Here, the district court correctly determined that the city's repeal of the sign ordinance moots Outdoor Media's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Because there is no longer any risk that Outdoor Media will be subject to the challenged ordinance, there exists no live issue upon which the court could issue prospective relief.
Noatak, 38 F.3d at 1510. Outdoor Media attempts to distinguish
Noatak on the ground that Beaumont repealed the statute only after Outdoor Media filed suit, suggesting that the repeal is strategic and that the city will re-enact the statute upon resolution of the case. The company relies upon
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982), but as the district court recognized, Outdoor Media's broad reading of that case does not square with this circuit's precedent.
Noatak limited
Mesquite to the “rare” situation “where it is
virtually certain that the repealed law would be reenacted.”
Noatak, 38 F.3d at 1510 (emphasis added);
see also Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1996).
The fact that the lawsuit may have prompted the city's action does not alone show the city's intent to later re-enact the challenged ordinance.
Cf. Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2000) (defendant has given no indication of intention to reinstate policy invalidated while case was pending and “we will not assume that it will. We also will not assume bad faith”).
The new ordinance, forbidding all billboards, accomplishes the city's stated goals of limiting visual clutter and preserving commercial viability of future developments, meaning the city has no motive to re-enact a constitutionally suspect ordinance to accomplish the same objective.