ap p r o p r ia te . Se e , e . g. , A lv ar ado v . Se lm a C onv ale s c e nt H os p. , 64 C a l . R ptr . 3d 25 0, 25 3, 26 0 (C al . C t . A pp . 20 07 ) ( sust ai ni ng dem urre r w i tho utl ea ve t o am end); Sham s i an v . D e

p’ t of C ons e r v at i on , 39 C a l . R ptr . 3d 62, 69, 79 ( C a l . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ) ( s a m e ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in di sm i ss i ng thi s a ct i on w i th p re j ud i ce . II A D S as se rt s thatthi s a ct i on shou l d h ave been re m anded t o st at e c ou rtun der B ur f ord v . Sun O i l

C o. , 31 9 U . S . 31 5 (19 43 ), or otherw i se un der “ general ab s te n tio n p r in c ip le s .” I n U ni te d State s v . Mor r os , 2 6 8 F .3 d 6 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , th is C o u r t h e ld thatabst ent i on i s proper und erthe B u rf o rd do ctri ne i f three el em ent s are e s t abl i s he d: [ F ] i r s t , tha tthe s t a t e ha s c hos e n t o c onc e ntr a t e s ui t s c ha l l e ngi ng the ac t i on s of the agency i nv ol ved i n a part i cul arcourt ; se cond , that fe dera l i ss ues [ cann ot ] be se para t ed ea si l y f rom com pl ex st at e l aw i ss ues w i th res pectt o w hi ch st at e c ou rt s m i gh thave speci al c o m p e te n c e ; a n d th ir d , th a t f e d e r a l r e v ie w m ig h t d is ru p t s ta te e f f o r ts t o est ab l i sh a co h eren tp o l i cy.5

I d. a t705. C a l i f orni aha s notc hos e n t o c onc e ntr a t e a c t i ons i nvol vi ng out door a dve rt i s i ng i n apa rt i c ul a rc ourt . A D S ’ s c l a i m s i nvol ve que s t i ons of l oc a l l a w a nd n o t fed er al issu es . In v es ti g atio n o f v io lati o n s a n d en fo rc em en t o f th e C ity’s pl anni ng code do no tpres entcom pl ex i ss ues of s t at e l aw re qu i ri ng the spec i al c o m p e te n c e o f

s ta te c o u rts b u t a r e r a th e rm a tte r s b e s t a d d r e s s e d b y c ity ad m in istrato rs . A state c o u rt is n o b etter s itu ated to d eter m in e C learC h an n el’s com pl i ance w i th the C i ty’ s ordi nances re gu l at i ng ou t do or si gn age than a feder al c o u rt. F in a lly , ad e te rm in a tio n o f A D S ’s c la im s b y as ta te c o u r t w o u ld b e e q u a lly l i ke l y a s tha tof

af e de r a l c ourtt o f

rus tr a t e the C i ty ’ s e f

f or t s t o c r e a t e ac ohe r e nt s c h e m e g o v e rn in g o u td o o ra d v e rtis in g s ig n s . A D S h as ad d i t i o n al l y fai l ed t o i d en t i fy an y “ g en eral ab st en t i o n p ri n ci p l es” w a rr a nt i ng r e m a nd. T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y e xe r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on t o rem and thi s m att er . AF F I RME D.