Case Name: SYLDYLD, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. The CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, a subdivision of the State of California; Bill Lansdowne, in his individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of San Jose, California, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-16
Citations: 22 F. App'x 801
Docket Number: No. 00-15953; D.C. No. CV-99-20928-JF
Parties: SYLDYLD, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. The CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, a subdivision of the State of California; Bill Lansdowne, in his individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of San Jose, California, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
SYLDYLD, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. The CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, a subdivision of the State of California; Bill Lansdowne, in his individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of San Jose, California, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 00-15953.
D.C. No. CV-99-20928-JF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2001.
Decided Nov. 16, 2001.
Before CANEY, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff SYLDYLD, Inc., filed this action seeking injunctive relief and damages arising from the enforcement of towing ordinances by Defendants, the City of San Jose and San Jose Police Chief Bill Lans-downe. Plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of its case for failure to state a claim.
Shortly after Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal, this court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts towing ordinances materially indistinguishable from those at issue here. Tocher v. City of Santa Ana, 219 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1146, 121 S.Ct. 1085, 148 L.Ed.2d 960 (2001). Because Tocher controls our analysis, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the action.
We do not reach the merits of Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Defendant Lans-downe, however. Because the district court held that the ordinances are not preempted, it never reached the question whether Defendant Lansdowne is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We decline to address that question in the first instance.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.