T he H onor ab le Je ro m e Farr is, U nit ed S tate s C ir cu it Judg e fo r the N inth * Ci rc uit , sittin g by

de sig natio n NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0570n.06 No. 08-6058 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MI DWEST MEDI A PROPER TY, L L C; et al., Pla int if

fs - A pp e lla nts , v. CI TY OF ERLANGER, KEN TUCKY, and CI TY OF FORT WRI GHT, KEN TUCKY, De fe nd ants - A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fo re : G IL MA

N , CO O K

and F A RRIS , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * FARRI S, Ci rcuit Judge. Plaintiff Midwe st Media Property is a com pany that erec ts and operates adve rt isi ng s ign s. T he tw o de fe ndant c iti es de nie d M idw es t' s si gn a ppl ic at ion s in 2005 on the gr ound s th at the pr opos ed

sig ns v iol at ed

c ity or din an ce s pr ohi bit ing signs that prom oted bus inesses notlocated on the prem ises where the sign was loc at ed . Mi dw es t c ha lle nge d th e of f- pr em ise s r es tr ic tio ns, w hic h th e ci tie s havesin ce r ep ea le d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve rthe le ss g rante d sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e ci tie s onthe gr ound

that the pr opos ed

sig ns a lso vio late d th e ci tie s' siz e- an d- he igh t or din an ce s and thus co uld have be ende nie d onthat ba sis . F or that r ea son, the court concluded th at Midwest had suffe red no redressable inj ury . Midwest has ap p e a l e d . We h av e j u r i s d i c t i o np u r s u an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We a f f i rm.

“ T im e, pla ce , and m anne r” spe ec h r eg ulatio ns s urviv e Fi rs t A m en dm en t scrutiny if 1) they are content-neutral, 2) they are narrow ly

tailored 3) to serve a sig nif ic an t go ve rnm en t i nte re st, and 4 ) “ the y le av e ope n am

ple a lte rn at ive channels for com

m unication of the inform ation.” Prim e M edia, I nc . v . Ci tyof B re ntw ood , 398 F . 3d 8 14, 818 ( 6thCi r. 200 5) . R es tr ic tio ns o n th e siz e an d he igh t of si gn s, s uc h a s t ho se est ab li sh edby the de fen da ntcit ie s, s at is fy th is tes t. Id. at 81 9– 24 . That the c ities’ sign ordi nances lack applicable statem ents of purpos e does not establis h ground s for re versal. Size and heightrestrictions advance a si gn ifi can t g ov ern m en t i nt eres t i n c it y aes th et ic s an d t raff

ic saf et y . Id . at 8 20 –2 1. T he c iti es ne ed

not pr ove that this int er es t a ct ua lly m oti vate d th ei r re gul at ion s’ en act m en t. Se e Jo be v . Ci tyof Ca tle tts burg , 409 F . 3d 2 61, 268 ( 6thCi r. 200 5) (u phol din g ac ont en t- ne utr al spe ec h r eg ulatio n th at inc lud ed no s tate m en t of pu rp os e an d wh os e o rig in al , m ot iv at in g p ur po se th e ci ty’ s m ay ordi d n otkn ow) .The plaintiffs have not suggestedthat som e im perm issib le purpose und erlies th e c i t i e s ’ s i z e an dh e i g h tr e s tr i c t i o n s . Wh e r e th e r e i s “ n o c l a i m . . . t h a t[ th e c i ty] has as an ulterior m otive the sup pression of sp eech, and the j udgm ent invo lved here is not so un usual as to raise suspi cions in it self[, ] ” w e w ill not s uspect “ an im perm issib le purpose.” Metro media , Inc . v. Cit y o f S.D. , 453 U . S. 490 , 510 (1 98 1) . AFFIRMED.