Istrice

Istrice v. City of Sparks

Good Law
8 F. App'x 841
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 8, 2001No. 99-17574; D.C. No. CV-98-577-DWHCalifornia840 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants bring their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . They allege that •Appellees violated their procedural and substantive due process rights by unlawfully assessing an obligation on Appellants’ property. To wit, Appellants allege that the City of Sparks (the “City”), in conjunction with the other Appellees, imposed a fee, or constructive lien, on Appellants’ property for the widening of a storm drain and for the construction of a road adjacent to Appellants’ property, all in excess of the City’s jurisdiction.

The issue tendered to the district court was whether the statute of limitations had run on Appellants’ claims. The complaint, filed in 1998, acknowledged that Appel *843 lants were aware of the City’s attempt to impose an obligation on Appellants’ property through a license agreement with Centex Real Estate Corporation (“Centex”) as early as 1995. Thus, because this § 1983 action had to be brought within two years, the district court dismissed it as time-barred.

There is, however, a jurisdictional issue that must first be addressed. Appellants have not demonstrated that the agreement between the City and the other Appellees had any immediate economic…

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.