Balubhai Patel v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
667 F. App'x 625
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 29, 201614-56581California302 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Balubhai Patel appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging that the City of Los Angeles violated his constitutional rights by placing the Lafayette Hotel, which he owns, into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). We affirm.

1. There was no Fourth Amendment violation. Placement of the hotel into REAP did not unreasonably interfere with any possessory interest.

2. There was no violation of Patel’s substantive due process rights. This claim is foreclosed by Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189, 1191 (9th Cir. 2013).

3. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that Patel’s procedural due process claim was voluntarily dismissed. Alternatively, placement of the hotel into REAP did not violate Patel’s procedural due process rights. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Patel received notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to an administrative appeal before his property was placed into REAP. Moreover, the City’s interest in REAP is significant. See Sylvia Landfield Trust, 729 F.3d at 1192 .

4.After dismissing every federal…

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.