Ciraulo's Lucky Palace v. City of San Jose

Good Law
81 F.3d 167·1996 WL 145292·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 20684
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 199695-15199California952 words

Opinion

Opinion

81 F.3d 167 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. CIRAULO'S LUCKY PALACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-15199. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 26, 1996. * Decided March 29, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ciraulo's Lucky Palace, Inc. ("Ciraulo's"), a business incorporated in California, appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jose ("City") in its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Ciraulo's alleged that the City violated its rights to due process and equal protection by denying its requests to expand and relocate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review the district court's summary judgment de novo. Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1994). 4 * Due Process 5 Ciraulo's contends that it was subjected to…

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.