N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NEVADA R

ESTAUR ANT SER

VIC ES, INC ., DB ADotty ’ s, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, And JAC KPOT JOANIES FP, LLC , C onsolida te d Pla intiff; JAC KPOT JOANIES DF, LLC , C onsolida te d Pla intiff; EC LIPSE GAM ING SHM P, LLC , C onsolida

te d Pla intiff, Plaintiffs,
v. C LAR K C OUNTY, a

M unic ipa l C orporation; B OARD OF C O UNTY C OM M ISSIONER S OF C LAR K C OUNTY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17252 D.C . Nos. 2:11-c v-00795-APGPAL 2:11-c v-00824-APGPAL
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

JAN 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.NEVADA R ESTAUR ANT SER

VIC ES, INC ., DB ADotty ’ s, Plaintiff, And JAC KPOT JOANIES FP, LLC , C onsolida te d Pla intiff; JAC KPOT JOANIES DF, LLC , C onsolida te d Pla intiff; EC LIPSE GAM ING SHM P, LLC , C onsolida

te d Pla intiff, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C LAR K C OUNTY, a

M unic ipa l C orporation; B OARD OF C O UNTY C OM M ISSIONER S OF C LAR K C OUNTY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17253 D.C . Nos. 2:11-c v-00795-APGPAL 2:11-c v-00824-APGPAL

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s a nd C HEN, * * Distric t Judge
.

** The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nts Ne va da

R e sta urant Se rvic e s, Inc . a

nd Ja c kpot Joa

nie s FP, LLC (c olle c tive ly

“ Pla intiffs” 1 ) a

ppe a l two distric t c ourt orde rs gra nting De fe n da

nt C la rk C ounty ’ s (“ the C ounty ” ) m otion for pa rtia l judgm e nt on theple a dings a nd
m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd
re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s orde rs de novo. Se e Ly on v . C hase Bank USA , 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th C ir. 2011); H arris v . C ty . of Riv e rside , 904 F.2d 497, 500 (9th C ir. 1990). For the re a sons outline d be low, we a ffirm
. C onstitutiona

l C la im s 1. Pla intiffs’ proc e d

ura l due proc e s s c ha lle nge fa ils. B e c a use C la rk C ounty Ordina nc e L-252-11 (“ the Ordina nc e ” ) wa s le gisla

tive rat he r tha n a djudic atory

in
nature , “ due proc e ss [wa s] sat isfie d whe n the le gisla tive body pe rform [e d] its
re sponsibilitie s in thenorm a l m anne r pre sc ribe d by la w.” Halv e rson v . Sk

a git C ty
. , 42 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th C ir. 1994), as ame nde d on de nial of reh’g (1995) (c ita

tion

1 Unle ss othe rwise note d, this disposition a ddre sse s c om

m on c la im s ra ise d by both Pla intiffs. 3om i tte d); se e also Bi-Me t allic Inv . C o. v . State Bd. of Equalization , 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915). 2 Alte rnative ly , Pla intiffs ha ve not shown tha

t the proc e ss a fforde d to the m by the C ounty

fe ll be low the c onstitutiona l thre shold. Se eMullane v . C e nt. Hanov e r Bank & Trust C

o . , 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). Pla intiffs re c e ive d m

ultiplenotic e s from the C ounty

inform ing the m

of the propose d le gisla

tion, a nd we re e xte nde d
re pe ate d opportunitie s—

via the subm ission of writte

n c om m e nts a nd at public he arings—

to m ake the i r c onc e rns known to the C ounty . 2. Pla intiffs’ substa

ntive due proc e ss c ha l le nge a l so fa ils. W he n, a s he re , pla i ntiffs “ re ly on substa

ntive due proc e ss to c ha lle nge gove rnm e nta l a c tion tha t doe s not im

pinge on funda

m e nta l rights,”c ourts “ m e re ly look to se e whe the r the gove rnm e nt c ould

hav e ha d a

le gitim ate re a son for a c t ing a s it did.” Halv e r son , 42 F.3d at 1262 (interna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). The C ounty ha s put forwa

rd a
rationa l justific ation for the re troa c tive nature of the Ordina nc e
— e nsuring
c om plia nc e with C la

rk C ounty C ode § 8.04.040(B )(3)’ s re quire m e nt tha t the gam bling pe rm itte d by C la s s A Slot M a c hine Lic e nse s re m a ins m e re ly “ inc ide nta l”

2 Eve n a c c e pting Pla intiffs’ argum e nt tha t the C ounty

did not follow Ne

va da la w pre c i se ly , the de viat ion did not a m o unt to a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion. Se e Samson v . C

ity of Bainbridge

Island, 683 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ It is a xiom at ic . . . tha

t not e ve ry

viola tion of sta te la w am o unts to a

n infringe m e nt of c onstitutiona

l rights.” ). 3to the lic e nse e ’ s prim a ry busine ss purpose . S

e ePe nsion Be ne

fit Guar. C

orp. v . R.A. Gray

& C o. , 467 U.S. 717, 730 (1984) (holding tha t re troa c t ive a spe c ts of le gisla tion m ust sa tisfy due proc e ss, a

burde n “ m e t sim

p ly by showing tha

t the
re troa c tive a

pplic ation of the le gisla

tion is itse lf justifie d by

a rationa l le gisla

tive purpose ” ). 3. The Ordina

n c e doe s not viola

te the Equa l Prote c tion C la use . First, be c a use the Ordina

nc e
— a le gisla t ive a c tion of ge ne ra l a

pplic a bility tha t a pplie s to hundre ds of ta

ve rns— doe s not single

out Pla i ntiffs for re gula

t ion, Pla intiffs’ “ c la ss of one ” argum e nt fa ils. Se e Vill. of W illow brook

v . Ole c h , 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Se c ond, theprovision of the Ordina nc e tha t e xe m pts ta ve rns lic e nse d prior to De c e m be r 22, 1990, is ra

tiona lly re late d to the C ounty ’ s e c onom ic goa l s. Se e C ity of N e w Orle ans v . Duk

e s , 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976) (noting tha t whe n a
c ha lle nge d le gisla

tive a c tion doe s not involve “ funda m e nta l pe rsona l rights”or

“ inhe re ntly

suspe c t distinc tions suc h a s ra c e ,” loc a l gove rnm e nts a re “ a c c orde d wide latitudein the re gula tion of the ir loc a l e c onom ie s” ).

44. Ja c kpot Joa nie s’ s fa c ia l va gue ne ss c ha l le nge la c ks m e rit, a s the la ngua g e of the Ordina

nc e is not “ i m

pe rm issibly

va gue in a l l of its a

pplic ations.” Vill. of Hoffman Estate

s v . Flipside

, Hoffman Estate

s , Inc
. , 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982). 3 5. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ja c kpot Joa

nie s’ fre e sta

nding § 1983 c la im
. 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 is “ n ot itse lf a

sourc e of substa

ntive rights,”but
rathe r a “ m e thod for vindic ating fe de ra l rights e lse whe re c onfe rre d by those pa rts of the Unite d State s C onstitution a nd fe de ra l sta

tute s tha t it de sc ribe s.” B ak

e r v . Mc C ollan , 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979). Ne va da Statutory C la im s 1. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t the C ounty ’ s pre pa

ration a nd public ation of theB usine ss Im pa c t Sta te m e nts substa

ntia l ly c om plie d with the provisions of Nev. R e v. Stat. §§ 237.080, .090. 2. W e re je c t Pla intiffs’ c la im

tha t Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 244.187 fore c lose s the C ounty ’ s a

b ility to re gula

te gam bling within its jurisdic

tion. Se eC

lark C ty . Liquor & Gaming Lic e nsing Bd. v . Simon & Tuc k e r, Inc
. , 787 P.2d 782, 783 (Nev. 1990)

3 Pla intiffs ha

ve file d m otions a sking this c ourt to ta ke judic ia l notic e of C ounty le gisla tive m ate ria ls, vide o re c ordings of C ounty he arings, a

n d c ita tions issue d to Pla intiffs by

the C ounty . W e G RANT Pla intiffs’ m otions, Le ev . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd DE N Y the C ounty ’ s m otions to strike

portions of Plaintiffs’ re ply brie fs. Our de c ision to gra nt Pla i ntiffs’ m otions for judic ia l notic e , howe ve r, doe s not c ha nge our c onc lusion that the Ordina

nc e is not unc onstitutiona lly va gue . 5(“ The powe r to lic e nse , re gula te , a nd prohibit ga

m bling is within the

disc re tion of the m unic ipa l a ge nc y

e m powe re d to gove rn gam

bling a nd suc h a g e nc y

ha s a wide
m argin of disc re t i on.” ). AFFIRM E D.

6