Pierce

Pierce v. San Diego Unified Port District

Good Law
340 F. App'x 351
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 22, 2009No. 07-55537California624 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Because the parties are well aware of the facts of this case, those facts will not be repeated here. Kathleen Pierce (“Pierce”) and Matthew Morgan (“Morgan”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the San Diego Unified Port District (the “Port”) on their due process claim and their negligence claim, which stemmed from the seizure and destruction of a vessel known as the Castle. Pierce and Morgan also appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Port on the Port’s counterclaim. We affirm.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1165-67 (9th Cir.2007)).

Pierce and Morgan’s due process claim fails as a matter of law. Pierce and Morgan have not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact of whether the former Port Director Don Nay had the authority to allow and authorized the Castle to rest in the location from which it was seized.

In addition, the Port was not required to seek an injunction in order to enforce a violation…

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.