Case Name: Lawrence RATTI, William Canning, David Householder, Joseph McCloskey, Thomas Flippin, Richard Correia, and George Nazzal, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipality; San Francisco Police Department, a municipal agency; The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, a municipal agency; Art Agnos, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-06-16
Citations: 966 F.2d 532
Docket Number: No. 91-15615
Parties: Lawrence RATTI, William Canning, David Householder, Joseph McCloskey, Thomas Flippin, Richard Correia, and George Nazzal, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipality; San Francisco Police Department, a municipal agency; The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, a municipal agency; Art Agnos, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BOOCHEVER, REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 966
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
Lawrence RATTI, William Canning, David Householder, Joseph McCloskey, Thomas Flippin, Richard Correia, and George Nazzal, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipality; San Francisco Police Department, a municipal agency; The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, a municipal agency; Art Agnos, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-15615.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 13, 1992.
Decided June 16, 1992.
Robert Gyemant, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Barron L. Weinstein, Deputy City Atty., Sán Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appel-lees.
Before: BOOCHEVER, REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned order of March 28, 1991 granting summary judgment. Furthermore, we do not find a basis for suspending the normal operation of the one year statute of limitations. We also note without deciding that the action is probably barred in light of Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2184 n. 2, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989).
AFFIRMED.