This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 5 -
Virginia Constitution.4 Adams also sought $19,131,840 in damages for lost revenue expected to
be earned from the billboards.
Appellees opposed the motion, arguing that the new claims were barred by the statute of
limitations and that litigating the claims would prejudice them. Appellees asserted that the new
claims did not relate back to the date of the original complaint under Code § 8.01-6.1 because
they constituted new substantive causes of action. Adams responded that the claims related back
because they arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claims.
After a hearing on October 15, 2024, at which the parties presented evidence ore tenus,
the circuit court entered a final order on January 6, 2025. It concluded that appellees’ denial of
the permits was discretionary rather than ministerial and Adams had an adequate remedy at law,
so Adams was entitled to neither a declaratory judgment nor a writ of mandamus. It therefore
sustained appellees’ demurrer, partially sustained their pleas in bar, and dismissed Adams’
complaint. The circuit court then denied Adams’ motion for leave to amend the complaint,
finding that (1) there was no longer a pleading before the court which could be amended
because the court had already dismissed Adams’ complaint; and (2) “amendment of the
Plaintiff’s Complaint would be futile because the deficiencies found by the Court cannot be
remedied.” Adams filed written objections to the final order and timely appealed.
4 Adams’ proffered amended complaint also included new factual allegations, mainly
revolving around appellees’ treatment of allegedly similar applications from one of Adams’
competitors, Kenjoh Outdoor Advertising. According to Adams’ proffered amended complaint,
Ms. Hall had previously certified two of Kenjoh’s permit applications in just 72 hours, but the
City then received “political backlash” after Kenjoh built its billboards. Adams alleged, upon
information and belief, that because of that backlash, Hall “intentionally, deliberately, and
maliciously” delayed certifying its applications until after the zoning ordinance amendment was
adopted so that she could then deny the applications. These factual allegations undergirded
Adams’ equal protection and business conspiracy claims. Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)