N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JULIET ERIC KSON, a

n individual; PETER LOC KYER , a

n individual, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C OUNTY OF NEVADA, by and through its B o ard of Supe rvisors, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15624 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02880-JAM
C KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, IKUTA, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Julie t Eric kson a

nd Pe t e r Loc ky e r a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of the C ounty

of Ne va da ’ s m otion to dism i ss. Eric kson a

nd Loc k y e r c la im tha t the 

# F IL ED JUN 08 2015 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ounty

of Ne va d a

viola te d the i r rights unde r the Equa l Prote c tion C l a use by fa iling to a

pply the C ounty ’ s “ V isua lly

Im p o rtant R idge line s a

nd Vie wshe ds” (“ VIR ” ) la

nd use c ode to both the ir proje c t a nd a c e ll towe r proje c t propose d by C om ple te W ire le ss C onsulting, Inc . (“ C W C ” ) on a dja c e nt prope rty . Assum ing without de c iding tha t the C ounty

should ha

ve a pplie d the VIR
c ode to C W C ’ s c e ll towe r proje c t, the hom e owne rs ha ve ne ve rthe l e ss fa ile d to
ra ise a va lid e qua l prote c tion c la im . Partie s a lle ge dly tre ate d diffe re ntly

in viola tion of theEqua l Prote c tion C la use are sim ila

rly situa te d only whe n the y are

“ argua bly indistinguisha

ble .” Se e Engquist v
. Or. De p’t of Agric
. , 553 U.S. 591, 601 (2008) (quota

tion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d); se e also Squaw Valle y De v . C o. v . Goldbe rg , 375 F.3d 936, 942, 945 (9th C i r. 2004) (holding tha t stre am pollute rs we re not simila

rly situa te d de spite at le a st one sha re d c ha ra c te ristic ), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Lingle

v . C he v ron U.S.A. Inc
. , 544 U.S. 528 (2005). He re , Eric kson a

nd Loc ky e r a

re not a rgua b ly indistinguisha

b l e from C W C for m any re a s ons: oneis a

priva te hom e owne r, the othe r a c om m e rc ia l busine ss; one would build for priva

te use , the othe r would providea se rvic e for public use ; one se e ks to build a la rge , solid ga

ra ge an d offic e struc ture , the othe r se e ks to build a
c om m unic ations tower.

2W e m a y a ffirm the distric t c o urt on a

ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c ord. Se e More n o v . Bac a , 431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a u se the pla intiffs a

nd C W C a re not “ argua

bly indistinguisha

ble ,” se e Enquist , 553 U.S. a t 601 (quota

tion
m arks a nd c ita tion omitte d), the distric t c ourt wa s c o rre c t in c onc luding tha t the pa rtie s we re not simila

rly situa te d for purpose s of the Equa l Prote c t ion C l a use . Nor did the distric t c ourt e rr in de ny ing Eric kson a nd Loc ky e r the opportunity

to a m e nd the i r c om

pla i nt. In light of our c onc lusion tha t the pa rtie s are n ot simila

rly situa te d, a m e ndm e nt would ha

ve be e n futile
. Se e Saul v . Unite d State s , 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th C ir. 1991). AFFIRM E D. 1

1 Appe lla nts’ re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d with this c ourt on Fe brua ry 14, 2014, is GR

ANTED. Appe lle e ’ s re que sts for judic ia l notic e , file d with this c ourt on August 29, 2013 a nd Oc tobe r 1, 2014, a

re GR ANTED. In light of the

C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision in Loc k y e r v . C ounty of N e v ada , No. C O75249, 2014 W L 4805118 (C a l. C t. App. Se pt. 29, 2014), Appe l la n ts’ M o tion to Apply C olla te ra l Estoppe l Aga inst R e sponde n t, file d with this c ourt on Fe brua

ry 14, 2014, is DENIED a s m oot.

3