Budnick

Budnick v. Town of Carefree

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 200806-15841California4,986 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2003, Budnick filed an application for Site Plan Approval and a SUP with the Town of Carefree. Budnick sought the SUP to build the Residences at Carefree (RAC), 1 Budnick sued Edward C. Morgan, the Mayor and a Town Council member, and Bob Coady, Mike Eicher, and Wayne Fulcher, Town Coun- cil members. 2 Though the district court’s grant of summary judgment applied to all of Budnick’s claims, we address only the FHAA claim because Budnick did not develop any arguments related to his other claims on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain . . . appel- lant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authori- ties and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the court does not ordinarily consider on appeal matters that “are not specifi- cally and distinctly argued in an appellant’s opening brief”). BUDNICK v. TOWN OF CAREFREE 2309 which, according to Budnick, would be a “luxurious, age restricted, senior retirement residential community” that would “primarily serv[e] the active…

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.