N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NOR C AL OUTDOOR

M EDIA, LLC , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. TOKS OM ISHAKIN, Dire c tor of the C a l ifornia De pa rtm e nt of Tra

nsporta t ion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and XAVIER B EC ERR

A, Attorne y

Ge ne ra l of the State of C a lifornia ,

De fe nda n t. No. 21-15877 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-02338-JAM -DB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2022 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
FEB 28 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : SILER , ** S.R . THOM AS, an d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s.

NorC a l Outdoor M e d ia , LLC (NorC a l) a ppe a ls from

an orde r dism issing its
c ha lle nge to the c onstitutiona lity of se ve ra l provisions of the C a lifornia

Outdoor Adve rtising Ac t (OAA), C A L . B U S . & P R O F . C O D E §§ 5200 e t se q. , a sta t utory
sc he m e a dm iniste re d by the C a lifornia De pa rtm e n t of Tra

nsporta tion (C a ltra

ns). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to dism

iss a c a s e for la c k of Artic le III sta nding. M ay a v . C e nte x C orp. , 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm
. To e s ta blish sta nding, a “ pla intiff m

ust ha ve (1) suffe re d a

n injury in fa c t, (2) that is fa irly

tra c e a b le to the c ha lle nge d

c onduc t of the de fe nda

nt, a nd (3) tha t is like ly to be re dre sse d by

a favora ble judic ia l de c ision.” Spok e o, Inc
. v . Robins , 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). The suffic ie nc y

of a pla intiff’ s a lle gations is judge d
a c c ording to “the m anne r and de gre e of e vide nc e re quire d at the . . . sta ge [ ] of the litiga tion” at whic h the sta

nding issue

arise s. Lujan v . De

fs. of W i ldlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). “ ‘ Whe re , a s he re , a c a se is a t the ple a d i ng sta ge , the pla intiff
m ust c l e arly

. . . a lle ge fa c ts de m onstra ting e a c h e le m e nt’ of sta

nding.” Mc Ge e v .

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 2S-L Snac k

s N at'l , 982 F.3d 700, 705 (9th C i r. 2020) (quoting Spok e o, Inc
. , 578 U.S. at 338). Although spe c ia l c onc e rns e xist in the First Am e ndm e n t c onte xt, se e LSO, Ltd. v

. Stroh , 205 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th C ir. 2000), we have none the l e ss re a ffirm e d that “ the rigid c onstitutiona

l re quire m e nt tha

t pla intiffs m

ust de m onstra

te an injury in fa c t to invoke

a fe de ra l c ourt's jurisdic tion” e n dure s. Lope z v . C andae le , 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Dre am Palac ev . C o u nty of Maric opa , 384 F.3d 990, 999 (9th C ir. 2004)). This re quire m e nt a pplie s re ga

rdle ss of whe the r a pla i ntiff purports to a sse rt a n a s-a pplie d c ha l le nge or an ove rbre a dth c ha lle nge
se e k ing fa c ia l inva lida

t ion of a la w. Se e Ge t Outdoors II, LCC v . C ity of San Die go , 506 F.3d 886, 891 (2007) (“ W e the re fore a gre e . . . tha t the thre e Lujan
e le m e nts [injury , c a

usation, a nd re dre ssa

b i lity ] still a

p ply in the ove rbre a dth
c onte xt.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t NorC a l ha s not de m onstra te d a pre -e nforc e m e nt injury

from the OAA re gula

t ory provisions, a s it ha s fa i le d to
a lle ge a “ c onc re te pla

n” to viola

te the se provisions. Lope z , 630 F.3d a

t 787 (quoting Thomas v . Anc horage Equal Rts. C

o mm'n , 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba

nc )). NorC a l’ s c om

pla int sta te s tha t NorC a l is “

pre p are d, re a dy , willing, a nd a ble to im m e diate l y pla c e m e ssa g e s on theSign whic h viola te § 5402
3of the OAA [the obsc e nity provision] and m e ssa ge s whic h sa tisfy none of the
e xc lusions or e xe m

ptions provide d by

the OAA to its prohibition of a dve rtising displa y s.” This c o nc l usory

a sse rtion fa lls short of the re quire m e nt tha

t a lle gations of injury be suffic i e ntly

c onc re te suc h “ that a c ourt ne e d not spe c ulate a s to the kinds of . . . a c tivity

the [pla intiffs] de sire to e nga ge in or a s to thec o nte nts of the ir propose d public sta

te m e nts or thec irc um sta

n c e s of the ir public ation.” Id. (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Furthe r, NorC a l a dm its tha t it ha s ne ithe r be e n wa

rne d of im m ine nt e nforc e m e nt nor be e n subje c t e d to e nforc e m e nt a c tions under the OAA in thepa st. Se e i d. at 786 (noting tha t a “ s pe c ific wa

rning or thre at to initia

te proc e e dings” or a

“ history of pa st prose c ution or e nforc e m e nt” is “ strong
e vide nc e ” of a

pre -e nforc e m e nt injury). It ha s not ide ntifie d a ny spe c ific c onte nt it wishe s to pla c e on outdoor a dve rtising, nor ha s it a pplie d for a

ny pe rm i t to do so. Spe c ulat ive injury

c annot sustain a

c la im of pre -e nforc e m e nt injury
. NorC a l a lso fa ils to a l l e ge fa c ts suffic ie n t to support its c la im that the OAA’ s pe rm i tting sc he m e give s re vie wing offic ia ls “unbridle d disc re tion . . . over whe the r to pe rm i t

or de ny e xpre ssive a c tivity , ” C ity of Lak e w ood v . Plain De ale r Publ’g C o. , 486 U.S. 750, 755 (1988). First, c ontra ry to NorC a l’ s re pre se ntations, the O AA’ s im

ple m e nting re gula

tions m andate tha

t a pe rm it m u st be gran te d or de nie d within a

se t tim e fram e . C A L . C O D E R E G S . tit. 4 § 2422(b)(4) (re quiring a
4pe rm it be grante d or de nie d within 60 da y s of the subm ission of a pe rm i t
a pplic ation); s e e also Plain Dea le r , 486 U.S. a t 770 (noting tha

t lim its to offic ia ls’ disc re tion a

re re c ogniz e d if “ m a de e xplic it by te xtua l inc orporation, binding judic ia l or a dm inistra

tive c onstruc tion, or we ll-e sta blishe d pra c tic e ” ). Se c ond, it is unc l e ar whe the r the OAA's obsc e nity provision in prac t ic e provide s re vie w ing offic ia ls with a ny disc re tion a s to whe the r to gra n t or de ny

a pe rm it ba se d on the propose d c onte nt of the sign. Theform s tha t a re subm i tte d a s pa rt of the pe rm it a

pplic ation proc e ss do not a ppe a r to re quire a

pplic ants to provide
any inform ation on the

c onte nt of the ir propose d displa y s. 1 To the e xte nt the
c onte nt of propose d signs a re not re vie we d until a fte r a pe rm it a pplic at ion is
a pprove d , this would obvia te the c onc e rns a ssoc iate d with prior re stra ints. Se e Plain De ale r , 486 U.S. a

t 757 (noting tha

t the c onc e rns supporting " unfe tte re d disc re tion" sta

nding a re spe c ific to situa

tions whe re tha

t disc re tion is " c o u

ple d with the p owe r of prior re stra int" ). And in a ny e ve nt, C a ltra

n s ha s c onc e de d in this

1 The C ourt ta

ke s judic ia l notic e of the c onte n ts of the OAA’ s pe rm it a pplic ation form

pursua nt to FED. R . EVID. 201. Thepe rm it a pplic ation form

is a public doc um e n t a

va ila ble for downloa d on C a ltra ns’ we b s ite
. Se e Santa Monic a Food N ot Bombs v . C

ity of Santa Monic a , 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th C ir. 2006) (taking judic ia l notic e of a c ity ’ s “ Eve nt Pe rm it Applic ation” form , whic h c ould be a c c e sse d on the c ity ’ s offic ia l we bsite ). The a pplic ation re que sts a

va rie t y of inform at ion a

nd supporting doc

um e ntat ion, but nowhere re quire s a de sc ription of the p ropose d displa

y ’ s c onte nt. The a

p plic ation form

c a n be a c c e sse d he re : https://dot.c a .gov/progra

m s/tra ffic -ope rations/oda /form s . 5litiga

tion tha t the phra se " o ffe nd public m ora ls or de c e nc y " in § 5402 is
unc onstitutiona

l a nd une nforc e a

ble a s a re sult of theruling in P e o plev . Turne r , 128 C a l. R

ptr. 638, 639 (C a l. App. Dep’ t Supe r. C t. 1976). The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t, be c a use NorC a l fa ile d to de m onstra

te an injury , it la c ks sta

nding to ma inta in this suit. AFFIRM E D.

6