Patel

Patel v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law

47 F. App'x 799

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 2002Nos. 01-56522, 01-56036, 01-56037, 01-56038; D.C. No. CV-01-01040-R; D.C. No. CV-00-11301-MLR; D.C. No. CV-00-11595-MLR/RNB; D.C. No. 00-CV-11788 RCalifornia1,392 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Hotel owners and operators Madhuben Patel (“Madhuben”), Sardaben Patel (“Sardaben”), Dhanjibhai Patel (“Dhanjibhai”), Shantaben Patel (“Shantaben”), Balubhai *801 G. Patel (“Balubhai”), Joe Patel, and Nikki Investments, LLC, sued 1 the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) after the City found that their hotels were public nuisances, and imposed conditions of operation. The district court granted the City’s Motion to Dismiss Appellants’ first amended complaints.

§ 1983 Claims

To state § 1983 claims, Appellants must allege facts that establish deprivations, by a person acting under color of state law, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution. Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir.2002).

1. Fifth Amendment Allegations

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of “private property ... for public use without just compensation.” Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 851 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A successful Fifth Amendment claim requires a showing that property was taken without just compensation. At oral argument, Appellants sought to negate their failure to seek…

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.