Niland
Niland v. City of San Jose
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
1. Appellants have no standing to proceed in this action as judgment creditors of CalAg because Appellants do not have a judgment against CalAg. See Cal. Civ. Code § 210.780 . Appellants’ “de facto” creditor argument is not supported by precedent. Appellants do have standing to proceed as assignees.
2. Appellants’ as-applied claims are not ripe for review because CalAg neither completed an application to develop the property nor applied for a variance. See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1987). CalAg’s failure to complete an application also dooms Appellants’ futility argument. See id.
3. Any facial challenge to the enactments is barred by the statute of limitations. 1 See Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir.1993).
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 56(f) request because the information sought pertained not at all to the arguments raised in the motion for summary judgment. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. *193 Nutrition Now, Inc., 804 F.3d 829 , 842 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of…