Turecek

Turecek v. County of San Diego

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 200503-55830California525 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CITIZENS FOR HONESTY AND 

INTEGRITY IN REGIONAL PLANNING,

Plaintiff, No. 03-55830 and KARL J. TURECEK,  D.C. No.

CV-02-01855-RMB

Plaintiff-Appellant,

ORDER

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Rudi M. Brewster, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed February 25, 2005

Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Frank J. Magill,* and Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

Scott Zarin, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff- appellant.

*The Honorable Frank J. Magill, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

2205 2206 TURECEK v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO C. Ellen Pilsecker, Senior Deputy, County of San Diego, San Diego, California, for defendant-appellee.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The dis- trict court record reveals that there was no case or controversy between Karl A. Turecek (“Turecek”) and the County of San Diego (“the County”)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.