Young

MEMORANDUM *

Phillip Young appeals the district court’s grant of Simi Valley’s motion for partial summary judgment and entrance of a final judgment awarding Young one dollar in nominal damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In Young v. Simi Valley, 216 F.3d 807 (9th Cir.2000), this court held that Simi Valley Ordinance No. 796 was unconstitutional because it allowed a sensitive use establishment to effectively veto an adult use at any point in the permit application process. On remand, the district court granted Simi Valley’s motion for partial summary judgment and found that Young *622 was entitled to only nominal damages because the sensitive use veto provision had not been the actual cause of his damages. 1 The district court then entered a final judgment in his favor, concluding that Young’s other claims had either been waived or resolved during the litigation.

Young now argues that the district court erred in entering a final judgment for nominal damages because he preserved other claims which remain to be litigated. He argues in particular that he is entitled to litigate his claims that the definition…