NO T PRECEDEN TI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 10- 1283

CO AS T AL OUT DOOR A D V E R T IS IN G G R O U P , L .L .C ., A ppel l ant

v. TOW NSH I P OF UN I ON , NEW J ERSEY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 3- 07- cv- 04351) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Fr eda L. W ol fs on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember8, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, SL O V I T E R and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember18, 2010 )

OP I NI ONT he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed fe der al
- ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on over 1 C o a sta l’s c laim s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on overthe fi nal deci s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tunder28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. C oas t al O ut doorA dvert i s i ng G r oup appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e T o w n s h ip o f

U n io n . W e w ill a f

f ir m . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr ei t er at e the fa ctual or pr ocedur al backgr ound exce pti ns ofaras i tfac i l i t at es ourdi s cus s i on. W e r evi ew de novo a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entforl ack of s t andi ng. C om m on C aus e of P a. v. 1 P e n n sy lva n ia , 5 5 8 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (s tan d in g ); L e v y v . S te r lin gH

o ld in gC o ., LLC , 5 4 4 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t) . II. T he “i r r educi bl e cons t i tut i onal m i ni m um ” of A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng r equi r es thatt he pl ai nt i ff de m ons tr at e: ( 1) an i nj ury - i n- fac t , ( 2) a ca us al connec t i on betw een the i nj uryand th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n d u c t , a n d ( 3 ) a l i k e l i h o o d th a tth e i n j u ry w i l l b e r e d r e s s e d b y a f a v o ra b le d e c is io n . Tol lB r os . , I nc. v. Tw p. of R eadi ngt on , 5 5 5 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 -38 (3d C ir . 2009) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatal though C oas t al had s uffe r ed an i nj urythatw as tr ace abl e t o the Tow ns hi p’ s enfor cementof i t s ( now s uper s eded) or di nance , C oas t al coul d notdemonstr at e “a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood thattheS e e , e.g ., M a v e ric k Me d ia G rp ., In c . v. Hill sb o ro u g h C n ty. F l. , 2 5 2 8 F .3 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); Midw e s t Me d ia P r o p ., L. L. C
. v. Sym m es Tw

p. , 5 0 3 F . 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 6 1 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); C ovenant

Medi a of

S. C
. , LLCv. C i t

y of N
. C har l es t on , 493 F. 3d 4 2 1 , 4 3 0 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); A dvantage Medi a, L. L. C
. v. C i t y of E d e n P ra irie , 4 5 6 F .3 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 1 -0 2 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); H arp A dver. I l l
. , I nc. v. V i l l
. of C hi cago Ri dge , 9 F . 3 d 1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 1 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). C f
. G et O utdoors I

I , LLCv. C i t

y of San D i ego , 506 F. 3d 886, 893 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( bi l l boar d companyhad s t andi ng beca us e i texpl i ci t l ychal l enged the s econda rys i ze a nd hei ght re stric tio n s); L am ar A dver. of Pen n, L L Cv. T ow n o f O rchard Pa rk , N. Y. , 356 F. 3d 365, 375 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( bi l l boar d company h a d sta n d in g b e c a u se su c c e ss o n th e m e rits w o u ld a llo w it t o ere ct at l ea st som e o f th e sig n s itinten d ed to b u il d ). C oas t al ar gued t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tthati tchal l enged the s i ze 3 and hei ghtr es tr i ct i ons byvi r tue of the fa ctthati tchal l enged the e n tire o rd in a n c e a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. C o a sta l d o e s n o t m a k e th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. U n itedS ta tes v . P e lu llo , 399 F. 3d 197, 222 3 r eques t ed r el i ef w i l l r emedythe al l eged i nj uryi n fac t . ” Id
. at143 ( quot at i on and ci t at i on o m itted). T hi s cas e i s the l at es ti n a bur geoni ng l i ne of c as es i n w hi ch a bi l l boar d company
s eeks t o chal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i tyof a l ocal s i gn or di nance , otherw i s e know n as t he “s i gn code s hakedow n. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at27 n. 24. Sever al court s of appe al s have aff i r m ed di s m i s s al s of s i m i l arcas es bas ed on l ack of r edr es s abi l i tybeca us e uncha l l enged pr ovi s i ons of the or di nance i n ques t i on w oul d have pr ohi bi t ed er ect i on of the bi l l boar ds in a n ye v e n t. W e f

o llo w o u r sis ter c irc u its a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly 2 held that C oast al did not dem on strat e redr essabi l i tybecau se unch al l eng ed restri ct i on s, in c lu d in g th o se o n th e h e ig h t an d siz e o f th e sig n s, w o u ld p ro h ib it th e ir e re c tio n e v e n if
w e w ere t o inval i date the p rovi si on ban ning bil l bo ards. A l though w e have notaddr es s ed 3(3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ It is w e ll se ttl e d th a t an a p p e llan t’s f a ilu re to i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai ver o f th a t is s u e o n a p p e a l.” ). C oas t al m i s pl ace s r el i ance on R appa v. N ew C as t l e C nt

y. , 18 4 F. 3d 1043 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . I n R appa , the pl ai nt i ff c hal l enged a n or di nance banni ng pol i t i cal s i gns butal l ow i ng othertypes of advert i s i ng as an i m perm i s s i bl e cont ent - bas ed r egul at i on. I n that case, the p l ai nti ff’s i njuryw ou l d h ave b een redress ed b ecause ther e w er e no otherr es tr i ct i ons thatw oul d have ba nned er ect i on o f th e s ig n s . C oas t al ’ s r el i ance on R i elv. C i t y of Brad f ord , 485 F. 3d 736 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , and C oncat ta I nc. v. Mi l l er , 458 F. 3d 258 (3d C i r. 20 06 ), i s equall yun con vinci ng becau se nei ther case addr es s ed the r edr es s abi l i typr ong of A r t i cl e I I I ’ s s t andi ng re q u ire m e n t. 4 th is p re c ise iss u e in th e c o n tex t p re se n ted h e re , this c o u rt’s p re c e d e n t su p p o rts th e re su lt. 4 See T oll B ros. , 5 5 5 F . 3 d at 14 3 (de v elop m en t com p an yestab li sh ed stan d ing w h ere deci s i on s tr i ki ng dow n zoni ng or di nance s w as l i kel yt o r es ul ti n cons truct i on of the p lann ed d ev elop m en ts) . C oas t al as s ert s thati t s i nj ury— thati t“w as s ubj ect ed t o an or di nance thatw as u n co n sti tuti o n al”— is r ed ressa b le th rou g h “a t th e v eryleast, d am ag es[ . ]” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at16. C oas t al s i m pl ym i s s es the poi nt . B yw ayof r epet i t i on, even i f the ban on bi l l boar ds w er e dee m ed uncons t i tut i onal ( an i s s ue w e do notr eac h) , an aw ar d of damages
w o u ld n o t r e m e d yth e h a rm C o a s ta l s u f f e re d f ro m th e p ro h ib itio n o f

th e b illb o a rd s . M or eover , C oas t al ei therknew ors houl d have know n befor e i ts ubm i t t ed i t s appl i cat i ons thatthe Tow ns hi p di d notperm i tbi l l boar ds . I tw as on not i ce thatthe under l y i ng l eas es w er e cont i ngentupon i ts ecur i ng m uni ci pal perm i t s underthe Tow ns hi p’ s L and U s e C odeB ec au se C o astal d o es n o t h av e stan d ing u n d er A rt icl e III, 5 w e nee d notaddr es s the T ow ns hi p’ s cl ai m that C oas t al al s o l acks p ru d e n tia l s ta n d in g . 5 ati s s ue her e. T hes e obs t acl es w er e i dent i fi ed byC oas t al ’ s as s i gnor , m i t i gat i ng any c la im s f o r d a m a g e s , a c tu a l o r n o m in a l. See, e. g. , G et O utdoors I

I , LLCv. C i t

y of San D i ego , 5 0 6 F .3 d 8 8 6 , 8 9 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e v e n if b ill b o a rd re stric tio n u n c o n stitu tio n a l,
n o m in a l d a m a g e s w e re in a p p ro p ria te in lig h t o f v a lidsiz e a n d h e ig h t re stric tio n s); c f. C ovenant

Medi a of

S. C
. , LLCv. C i t

y of N
. C har l es t on , 493 F. 3d 421 ( 4th C i r . 2007) ( nom i nal damages coul d r edr es s di s t i ncti nj uryas t o del ayi n the pr oces s i ng of appl i cat i on fo r zo n ing p erm it , b u t no t fo r ult im ate rejec ti o n o f a p p li ca ti o n ). III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng C o a sta l’s c o m p lain t b e c a u se C o a sta l ca n n o t sa tisf yA rticle III’s sta n d in g re q u ire m e n t. 5