Bb&d, Inc. v. Snohomish County, a Municipal Corporation

53 F.3d 337 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BB&D, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-35044. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 6, 1995. Decided May 1, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 1. BB&D's case has been clearly frivolous from its inception. The county simply moved the grading permit applications through the environmental review process as mandated by law, and granted both permits in less than a year. BB&D utterly failed to substantiate its claims that the county acted arbitrarily, treated BB&D's application differently from similar applications, was influenced by the improper actions of a councilman, or deprived BB&D of the economic use of its property. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the county. See Hardin v. White Mountain…