Facts

In 1999, plaintiff Scott Rainey asked the Outdoor Advertising Branch of the Department of Transportation (DOT), defendant, whether he needed a permit to display advertising on a building located at the corner of Sixth and Harrison Streets in San Francisco. A DOT agent allegedly told plaintiff, that no permit was required. The agent denied this allegation. Plaintiff, thereby, started Rainey Outdoor Advertising, which sold advertising on the sign.

On Aug. 20, 2003, however, DOT issued a Notice of Violation, and ordered that the advertising sign be removed within 30 days, or a fine for the advertising would be imposed each day. In August 2003, plaintiff removed the sign. Plaintiff then appealed to the CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Review Board (COARB), and COARB upheld DOT's decision, prohibiting plaintiff from displaying advertising on the building.

Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate following COARB's decision. Judge James Warren remanded the case back to COARB, because COARB failed to provide an adequate record upon which the court could decide plaintiff's writ. The administrative record was supplemental and filed with the court on July 22, 2005.

On Dec. 1, 2005, again, at the renewed petition for writ of mandate hearing, the court found that there was an insufficient record from COARB and granted plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate. The court ordered COARB to start a new hearing so that there could be an adequate record. Defendant did not advise the court that COARB did not exist anymore. Defendant also never started a new hearing since the citation was already vacated by the court. Thereafter, plaintiff sued defendant for inverse condemnation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff alleged the cause of action for inverse condemnation in violation of the California Constitution and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff also sought declaratory relief declaring that plaintiff's advertising display was lawful, and that plaintiff could continue using the advertising display without having to get a permit from the DOT.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed damages of $7,084 per month, starting from September 2003, where the claimed revenue reached $11,000 per month.

Result

Judge Patrick Mahoney, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as there was a triable issue of fact as to damages. The judge granted summary adjudication for declaratory relief in favor of plaintiff, because under Business and Professions Code Section 5216, plaintiff had uncontested use of the sign for five years. Further, the judge held that the defendant was estopped from challenging plaintiff's advertising, because it had waited eight years to issue a citation, and failed to substantiate the violation despite orders from the court. The court at trial ruled that only damages were at issue and found that lost profits was an adequate measure of plaintiff's compensatory damages, and awarded plaintiff $260,473. Appeal is pending.