Case Name: NEIGHBORS FOR NOTICE LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development; Diane Sigimura, Director, Department of Planning and Development, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-12
Citations: 639 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 13-36054
Parties: NEIGHBORS FOR NOTICE LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development; Diane Sigimura, Director, Department of Planning and Development, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, CALLAHAN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
NEIGHBORS FOR NOTICE LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development; Diane Sigimura, Director, Department of Planning and Development, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-36054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 2016.
Filed May 12, 2016.
John Eugene Glowney, Margarita V. Latsindva, Maren R. Norton, Stoel Rives, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Patrick Downs, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.'
Before: RAWLINSON, CALLAHAN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Neighbors For Notice LLC (Neighbors) challenges the district court's dismissal of its complaint alleging that Ap-pellee City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development (Department) violated Neighbors' due process rights when it approved a lot boundary adjustment without public notice. Neighbors contends that it has a protected property interest in challenging the Department's land-use decision pursuant to Washington's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), see RCW § 36.70C.005, a single-family zoning ordinance limiting minimum lot sizes to 5,000 square feet (SF 5000), see Seattle Municipal Code § 23.44.010, and the Washington Subdivision Act. See RCW § 58.17.010.
The district court properly dismissed Neighbors' LUPA claim on the basis that LUPA does not provide a cognizable property interest in these circumstances. "Not every procedural requirement ordained by state law . creates a substantive property interest entitled to constitutional protection." Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.2008) (citations omitted). "Rather, only those rules or understandings that support legitimate claims of entitlement give rise to protected property interests." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Washington Supreme Court, LUPA was enacted "to reform the process for judicial review of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions, by establishing uniform, expedited appeal procedures and uniform criteria for reviewing such decisions, in order to provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review." Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash.2d 300, 217 P.3d 1179, 1183 (2009) (en banc) (citations and footnote reference omitted). This procedural-process purpose in no way "creates a substantive property interest entitled to constitutional protection." Shanks, 540 F.3d at 1091; see also Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 182 Wash.2d 55, 340 P.3d 191, 202 (2014) (en banc) (concluding that the plaintiff had "no claim [under LUPA] because he [did] not have a sufficient property interest to require that notice be given to him") (footnote reference omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Although the parties focused on Neighbors' LUPA claim at oral argument, SF 5000 and the Washington Subdivision Act do not create cognizable property interests either. See Durland, 340 P.3d at 200 (rejecting a due process claim because "there is no mandatory language [in the local code] giving rise to a protected property interest").