Faust
Faust v. Walt Disney Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Kenneth L. Faust (“Faust”) appeals from the district court’s order of May 2, 2000 granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on Faust’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and dismissing pendent state law claims.
The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have jurisdiction on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
The basic facts of this case were set forth by the district court in its order. Faust appeals contending that disputed material issues of fact remain.
Faust appeals from a summary judgment; therefore, we review the record of the district court de novo. Viewing the evidence in the light the most favorable to the non-moving party, we must determine if any issues of material fact exist. See Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir.1995).
Even accepting the facts that Faust disputes in the light most favorable to Faust, the district court was correct in concluding that the police had probable cause to arrest Faust under § 485 of the California Penal Code.
Because the police had probable cause to arrest Faust, no constitutional violation occurred and it is unnecessary to determine if the officers…