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

UTE SAC KM A

N, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, a M unic ipa l C orporation; GR

EG SAVELLI, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Exe c utive Offic e r of Parking Enforc e m e nt a

n d Tra ffic C ontrol for the Los Ange le s De pa rtm e nt of Transporta

tion, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55846 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00090-DM G-E
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PREGER SON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Je roly n C rute Sa c km a

n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing with pre j udic e he r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 c la im ba se d on a

C ity of Los Ange le s (“ C ity ” ) la w 

# FIL ED FEB 16 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.that

prohibits pa

rking in thesa

m e spot on a

public stre e t for at le a st 72 hours (“the 72-hour la

w” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w d e nov o a distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of a m otion to dism

i ss unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(6). Ebne r v . Fre sh, Inc
. , 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th C i r. 2016). W e a ffirm
. 1. Sa c km an fa ils, a s a m atte r of la

w, to sta te a c l a im for a viola tion of substa ntive due proc e ss. The 72-hour la w did not im

plic ate Sa c km an’ s funda m e nta l rights be c a

use the la w im pa c ts a n e c onom ic /prope rty

inte re st. Se e LoneStar Se c . & Vide o, Inc . v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 584 F.3d 1232, 1236 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a

use a funda m e nta l right is not im

plic ate d he re , the la

w is subje c t to
ra tiona l ba sis re v i e w. S

e e C ity of C le burne v . C

le burne Liv ing C t r. , 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). The72-hour la w is ra tiona l ly re late d to the C i ty ’ s le gitim ate obje c tive to disc oura ge pe o ple from m onopoliz ing pa

rking spa c e s on stre e ts for le ngthy pe riods of tim e and to pre ve nt the a ba ndonm e nt of c ars. Apa

rt from he r c onc lusory

a lle gations, Sa c km an fa ils to pla usibly a lle ge tha

t the C ity ’ s e nforc e m e nt of the 72-hour la w in this c a se wa s a

rbitra ry and irrat iona l. 2. Sa c km an a lso fa ils, a s a m atte r of la

w, to sta te a c l a im for a viola tion of proc e dura l due proc e ss ba se d on a purporte d la c k of pre -c i tation a n d pre -towing notic e . While Sa c km an c onte nds tha t poste d signs wa

rning of the 72-hour la

w 2we re re quire d a s a m a tte r of due proc e ss, a

le gisla ture ge ne ra lly

provide s the
re quisitele ve l of notic e “ sim ply by e na c ting the sta

tute , publishing it, a

nd, to the
e xte nt the sta

tute re g u late s priva

te c onduc t, a ffording thosewithin the sta tute ’ s re a c h a re a sona ble opportunity

to fa m ilia riz e the m se lve s with thege ne ra l
re quire m e nts im

p ose d a nd to c om ply with those

re quire m e nts.” LoneStar , 584 F.3d at 1237 (quota

t i on a nd c ita tion omitte d). He re , the C ity provide d furthe r pre towing notic e by

atta c hing a

c ita tion to Sa c km an’ s ve hic l e two da y s be fore it wa s towe d. Additiona lly , the proc e dura l due proc e ss ba l anc ing te st from Mathe w s v . Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), we ighs in fa vor of the C ity . Eve n whe re the
c ita tion a nd im pound of Sa c km an’ s ve hic le im pa c te d a signific ant priva

te inte re st, the re wa s a

low risk of e rrone ous de priva t ion be c a use Sa c km an wa s a

ble to c onte st the p roprie ty

of the c ita

tion a nd im pound a t a dm inistra

tive he arings a

n d se e k judic ia l re vie w in sta

te c ourt 1 , and the posting of signs on e ve ry stre e t would e nta il
a substa ntia l a dm inistra

t ive and fisc a l burde n

on the C ity
.

1 Sa c km a n’ s re que st for the c ourt to ta ke judic ia l notic e of sta

te c ourt re c ords is G RANT E D . Howe ve r, those re c ords do not re ve a l the ba sis for the sta te c ourt’ s de c ision to re fund the c ita t ion fine , a

nd e ve n if the sta

te c ourt de te rm ine d

tha t the 72-hour la

w wa s inva lid unde r state la wdue to a

la c k of poste d signs, a

viola tion of c onstitutiona

l due proc e ss doe s not ne c e ssa rily follow. S

e e LoneStar , 584 F.3d a

t 1236. 3AFFIRM E D.

4