Patel

Patel v. Penman

Caution
103 F.3d 868·96 Daily Journal DAR 15503·1996 WL 734757·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33536·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9430
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 26, 1996No. 95-55213California7,125 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Amrut and Sita Patel appeal the jury verdict against them on their § 1983 claim alleging that the City of San Bernardino violated their procedural due process rights by not affording them notice and an opportunity for a hearing after the City closed down their motel as a nuisance. The Patels also appeal the district court’s summary judgment for the City on their § 1983 claims of alleged violations of substantive due process and equal protection, as well as the district court’s decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their inverse-condemnation claim based on the California constitution. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Patels purchased the Super-7 Motel in downtown San Bernardino in 1984. The motel apparently contains approximately 40 rooms, and appears to have been occupied primarily by short- and medium-term residents rather than by transient travelers. 2 The City alleged in moving papers below that in the three years before 1990 the City’s police department reported over 300 calls to the motel for assistance with illegal activity and that the motel…

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.