Agnes Suever v. Kathleen Connell
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Agnes Suever et al. appeal the district court’s denial of a continuance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and the grant of summary judgment to the California State Controller for Appellants’ claims under § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ requests for a continuance. Appellants failed to identify specific new information that would arise from further discovery and which would preclude summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 , 1100 (9th Cir.2006); Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir.1990).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Controller. First, Appellants’ claims regarding mail notice simply amount to the contention that the notice procedure in the current version of California’s Unclaimed Property Law (“UPL”), Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 1300 et seq., is constitutionally infirm. These claims are foreclosed, however, by Taylor v. Westly (Taylor III), 525 F.3d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam).