Case ID: f-appx_267/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SECURITY RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; Robert Weinbach, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-55562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2008.
    
    Filed Feb. 20, 2008.
    John W. Sullivan, Esq., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TROTT, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Robert Weinbach and his company, Security Resources Development Corporation, appeal the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the City of Los Angeles (“City”).

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Qwest Commc’ns Inc. v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.2006). On review, we must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004).

Where a substantive due process claim or an equal protection claim is not based on a suspect classification and where a fundamental right is not implicated, the government acts unconstitutionally only where its conduct is irrational, arbitrary, or malicious. Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir.1998) (equal protection); P.B. v. Koch, 96 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (9th Cir.1996) (substantive due process).

We agree with the district court. Weinbach failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City or its officials acted irrationally, arbitrarily, or maliciously.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.