Samuel Conti Picadilly Circus, Inc. v. The City of Fremont Gus Morrison, John Pomidor, Kent McClain William Armon and Phil Lammi

Good Law
919 F.2d 1385·1990 WL 182401·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20620·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8571
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 28, 199088-15781California2,698 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tang, J.

The City of Fremont, California refused Samuel Conti’s request to amend a zoning conditional use permit which prohibited service of people eighteen to twenty years old at a Fremont business location. Because of this refusal, Samuel Conti and his company Picadilly Circus, Inc. (together referred to as “Conti”) brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Fremont, several City employees, and City Council and Planning Commission members (together referred to as the “City”) for deprivation of Conti’s first, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the City. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

From 1979 through 1986, Conti owned and operated an entertainment and restaurant business known as “Stargaze” in the City’s “Fashion Center” shopping center. Stargaze catered to a young clientele, offering recorded music, roller skating, disco dancing, arcade games, and the sale of records and concert tickets. Stargaze also presented movies, videos, and live entertainment. Racial minorities comprised the bulk of Stargaze clientele.

Under California law, no one under age twenty-one may purchase or consume alcohol, but people under…

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.