N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR C US S GERLAC H ; SUZANNE L GERLAC H, husba

nd a n d wife , Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. C ITY OF B AINB R IDGE ISLAND, a m unic ipa l c orporation; JOSHUA M AC HEN; DOES, 1-10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35888 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05854-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TALLM AN a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M U RPHY, Distric t Judge . **



# FIL ED JAN 06 2014 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. ** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy , III, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.M arc us a n d Suz a nne Ge rla c h file d suit a ga inst theC ity of B a inbridge Isla

nd (“ the C ity ” ) and Josep h M a c he n, a n e m ploy e e of the C ity , unde r W a sh. R e v. C ode § 64.40 a nd 42 U.S.C . § 1983. Plaintiffs a lle ge d tha t Joseph M a c he n

purpose fully de la y e d issua nc e of the ir buoy

pe rm it to e xtort pla intiffs to hire him a s a window wa she r. The distric t c ourt gra nte d de fe n da

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291; wea ffirm and re m and for c la rific ation. 1. Se c tion 64.40 a

uthoriz e s c la im s for da

m a ge s inc urre d only

a fte r a fina l a ge nc y de c ision ha s be e n m a de . Birnbaum v . Pie rc e C nty . , 274 P.2d 1070, 1073 (Wa sh. App. C t. 2012). Pla intiffs’ § 64.40 c la im fa ils be c a

use the only

ha rm s the y a lle ge d oc c urre d be fore the fina l a ge nc y a c tion of gra

nting plai ntiffs a

buoy pe rm it. W e the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of pla intiffs’ c la i m unde r § 64.40. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c a lc ulating a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r W a sh. R e v. C ode § 64.40.020. The distric t c ourt c onside re d de fe nda nts’ attorne y s’ c a lc ulat ion of the hours spe nt on the§ 64.40 c la im , a nd the billing ra

te s for e a c h attorne y . The c ourt c orre c tly unde rtook a lode sta r an a l y s is to de te rm i ne the re a s ona ble ne s s of the re que st. Manna Funding, LLC v . K ittitas C n ty . , 295 P.3d 1197, 1209 (W a sh. App. 2013). Pla intiffs do not support their c ha l le nge to the attorne y s’ fe e s a

ward. Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s attorne y s’ fe e s a ward unde r § 64.40.

23. Pla i ntiffs’ 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im a ga inst M a c he n fa ils be c a use pla intiffs ha

ve not a dduc e d e vide nc e to prove tha t M a c he n c a

use d the ir a lle ge d injurie s. Se c tion 1983 re quire s pla intiffs to prove c a usation. Be c k

v . C ity of Upland

, 527 F.3d 853, 862 (9th C i r. 2008). W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary dism issa l of pla i ntiffs’ substa

ntive due proc e ss c la im

a ga inst M a c he n. 4. Pla i ntiffs’ § 1983 c la i m a ga inst theC i ty

fa ils be c a

use the y fa ile d to ide ntify

any le ga l or fa c tua l grounds for holding the c ity lia ble . The re fore , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary dism issa l of pla intiffs’ substa ntive due proc e ss c la im a ga inst theC i ty . 5. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing a c ontinua nc e of the he aring of the m otion of sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

use furthe r disc ove ry would not have a ffe c te d its judgme nt. The pla intiffs sta te d tha t the y wa nte d m ore tim e to pursue disc ove ry

re ga rding other “ i lle ga l c onduc t by M r. M a c he n in a

buse of his a uthority .” The distric t

c o urt’ s re a sons for gra

nting de fe nda

nts’ m o tion for sum m ary judgm e nt, howe ve r, we re not ba se d on M a c h e n’ s c onduc t, a nd so furthe r e vide nc e re ga

rding M a c he n’ s a lle ge d c orruption would not ha ve a ffe c te d its ruling. The re fore , we a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of pla intiffs’ m otion for a c ontinua nc e of sum

m ary judgm e nt.

36. De fe nda

nts’ re que st for sa

n c tions a ga inst plaintiffs unde r Fe d. R . App. P. 38 is proc e d ura lly de fe c tive be c a

u s e R ule 38 re quire s a

se p arate m otion for fe e s; a re que s t m a d e in a

n a ppe lla te brie f doe s not sa

t isfy R u le 38 a nd m u st be de nie d. W inte rrow d v . Am. Ge n. Annuity Ins. C o. , 556 F.3d 815, 828 (9th C ir. 2009). W e the re fore de ny de fe nda

nts’ re q ue st for sa

nc tions under Fe d . R . App. P. 38 for fa ilure to submit a

se p a rate ly file d m otion. 7. W e grant de fe nda

nts’ re que st for re a sona

ble attorne y s’ fe e s inc urre d on a ppe a l in de fe nding plaintiffs’ § 64.40 c la im pursua nt to § 64.40.020. The

de te rm ination of the c orre c t a

m ount of fe e s on a

ppe a l is re fe rre d

to the c ourt’ s spe c ia l m a ste r, Appe l lat e C om

m issione r Pe te r L. Sha

w, who sha ll c onduc t

whate v e r proc e e dings he de e m s c orre c t, a

nd who sha l l ha

ve a uthority to e nte r an orde r awarding fe e s. Se e 9 th C ir. R . 39-1.9. Theorde r is subje c t to re c onside ration by the pa ne l. Id. 8. Afte r the distric t c ourt gra nte d the de fe nda

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt with re ga rd to the pla i ntiffs’ c la im s for § 64.40 a n d § 1983, it “ de c l ine [d] to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the Ge rla c hs’ tortious inte rfe re nc e [with quie t e njoy

m e nt] c la im

and re m and[e d] this a c tion to the c ourt in whic h it wa s file d .” The distric t c ourt the n issue d two orde rs de ny ing thepla intiffs’ m otion for re c o nside ration a

nd gra nting e ntry

of fina l judgm e nt, without me ntioning the tortious interfe re nc e c l a im in e ithe r orde r. W e re m and the tortious inte rfe re nc e 4c la im

to the distric t c ourt to c la rify whe the r it should be

re m ande d to sta

te c ourt or sum m arily dism isse d. W e AFFIRM the distric t c ourt a s se t forth a bove , but R

EM AND only

the tortious interfe re nc e c l a im for c la rific ation, a

nd DENY de fe nda

nts’ re que st for attorne y s’ fe e s unde r Fe d . R . App. P. 38. W e GR ANT fe e s only

a s to tha t portion of the a ppe a l unde r W a sh. R e v. C ode § 64.40.020 a n d re fe r c om

puta tion of the am ount to C o m

m i ssione r Sha

w.

5