Opinion ID: 2974486
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: August 4th Resolutions

Text: Plaintiffs complain that at the September 11, 2003, meeting Committee members conspired to alter the minutes of the August 4, 2003, meeting with regard to resolutions passed at that meeting. Making sense of this claim from Plaintiffs’ brief has been no mean feat, but we are satisfied that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to support it. The district court held, and we agree, that Plaintiffs’ argument that these resolutions prevented Hodgson from ever operating the Theater is not tenable. The record does not support the claim that the Defendants altered the August 4th 11 resolutions. Furthermore, ROT eventually received permission to operate the Theater under some of the POs that it submitted for approval. Finally, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their procedural due process claim because they were entitled to no process whatsoever. As we have explained with regard to Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim, under the ordinance they did not fit within any of the categories of applicants who were entitled to submit a plan of operation and to be heard, and they therefore had no right to be heard and no legal interests to protect.