Case Name: William SEPATIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-12
Citations: 403 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 09-16537
Parties: William SEPATIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
William SEPATIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-16537.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2010.
Filed Nov. 12, 2010.
John H. Scott, Lizabeth N. De Vries, Esquire, Scott Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Meredith Blagden Osborn, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Norther District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William Sepatis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco and several police officers on his claim that the officers towed his car in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.
We affirm. Sepatis's evidence of retaliatory motive was very weak at best, and the officers unquestionably had probable cause to tow his car for investigation of a hit- and-run accident involving property damage. Summary judgment is appropriate in a case like this one involving "very strong evidence of probable cause and very weak evidence of a retaliatory motive." Dietrich v. John Ascuaga's Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir.2008). Because no reasonable jury could find in Sepatis's favor on his claim, we need not reach the question of whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.