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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e So l o mo n O l i v e r , J r . , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orN orthe rn O hi o, C l e ve l a nd, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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 W ALNU T HI LL ES TATE E N T E R P R I S E S , L L C ; 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 O R O V I L L E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16863 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 5 0 0 - G EBGG H 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T H O M A S and N . R . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and O L IV E R , C hi ef D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED OC T 06 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A p p e lla n ts b r o u g h t th is a c tio n a g a in s t th e C ityo f O r o v ille , a n d its em pl oyee s D avi d G oyer , B ec ky F ra se r, R ayS ando val , C hri s G ai l , and D er ek P r e s t e s a t e r , a l l e gi ng tha ti ns pe c t i ons , pe r f orm e d pur s ua ntt o s e a r c h w a rr a nt s f or c ode vi ol a t i ons a tthe O r ovi l l e I nn a nd as ubs e que ntN ot i c e t o R e pa i rorD e m ol i s h, vi ol at ed thei r F i rs t , F ou rth, F i fth, and F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh t s. T he di stri ct c o u rtg r a n t e d s u mma ry j u d g me n to n a l l c l a i ms . W e a f f i rm. 1. T he i ns pe c t i on w a rr a nt s w e r e notf a c i a l l yi nva l i d. I ti s undi s put e d tha tthe C i ty observed the prop erty i n d i l api dat ed cond i t i on s w hi l e r es po nd i ng t o a fi re al arm atthe Inn. T here af t er , the F i re M ar shal l and cod e i nspect or ob se rved s p e c if ic c o d e v io la tio n s w h e n th e yw e n t to th e I n n to ta lkto th e m a in te n a n c e m a n . T h e s e p la in v ie w o b s e rv a tio n s o f h e a lth a n ds a f

e tyv io la tio n s a r e s u f

f ic ie n t to c r e a te p r o b ab le c au s e f

o ras e a r c h w a rr an t. See Mi chi ga n v. T yler , 436 U . S . 499, 509 ( 1978) ( “ [ I ] tw oul d de f y r e a s on t o s uppos e tha tf i r e m e n m us ts e c ur e aw a rr a nt orc ons e ntbe f

or e e nt e r i ng aburni ng s truc tur e t o putoutthe bl a z e . A nd onc e i n a b u ild in g f

o rth is p u rp o s e , f

ir e f ig h te r s m a ys e iz e e v id e n c e o f a r s o n th a t is in p la in v ie w .” ) ; Cam ara v. Mun . Cou rt of C i t y andCnt

y. of Sa n Francisc o , 387 U . S . 523, 53 8 (19 67 ) ( “ W here consi dera t i on s of hea l th and sa fe ty are i nv ol ved, the fa ct s that w o u ld ju s tif

y a n in f e r e n c e o f ‘p r o b ab le c au s e ’ to m a k e a n in s p e c tio n a r e c le a r ly3

di ff er entfr om tho se thatw ou l d j ust i fysuch an i nfer ence w here a c ri m i nal i nv es t i gat i on has bee n u nd ert aken. ”) . 2. T he se ar ch w arrant s w er e notexce ss i ve i n scope. T he af fi davi tprov i ded s u f f ic ie n t in f o rm a tio n f

o ram a g is tr a te to c o n c lu d e th a t th e e n tir e p r e m is e s h a d to b e s e a r c h e d f

o rh e a lth a n d s a f

e tyc o d e v io la tio n s . Se e D a w s o n v . C ityo f Se a ttle , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “B e c au s e th e w a rr a n ts s p e c if ie d th e c r im e to be i nve s t i ga t e d, the s pe c i f i c pl a c e s t o be s e a r c he d, a nd the type s of e vi de nc e t o be s e i z e d, the y pr ovi de d s uf f i c i e ntgui da nc e t o the he a l th i nve s t i ga t or s e xe c ut i ng the w arrant . ”) . 3 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin ru lin g th a t th e s e a r c h e s w e r e n o t r e ta lia to ry . A ppe l l a nt s f

a i l e d t o pr oduc e a ny m a t e r i a l f a c tde m ons tr a t i ng tha tr e t a l i a t i on f or litig a tio n a g a in s t th e C ityw a s a“s u b s ta n tia l” f a c to rin s e a r c h in g th e I n n . See Sor anno’s G as c o, I

nc . v . Mor

gan , 874 F . 2d 1310, 1314 ( 9th C i r . 1989) . H e r e , the C ityr e s p o n d e d to af

ir e a t A p p e lla n ts ’ p r o p e rtys e v e n m o n th s a f te rA p p e lla n ts f ile d th e irla w s u it a g a in s t th e C ity . W h ile r e s p o n d in g to th e f ir e a la rm , th e C ity obs e rve d he a l th a nd s a f e ty c ode vi ol a t i ons , w hi c h w e r e the ba s i s f ors e a r c hi ng the I n n . T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d th a t th e C ityc o n d u c te d th e in s p e c tio n s in r e ta lia tio n f

o rth e e a r lie ra c tio n . See A rpi n v. Sa nta C lara V al leyT ransp. A gency , 261 F . 3d 912, 922 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ [ C ] onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons uns upport e d by4

f a c tua l da t aa r e i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o de f

e a tthe [ D e f

e nda nt s ’ ] s um m a ryj udgm e nt m ot i on . ”) . 4 . T o p r e v a il in a§ 1 9 8 3 c la im f o rap r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n , a pl a i nt i f f m us ts how de pr i va t i on of apr ot e c t e d pr ope rtyorl i be rtyi nt e r e s tw i thout b e in g g iv e n d u e p r o c e s s . B d. o f R eg e n ts v . R o th , 40 8 U . S . 56 4, 56 9-70 (197 2). T h e is s u a n c e o f

th e N o tic e to R e p a iro rD e m o lis h ( N o tic e ) w ith o u t ah e a r in g d id no tvi ol at e A pp el l ant s’ procedural du e proces s r i gh t s. A pp el l ant s do n otas se rtthat the C i ty s e i z e d the i rpr ope rty nordo the ya s s e rttha tC a l i f orni al a w r e qui r e d a h e a r in g p r io rto th e is s u a n c e o f th e N o tic e . T h u s , A p p e lla n ts f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e y h a d ap r o p e rtyin te r e s t in ah e a r in g b e f o r e r e c e iv in g th e N o tic e . A p p e lla n ts m a k e n o a r g u m e n t a s to h o w th e yw e r e d e p r iv e d o f alib e rty in te r e s t, th e r e b y w a iv in g th is is s u e . Se e Gr e e n wo o d v . F. A. A. , 28 F . 3d 971, 977 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( “ W e r e vi e w onl yi s s ue s w hi c h a r e a r gue d s pe c i f i c a l l ya nd di st i nct l y i n a party' s openi ng bri ef . W e w i l l no tm anufacture argum ent s f or an appel l ant , and a bare a ss ert i on do es no tpres erve a c l ai m , part i cul ar l y w hen, as h e r e , ah o s t o f

o th e ris s u e s a r e p r e s e n te d f o rr e v ie w .” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . 5 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin ru lin g th a t th e s e a r c h e s a n d th e N o tic e d id notvi ol a t e A ppe l l a nt s ’ s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s r i ght s . T he a c t i ons of the A p p e lle e s w e r e r a tio n a llyr e la te d to ale g itim a te g o v e rn m e n t in te r e s t. A rm e n da r iz5

v . P e nm an , 7 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) , ov e rr ule d on othe rgr ounds by Crow n P oi ntD ev . , Inc. v. C i t y of Su n V al ley , 506 F . 3d 851, 856- 57 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( “ T he C i ty ha s a n obvi ous i nt e r e s ti n pr e ve nt i ng s a f e tya nd s a ni t a t i on ha z a r ds by enforci ng the ho usi ng code. ”) . 6. B e c aus e the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s of A ppe l l a nt s w e r e notvi ol a t e d, w e do not ad d ress A p p el l an t s’ rem ai n i n g cl ai m s. AF F I RME D.