Sinclair

MEMORANDUM

Phillix Sinclair, Bupendra Patel, and Radha Hotels, Inc. (collectively “Appellants”), appeal summary judgment on their procedural due process claims related to conditional use permit (“CUP”) hearings, issuance of jury instructions concerning adjudicator bias, and denial of Appellants’ post-trial motions. We affirm.

The City did not provide individualized notice of the original CUP hearings, but its repeated offers to put the matter back on the City Council agenda provided constitutionally adequate procedural protections. Reopening of the hearing would have afforded Appellants a meaningful “opportunity to be heard.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 413 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Appellants concede that they received notice of the revocation hearing, and their due process rights were unaffected by the failure to provide notice to others potentially interested in the hearing.

The jury instruction that Appellants could demonstrate an appearance of bias through “evidence of a decision-maker’s financial or personal interest in the outcome” addressed the breadth of Appellants’ bias allegations as well as the…