FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 29, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Judg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

designation. [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11070

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 2 1 4 - CV - J - 3 2 M CR K H O U T D O O R , L .L .C ., D A L E P . E G G E R S , M O O R E A , I N C ., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s C L A Y C O U N T Y , F L O R I D A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 29, 2007) B ef ore B IR C H and B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n thi s appe a l , w e m us tde t e r m i ne w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d a r e q u e s tf

o ri n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

a n d d a m a g e s b r o u g h tb y p l a i n t i f f s - ap p e l l a n t s , KH O ut do or, L . L . C . , M oo re A , Inc. , and D al e P . E gg er s a gai nstdefe nd ant -app el l ee , C l a y C ounty , F l or i da , a f t e rthe B oa r d of

C ounty C om m i s s i one r s Z oni ng D epartm entdeni ed se vera l perm i tappl i ca t i on s t o con structbi l l bo ar ds i n C l ay C o u n ty . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d th e c a s e , f in d in g th a t it w a s m o o t. W e c o n c l u d e th a t , a l th o u g h th e c o m p l a i n to f KH Ou t d o o ri s n o tm o o tb e c a u s e KH O u td o o rr e q u e s te d d a m a g e s f o rth e a lle g e d v io la tio n , K H O u td o o rla c k s s ta n d in g . A s are sul t , w e A F F IR M the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of the ca se . I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 1 M a r c h 2004, K H O ut doors ubm i tt e d s e ve n bui l di ng pe r m i tappl i c a t i on pa c ke t s t o C he ry l M i l l e r , de f e nda ntC l a yC ounty ’ s Z oni ng a nd C ode E nf or c e m e nt D i re ct or. T he appl i ca t i on s s ou gh tperm i t s t o ere ctse ven 6 72 square foot“ offprem i se si gn s” on se ven d i ff er entparc el s of property w i thi n the C ou nty. U nd er

“ C ontr a c t orN a m e , ” the bui l di ng pe r m i tappl i c a t i on pa c ka ge s l i s t e d “ S e l e c t i ve S truc tur e s . ” R 74, A pp. 42- 48. T he a c c om pa ny i ng c ons truc t i on- e ngi ne e r i ng draw i ng s i nd i ca t ed thatthey w er e m ade f or structures t o b e e re ct ed i n Jac kson vi l l e, F lo rid a. M il ler d idn o t acc ep t th e p er m it s, ex p lain in g to K H O u td o o r’s3

re pres ent at i ve thatthe C l ayC ou nty O rdi nance 98-7 (“ O l d S i gn O rdi nance”) proh i bi t ed the er ec t i on of new bi l l bo ar ds. M i l l erthen sentK H O ut do or a l ett er fo rm al l y d en yi n g th e si g n p erm i tap p l i cat i o n s. K H O u td o o rd id n o t a d m in is tr a tiv e ly ap p e a l th e C o u n ty ’s r e je c tio n o f

its pe r m i tappl i c a t i ons . I ns t e a d, i tf i l e d s ui ti n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc our ton 24 M a r c h 2004, pu rs uantt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, al l egi ng thatC l ayC ou nty’ s O l d S i gn O rdi nance w as an un const i tut i on al cont ent -bas ed re gu l at i on of com m er ci al and n on -c om m er ci al spee ch thatvi ol at ed the F i rs tand F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s t o the U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on, a s w e l l a s F l or i da l a w . I n c onne c t i on w i th tha ta c t i on, K H O ut door a l s o f i l e d a m ot i on f

orpr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on s e e ki ng t o e nj oi n C l a y C ounty f r om e nf or c i ng the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e a nd, i n e f f e c t , t o r e qui r e C l a y C ounty t o i s s ue the se ven b i l l bo ar d si gn perm i t s K H O ut do or appl i ed for i n M ar ch 20 04 . A ft era h e a r i n g , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r te n t e r e d a n o r d e rd e n y i n g th e m o t i o n f i n d i n g th a tKH O u td o o rh a d f

a ile d to s h o w th a t it w a s s u b s ta n tia lly lik e ly to p r e v a il o n th e m e r its o f its c o m p la in t. O n 25 J une 2004, C l a y C ounty e na c t e d O r di na nc e N o. 2004- 34 ( “ N e w S i gn O r di na nc e ” ) , w hi c h r e pe a l e d a nd r e pl a c e d the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e . K H O ut door di d n otappl y f

or a C l ayC ou nty s i gn perm i tfol l ow i ng the enactm entof the N ew S ig n O r d in a n c e in J u n e 2 0 0 4 .For simpli city, hence forth weref er to the thre e plaintiff- appellants c ollectively as “K H 1 Outdoor.” 4 O n 4 F e brua ry 2005, w i th l e a ve of the di s tr i c tc our t , K H O ut doorf i l e d a f i f t e e n c ountS e c ond A m e nde d C om pl a i nt . T he S e c ond A m e nde d C om pl a i nt a dde d tw o a ddi t i ona l pa r ty pl a i nt i f f s , M oor e A , the ow ne rof one of the pa r c e l s of la n d u p o n w h ic h K H O u td o o rh a d s o u g h t ap e r m it to e r e c t ab illb o a r d

– a n d w ith w h o m K H O u t d o o r h ad en t ered i n t o a l ease ag reem en tt o d o so – an d E g g ers, M o o reA ’ s p resi d en t . T h e S eco n d A m en d ed C o m p l ai n tal l eg ed th e sam e as- 1 appl i ed and faci al const i tut i on al chal l enges t o the O l d S i gn O rdi nance thathad b e e n a lle g e d in th e o r ig in a l c o m p la in t. K H O u td o o rf

ile d a m o tio n f

o rp a r tia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d C la y C o u n ty f i l e d a m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d the c a s e f or l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , and rul ed thatthe m ot i on s f or sum m ary j ud gm entw er e m oo t . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthere w as no subst ant i al l i ke l i hood of

C l a y C ounty r e e na c t i ng the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e a nd no ba d f a i th on th e p arto f C l ay C o u n ty. T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha t , e ve n though K H O ut doorc ha l l e nge d num e r ous O l d S i gn O r di na nc e pr ovi s i ons , the pr ovi s i ons tha ta c tua l l y c a us e d the de ni a l of the p erm i t s w ere: § 2 0 . 7 -2 1 (1 ) an d (2 0 ) (p ro h i b i t i n g n ew b i l l b o ard s an d o ff-p rem i se si gn s) ; § 2 0. 7-3 (defi ni ng off- prem i se si gn s) ; and § 20 . 7-8 (re qu i ri ng thatan5

A dm i ni s tr a t orr e vi e w a pr ope r l y c om pl e t e d a nd s ubm i tt e d pe r m i tappl i c a t i on w i thi n a r e a s onabl e t i m e ) . S e c t i on 20. 7- 21( 1) w a s pr e s e r ve d i n the N e w S i gn O r di na nc e , butthe di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha ti tw a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y f i r m . S e c t i ons 20 . 7-21 (20) and 2 0. 7-3 o f the O l d S i gn O rdi nance defi ned and proh i bi t ed offpr e m i s e s i gns , butthe N e w S i gn O r di na nc e di d notc ont a i n a n outr i ghtpr ohi bi t i on of off- prem i se si gn s a nd the defi ni t i on di d n oton i t s f ac e prohi bi tno ncom m er ci al s pe e c h. A s a r e s ul t , the c our tf ound no c ons t i tut i ona l i nf i r m i ty i n the N e w S i gn O r di na nc e ’ s pr ovi s i on tha tm e r e l y de f i ne s of f - pr e m i s e s i gns . S e c t i on 20. 7- 8 of the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e , r e qui r i ng a n A dm i ni s tr a t ort o r e vi e w a s i gn pe r m i tappl i c a t i on

“ w i thi n a r e a s onabl e t i m e , ” w a s r e pl a c e d i n the N e w S i gn O r di na nc e w i th a p r o v is io n r e q u ir in g a n A d m in is tr a to rto r e v ie w a n d g r a n t o rd e n y th e s ig n p e r m it appl i ca t i on w i thi n fi ft ee n cal endar days of re ce i pt . A s are sul t , the di stri ctcourt foun d thatthe prov i si on s of the O l d S i gn O rdi nance thatac tual l y c ause d the deni al o f th e p erm i tap p l i cat i o n s ei th er d i d n o tsu rv i v e o r “ are n o w (an d p erh ap s al w ays w e r e ) c ons t i tut i ona l l y s ound. ” R 97 a t14- 17. T he courtthen rul ed thatany other c on st i tut i on al l y s uspectprov i si on s w er e se verabl e, and thu s K H O ut do or’ s c hal l enges t o the O l d S i gn O rdi nance w er e m o o t. T h e c o u rt co n clu d ed th at it s m o o tn es s h o ld in g p re clu d ed K H O u td o o r’s c l a i m f orda m a ge s . F i na l l y , the c our tf ound no e vi de nc e of

ba d f a i th ore nt i t l e m e nt6

t o equ i t abl e e st op pel and, concl ud ed that , there fore , K H O ut do or had n o v es t ed r i ght s unde rF l or i da l a w w i th r e s pe c tt o the pe r m i t s f orw hi c h i tappl i e d unde rthe O ld S ig n O r d in a n c e . K H O u td o o rap p e a le dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w the que s t i on of m ootne s s de novo. T a nne rA dve r . G r oup, L . L . C . v. F ay ett e C ou nty, G a. , 45 1 F . 3d 77 7, 78 4 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ W e r e vi e w s t a ndi ng de t e r m i na t i ons de novo. ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M o o tn ess

“ W e e xerc i se ou r di sc re t i on t o revi ew the i ss ue of m oo tness fi rs t , fol l ow ed by the i s s ue of

s t a ndi ng. ” I d. a t785 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A r t i c l e I I I of the C o n s titu tio n r e q u ir e s th a t th e r e b e a liv e c a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s y a t th e tim e th a t a fed eral co u rtd eci d es th e case; i ti s n o ten o u g h th atth ere m ay h av e b een a l i v e case orc ontr ove r s y w he n the c a s e w a s f i l e d. ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i ons o m i tt ed ). “ T h e d o ctri n e o f m o o tn ess p ro v i d es th atth e req u i si t e p erso n al i n t erest tha tm us te xi s ta tthe c om m e nc e m e ntof the l i t i ga t i on ( s t a ndi ng) m us tc ont i nue throu gh ou ti t s e xi st ence (m oo tness ). ” I d. (c i t at i on s, al t er at i on s, and i nt ernal quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e ha ve not e d tha t“ [ o] r di na r i l y , a c ha l l e nge t o the7

c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

a s t a tut e i s m oot e d by r e pe a l of the s t a tut e . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). K H O ut door s a r gue s tha ti t s c ha l l e nge t o the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e w a s not r e nde r e d m ootby the a dopt i on of the N e w S i gn O r di na nc e be c a us e i t s s e c ond a m e n d e d c o m p la in t in c lu d e d a r e q u e s t f o rd a m a g e s . “[ W ]h e n a p la in tif f r e q u e s ts dam ages , as op po se d t o o nl y dec l ar at ory or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef , changes t o o r r epea l of the chal l enged o rdi nance m ayno tnece ss ar i l y m oo tthe pl ai nt i ff’ s c on st i tut i on al c ha l l e nge t o tha tor di na nc e . ” C r ow n M e di a , L L C v. G w i nne ttC ounty , G a . , 380 F . 3d 1317, 1325 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . H e r e , be c a us e K H O ut door re q u es ted d am ag es , th e c h an g es m ad e to th e o rd in an ce d o n o t m o o t K H O u td o o r’s c ha l l e nge t o the O l d S i gn O r di na nc e . S e e G r a ni t e S t a t e O ut doorA dve r . , I nc . v. C i ty of C l ea rw at er , F l a. , 35 1 F . 3d 11 12 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ C l ea rw at er ”) (“ [T ] he C i ty a rgues thatG ra ni t e S t at e’ s c l ai m s a re no w m oo tbecause C l ea rw at er h as rev i sed th e C o d e i n acco rd an ce w i th th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n . B ecau se G ra ni t e S t at e has re qu es t ed dam ages , ho w ever , the changes m ade t o the ordi nance d o n o tm a k e th i s c a s e m o o t . ” ) . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d i n f i n d i n g th a tKH O u td o o r ’s c a s e w a s m o o t. B . S t a ndi ng T he C ons t i tut i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s l i m i t s the s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on of8

f e de r a l c our t s t o “ C a s e s ” a nd “ C ontr ove r s i e s . ” U . S . C ons t . , A r t . I I I § 2. “ [ T ] he c or e c om pone ntof

s t a ndi ng i s a n e s s e nt i a l a nd unc ha ngi ng pa r tof the ca se -or- controvers y r equi re m entof A rt i cl e I II . ” L uj an v. D ef enders of W i l dl i fe , 504 U . S . 555, 560, 112 S . C t . 2130, 2136 ( 1992) . A pl a i nt i f f w ho i nvoke s the ju r is d ic tio n o f

a f e d e r a l c o u r t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g “( 1 ) a n in

ju ry in f a c t, m ea ni ng an i nj ury thati s c on cr et e a nd part i cul ar i ze d, and actual or i m m i nent , (2) a c a us a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the i nj ury a nd the c a us a l c onduc t , a nd ( 3) a l i ke l i hood thatthe i nj ury w i l l be re dres se d b y afa vo rabl e dec i si on . ” C l ea rw at er , 35 1 F . 3d at 1116 ( c i t a t i on a nd e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . E a c h e l e m e nti s “ a n i ndi s pe ns abl e pa r tof the pl a i nt i f

f’ s c a s e ” a nd “ m us tbe s uppor t e d i n the s a m e w a y a s a ny othe rm a tt e ron w hi c h the pl a i nt i f

f be a r s the bur de n of

pr oof , i . e . , w i th the m a nne ra nd de gr e e of evi dence re qu i re d atthe succ es si ve st ages of the l i t i gat i on . ” L uj an, 50 4 U . S . at 5 6 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 2 1 3 6 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A ls o , th e p la in tif f m u s t s a tis f

y c e r ta in prude nt i a l pr i nc i pl e s e s t abl i s he d by c our t s . B e nne ttv. S pe a r , 520 U . S . 154, 162, 117 S . C t . 1154, 1161 ( 1997) . T he s e i m m ut abl e r e qui r e m e nt s of the C ons t i tut i on g o v e rn K H O u td o o r ’s S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t. K H O u td o o r ’s “in

ju ry ” is th a t it c a n n o t e r e c t its p r o p o s e d b illb o a r d s . C l e a rw a t e r , 351 F . 3d a t1117 ( f i ndi ng G r a ni t e S t a t e s uf f e r e d i nj ury unde rthe prov i si on of the C l ea rw at ercode thatdeni ed G ra ni t e S t at e’ s bi l l bo ar d p erm i t s) .9

M or e ove r , thi s i nj ury i s c a us a l l y r e l a t e d t o the a l l e ge d c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons c ha l l e nge d. Cl a y Co u n ty a r g u e s th a tK H O u t d o o rl a c k s s t a n d i n g t o a d v a n c e i t s c l a i ms b e c a u s e its in

ju ry f r o m th e b illb o a r d a n d o f f - s ite s ig n p r o h ib itio n is n o t r e d r e s s ib le . I n o r d e rf

o ra n in ju ry to b e r e d r e s s ib le , “it m u s t b e ‘lik e ly ,’ a s o p p o s e d to m e r e ly

‘ s pe c ul a t i ve , ’ tha tthe i nj ury w i l l be ‘ r e dr e s s e d by a f a vor abl e de c i s i on. ’ ” L uj a n, 50 4 U . S . at56 1 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e f in d th a t K H O u td o o rh a s n o t s a tis f ie d th e r e d r e s s ab ility r e q u ir e m e n t. A ny i nj ury K H O ut doora c tua l l y s uf f e r e d f r om the bi l l boa r d a nd of f s i t e s i gn pr ohi bi t i on i s notr e dr e s s i bl e be c a us e the appl i c a t i ons f a i l e d t o m e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of

othe rs t a tut e s a nd r e gul a t i ons notc ha l l e nge d. S e e A dva nt a ge Me d i a , L . L . C . v . C i ty o f E d e n P r a i r i e , 4 5 6 F . 3 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 1 ( 8 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ [ A] fav o rab l e d eci si o n fo r [o u t d o o r ad v ert i si n g co m p an y] ev en w i th resp ectt o th o se s i gn c ode pr ovi s i ons w hi c h w e r e f a c t or s i n the de ni a l of

i t s pe r m i tappl i c a t i ons w ou l d n otal l ow i tt o b ui l d i t s propo se d si gn s, for these w ou l d st i l l vi ol at e other u n c h a lle n g e d p r o v is io n s o f th e s ig n c o d e lik e th e r e s tr ic tio n s o n s iz e , h e ig h t, l oc a t i on, a nd s e tba c k. ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) ; H a rp v. A dve r . I l l . , I nc . , v. V i l l a ge of C h ic a g o R id e , I ll., 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 2 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “H a rp s u f f e r s a n in ju ry ( it ca n’ ter ec tthe prop osed bi l l bo ar d), bu tw i nn i ng the ca se w i l l no tal t erthat10

si tuat i on . ”) . A lth o u g h K H O u td o o ra lle g e s in its S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t th a t it

“ s ubm i tt e d s e ve n ( 7) c om pl e t e d s i gn appl i c a t i on pa c ka ge s , ” R 57 a t13, the unc ontr ove r t e d e vi de nc e s ugge s t s othe rw i s e . E ve n a s s um i ng tha tthe s e ve n s i gn appl i c a t i on pa c ka ge s m e ta l l the appl i c abl e pe r m i tappl i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s f ound i n th e ch al l en g ed O l d S i g n O rd i n an ce, th e ev i d en ce su b m i tt ed w i th th e p art i es’ m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in d ic a te s th a t th e ap p lic a tio n p a c k a g e s f a ile d to c om pl y w i th appl i c abl e pr ovi s i ons of the F l or i da B ui l di ng C ode a nd F l or i da s ta tu te s , w h ic h K H O u td o o rd id n o t c h a lle n g e . T he F l or i da B ui l di ng C ode appl i e s “ t o the c ons truc t i on [ or ] e r e c t i on . . . of every pub l i c a nd pri vat e bui l di ng , structure or f ac i l i ty or . . . any app urt enances conn ec t ed or att ac hed t o such b ui l di ng s, structures or fa ci l i t i es . ” F l . B l dg . C od e § 1 0 1 .4 .2 . F l or i da B ui l di ng C ode § 104. 2. 1, r e ga r di ng “ [ d] r a w i ngs a nd s pe c i f i c a t i ons , ” pr ovi de s , i n pe r t i ne ntpa r t , tha t“ tw o orm or e c opi e s of s p e c if ic a tio n s , a n d o f

d r a w in g s d r a w n to s c a le w ith s u f f ic ie n t c la r ity a n d d e ta il to i nd i ca t e the nature a nd char ac t erof the w ork, shal l ac com pany the appl i ca t i on for a p e r m it.” T h e s ig n p e r m it ap p lic a tio n s w e r e n o t a ll a c c o m p a n ie d b y th e r e q u is ite nu m ber of c op i es of construct i on -e ng i neer i ng draw i ng s f rom l i ce nsed engi neer sAdditionally , as noted previously , the building permit packag es did not have 2 construction-eng ineering drawing s for struc tures to be erec ted in Clay County , Florida , but rather, had drawing s prepa red f or Jacksonville, Florida.

11 draw n for C l ayC ou nty. M oreover, F l ori da B ui l di ng C od e § 10 4. 2. 4 requi re s that 2 draw i ng s “ show the l ocat i on of the prop osed bu i l di ng or structure a nd of every e xi s t i ng bui l di ng ors truc tur e on the s i t e orl ot . ” T he s i gn pe r m i tappl i c a t i ons a nd ac com panyi ng do cum ent s s ub m i tt ed t o C l ayC ou nty pl ai nl y l ac ked the re qu i re d d r a w in g s s h o w in g e v e ry e x is tin g s tru c tu r e o n th e s u b je c t s ite s . A d d itio n a lly , K H O u td o o r ’s s ig n p e r m it ap p lic a tio n s a r e n o t c o n s is te n t w ith F lo r id a s ta tu te s r e g a r d in g c o n tr a c tin g . T h e s ig n p e r m it ap p lic a tio n s p r e s e n te d to C l ayC ou nty l i st ed S el ec t i ve S tructures as the contra ct or. S el ec t i ve S tructures w as no ta l i ce nsed bu i l di ng contra ct or i n the st at e of F l ori da. T he l i ce nsed general c ontr a c t orhe r e , R i c ha r d N a t i on, di d notha ve the abi l i ty , unde rC hapt e r489 of the F l ori da S t atut es , t o sub m i tthe si gn perm i tappl i ca t i on s i n the nam e of a n un l i ce nsed contra ct or. S ee § 4 89 . 12 7(4)(a ) (“ A ce rt i fi ed or re gi st er ed contra ct or, orc ontr a c t ora uthor i z e d by a l oc a l c ons truc t i on r e gul a t i on boa r d t o do c ontr a c t i ng, m a y note nt e ri nt o a n a gr e e m e nt , or a l orw r i tt e n, w he r e by hi s orhe rc e r t i f i c a t i on num be rorr e gi s tr a t i on num be ri s us e d, ort o be us e d, by a pe r s on w ho i s not cert i fi ed o r reg i st ered as p ro v i d ed fo r i n th i s ch ap t er, o r u sed , o r t o b e u sed , b y a b u s in e s s o r g a n iz a tio n th a t is n o t d u ly q u a lif ie d a s p r o v id e d f

o rin th is c h ap te rtoWe note that the Four th Circuit, in an unpublished decision, reached a simil ar result. 3 See Trinity

Outdoor, L .L .C. v. City

of Rockville, Md., 123 Fe d. Appx. 101, 104-05 (4th Ci r. 2005) (per curiam) (a ffirmingthe district court’s holdingthat the billboard compa ny ’s alleg ed injuries were not re dressa ble by the remedy

it sought, in that the billboard compa ny “wa s neither re g ist ere d todobu sin e ss in M ary land no r l ic ens e d toeng ag ein t heoutdo or

a dv ertisingbu sin e ss in that State”). 12 e n g a g e in th e b u s in e s s , o ra c t in th e c ap a c ity , o f a c o n tr a c to r .” ) . A s a r e s u lt, a f a v o r ab l e d e c i s i o n , th a ti s , i n v a l i d a t i o n o f th e Ol d S i g n Or d i n a n c e p r o v i s i o n s KH O u td o o rc h a lle n g e d , d o e s n o t m e a n K H O u td o o rw o u ld th e n r e c e iv e ap p r o v a l o f its s i gn pe r m i tappl i c a t i ons , be c a us e C l a y C ounty c oul d bl oc k the pr opos e d s i gns by e nf or c i ng othe rs t a t e s t a tut e s a nd r e gul a t i ons notc ha l l e nge d. 3 A s a f i na l m a tt e r , be c a us e w e f i nd K H O ut doorl a c ks c ons t i tut i ona l s t a ndi ng, w e c a nnotr e a c h the m e r i t s of i t s c ha l l e nge s , e i the ra s appl i e d orunde rthe o v e rb r e a d th d o c tr in e , to C la y C o u n ty ’s s ig n o r d in a n c e . “[ T ]h e o v e rb r e a d th do ctri ne do es no tre l i eve apl ai nt i ff of the bu rden t o p rove const i tut i on al s t a n d i n g [ ; ] ” i ti s o n l y a n e x c e p t i o n t o o n e o f th e p ru d e n t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . C A MP L egal D ef

. F un d, Inc. v. C i ty of A t l ant a, 45 1 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 70 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); se e a l s o B i s c hof

f v. O s c e ol a C ounty , F l a . , 222 F . 3d 874, 885 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (a n alyz in g th e th re e c o n stitu ti o n al p ro n g s o f s tan d in g b ef o re co n sid er in g p lain ti ff’s f a c i a l c ha l l e nge unde rthe ove rbr e a dth doc tr i ne ) ; W i s . R i ghtt o L i f e , I nc . v. P a r a di s e , 138 F . 3d 1183, 1186 ( 7th C i r . 1998) ( “ A l i t i ga ntc a nnotc r e a t e a c a s e or controvers y j ustby m aki ng an un t enabl e ‘ fa ci al ’ att ac k o n a st atut e; ac tual i nj ury13

and redres sabi l i ty a re es se nt i al no m att erho w the chal l enge i s c as t . ”) . I V . CONCL US I ON H e r e , a f a vor abl e de c i s i on f

orK H O ut doorw i th r e s pe c tt o the s i gn c ode pr ovi s i ons c ha l l e nge d w oul d nota l l ow i tt o bui l d i t s pr opos e d s i gns , be c a us e the s i gn pe r m i tappl i c a t i ons f a i l e d t o m e e tothe rs t a tut e s a nd r e gul a t i ons tha tw e r e not c h a lle n g e d . B e c a u s e w e f in d th e ap p e lla n ts , K H O u td o o r , L .L .C ., M o o r e A , I n c ., a nd D a l e P . E gge r s , l a c k s t a ndi ng, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng the S e c ond A m en d ed C o m p l ai n tfo r l ack o f j u ri sd i ct i o n i s A FFI R M ED .