Hermosa on Metropole, LLC v. City of Avalon

MEMORANDUM

1. Hermosa’s Due Process and Takings Clause claims require a constitutionally protected interest in the autoette permits for which it applied. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (Due Process Clause); McIntyre v. Bayer, 339 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2003) (Takings Clause). A protected property interest exists when an individual has a “legitimate claim of entitlement” that derives from “existing rules or under standings.” Bd. of Regents v. Both, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Whether a statute establishes such a claim depends “largely upon the extent to which the statute contains mandatory language that restricts the discretion of the decisionmaker.” Doyle v. City of Medford, 606 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Here, the relevant statute is the city’s ordinance governing the issuance of au-toette permits. The ordinance says that permits “may be granted,” not that they must. Avalon, Cal., Code § 4-4.1703(g)(l) (emphasis added). There is likewise no property right based on a “mutually explicit” understanding between Hermosa and Avalon. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S.…