T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A I M E A L V A R E Z ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. C I T Y O F S A N B E RN A R D I N O , a M u n ic ip a l C o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees, a nd J UL I O E S T R AD A, D e f

e n d a n t. N o. 09- 55001 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 0 - c v - 0 3 0 4 8 - PA - RC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P e r c yA nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G O O D W IN , D . W . N E L S O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED FEB 17 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP l a i nt i f f s di d notr a i s e the r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m i n the ope ni ng br i e f . I s s ue s not 1 s p e c if ic a llya n d d is tin c tlya r g u e d in th e o p e n in g b r ie f a r e w a iv e d , G re enw oo d v. F. A. A. , 2 8 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) , a n d w e d e c lin e to a d d r e s s th is is s u e . P l a i nt i f f s di d notf

i l e anot i c e of

appe a l of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de re xc l udi ng the d e c la r a tio n o f

J u lio E s tr a d a . See F e d. R . A pp. P . 3( a ) ( 1) ( “ A n appe a l . . . m a ybe t aken on l y by f

i l i ng a not i ce of appeal . . . . ”) . T here fore , w e do n otaddres s that is s u e . 2 Jai m e A l v arez, M ari sel a L ab ast i d a, an d A l v arez & A sso ci at es (P l ai n t i ffs) appeal the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entfor D ef endant s on three c l a i m s unde r42 U . S . C . §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. 1 A . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the § 1981 c l a i m . P l a i nt i f f s ha ve noti ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e tha tD e f e nda nt s pr e ve nt e d the m f r om m a ki ng ore nf

or c i ng c o n tr a c ts , o rth a t th e yd id s o o n th e b a s is o f r a c e . See 42 U . S . C . § 1981; E vans v. McKay , 86 9 F . 2d 13 41 , 13 44 & n. 2 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). In order t o sho w ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on , P l ai nt i ff s m ustshow thatD ef

endant s a ct ed w i th d i sc ri m i nat ory p u rp o s e , a n d th a t it h a d ad is c r im in a to rye f f e c t. U ni te d State s v . A rm s tr ong , 517 U . S . 45 6, 46 5 (19 96 ). D i sc ri m i nat ory e ff ec tcan b e s ho w n b y dem on stra t i ng that s im ila r lys itu a te d p e r s o n s o f o th e rr a c e s w e r e n o t p r o s e c u te d . I d. P l a i nt i f

f s di d not show that“ the cond i t i on s and prac t i ce s t o w hi ch [the i nv es t i gat i on ] w as di re ct ed di d n otexi stexcl usi vel y am on g [a part i cul arra ci al grou p] , or thatthere w er e other o f f e n d e r s ” w h o w e r e n o t p r o s e c u te d . I d. a t466 ( quot i ng A h Si n v . W i t tm an , 198 U . S . 500, 507- 08 ( 1905) ) . A l though P l a i nt i f f s a l l e ge tha tno othe rA c qui s i t i on,3

R e habi l i t a t i on, a nd R e s a l e pr ogr a m de ve l ope r s w e r e pr os e c ut e d, the ypr ovi de no e vi de nc e tha tthos e de ve l ope r s w e r e “ othe rof f e nde r s . ” N ordo the ys how tha ta ny of the othe rH i s pa ni c de ve l ope r s w e r e pr os e c ut e d ( on the ba s i s of r a c e or o th erw i se). W i th o u tev i d en ce o f a d i scri m i n at o ry effect, P l ai n t i ffs’ cl ai m s m u st f a il. B . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d i sm i ss i ng the § 1 98 3 cl ai m . P l ai nt i ff s di d n oti ntrodu ce suff

i ci entevi dence for are as on abl e j ury t o fi nd (1) that D e f e n d a n ts s u b

je c te d th e m to c r im in a l c h a r g e s b a s e d o n f a ls e e v id e n c e o r( 2 ) th a t D e f e n d a n ts ’ a lle g e d d e f

a m a tio n d e p r iv e d th e m o f b u s in e s s g o o d w ill. 1 . A r e a s o n ab le ju ryc o u ld n o t f in d th a t P la in tif

f s w e r e s u b

je c te d to cr i m i nal char ges on the basi s of f abri ca t ed or coerc ed evi dence, or that in v e s tig a to r s ig n o r e d e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e . D ev er eaux v. A bb ey , 263 F . 3d 1070, 10 74 -76 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). A ss um i ng as true thatC i sner os’ s s t at em entw as f abr i c a t e d, the c r i m i na l c om pl a i ntdi d notr e l yon C i s ne r os ’ s s t a t e m e nt , a nd p r o b ab le c au s e e x is te d in d e p e n d e n t o f h e rs ta te m e n t. See T

om erv. G at es , 811 F .2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ; see a l so Fra n ks v. D ela w a re , 438 U . S . 154, 155- 5 6 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . A s s u mi n g D e f e n d a n t s u s e d c o e r c i v e t a c t i c s w h e n i n t e rv i e w i n g s o me w i tness es , the re cord do es no tshow thatthe evi dence gi ven w as fa l se or thati tw as i nc r i m i na t i ng. I n pa rt i c ul a r , E s tr a daa f f i rm e d i n hi s de pos i t i on tha tthe i nf orm a t i on4

he ga ve i nve s t i ga t or s i n the vi de o w a s true . T he e vi de nc e ( w hi c h P l a i nt i f f s a l l e ge i s e xc ul pa t ory ) s how s onl ytha tothe r s m a yha ve be e n i nvol ve d i n f a l s i f y i ng in f o rm a tio n , n o t th a t P la in tif f s d id n o t p a rtic ip a te in f ilin g f a ls e lo a n ap p lic a tio n s . A s s uch, i tw as i nsuffi ci entt o sho w D ef endant s s ho ul d h ave kno w n P l ai nt i ff s w er e i nnoc e nta nd s houl d ha ve s t oppe d the i nve s t i ga t i on. T he r e f or e , the r e w a s no c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . 2. D e f

e nda nt s ’ de f

a m a t i on of

P l a i nt i f f s t o ba nks a nd i ndi vi dua l s di d not d ep ri v e P l ai n t i ffs o f th e g o o d w i l l o f th ei r b u si n ess. D am ag e t o a p ro p erty i n t erest m u s t a r is e f

r o m a f f irm a tiv e c o n d u c t b e y o n d th e d e f a m a to rys ta te m e n ts th e m s e lv e s . A f f i rm a t i ve c onduc ti nc l ude s r e voki ng ar i ghtorc hangi ng as t a tus he l d bythe p la in tif f o rta k in g d ir e c t a c tio n to p r e v e n t c o n tin u e d p a tr o n a g e o f th e b u s in e s s . W M X T ec hs. , Inc. v. Mi l ler , 197 F . 3d 367, 375 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . A l though p a tr o n s m a yb e le s s lik e lyto p a tr o n iz e ac o m p a n yb e c au s e o f th e d e f a m a tio n , th is is ar e s u lt o f

th e d a m a g e to th e b u s in e s s ’s r e p u ta tio n , n o t ad e p r iv a tio n o f g o o d w ill. I d. a t 3 7 5 - 7 6 . D e f

e n d a n ts d id n o t d e p r iv e P la in tif f s o f ar ig h t o rs ta tu s , n o rd id th e yta k e a c tio n to p r e v e n t e ith e rb a n k s o ro th e rc itie s f r o m d o in g b u s in e s s w ith P l ai n t i ffs. T h e d efam at o ry st at em en t s w ere n o m o re th an d am ag e t o b u si n ess r e p u ta tio n , w h ic h is n o t ac o g n iz ab le § 1 9 8 3 c la im . I d. a t 3 7 5 .5

C . B e c aus e P l a i nt i f

f s ha ve no e vi de nc e of

adi s c r i m i na t orye f

f e c tor purpos e , the di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton the § 1985 c l a i m. D . H avi ng det erm i ned thatno re as on abl y j ury c ou l d fi nd a c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on by the i nd i vi du al D ef endant s, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y hel d thatthere c a n be no Mo n e ll

liab ilityw ith o u t s u c h av io la tio n . C i t y of L os A ng eles v. H

el ler , 47 5 U . S . 79 6, 79 9 (19 86 ) ( per c uri am ). A FFI R M ED