Higgins

Higgins v. Port of Newport

Good Law
121 F.3d 1281·97 Daily Journal DAR 9994·1997 WL 429423·1998 A.M.C. 573·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 19922
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 1997No. 96-35195California1,938 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rymer, J.

James E. Higgins, personal representative for the Estate of Barry F. Aires, 1 appeals the entry of summary judgment for the Port of Newport on Aires’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Port violated his due process rights by foreclosing on his boat through nonjudicial sale. Aires moored his boat at the Port’s docks for two years without making any of the rental payments specified in the moorage agreement he signed. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Port provided notice through certified mail to Aires’s last known address, by posting notices on the boat, and by publishing notices in local newspapers, of the overdue debt and of its intent to seize and sell the vessel at public auction in the event of continued nonpayment. Aires concedes that he had actual notice that the Port intended to sell his boat, but never contested the amount due or presented objections to the Port Manager as he could have done. On these facts, we conclude that Aires received all the process that is constitutionally “due,” and, as we have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we affirm.

I

Barry F. Aires co-owned with the estate of his deceased mother a commercial fishing vessel, the F/V KATY ANN,…

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.