Opinion ID: 2490
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Mathews Factor

Text: First, the private interest implicated in this case is strong. Spinelli's private interest is the interest in operating a business and, stated more broadly, pursuing a particular livelihood. See Tanasse v. City of St. George, 172 F.3d 63 (10th Cir.1999) (citing Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 113, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977)). The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the severity of depriving someone of his or her livelihood. FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 243, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 100 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Moreover, [b]ecause of the nature of this interest, a licensee erroneously deprived of a license cannot be made whole simply by reinstating the license. Tanasse, 172 F.3d 63. In fact, the interim period between erroneous deprivation and reinstatement can be financially devastating to the licensee. Id. The district court's conclusion that the extent of [Spinelli's] interest [in her deprived property] is not entirely clear to the Court, led it to erroneously discount Spinelli's interest in both her gun dealer license and her seized firearms. Without firearms to sell, Spinelli could not do business as a gun dealer at all, whether or not she had a dealer license. The first Mathews factor favors Spinelli.