Opinion ID: 1459865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Takings Clause and Conspiracy Claims

Text: Far less discussion is required to dispatch Association's Takings Clause and conspiracy claims arising from the labor negotiations that led to the Final Offer. Because, as we have held, the Final Offer did not affect any constitutionally protected interest, those claims also fail as a matter of law. As to the first of those claims, it founders under the principle succinctly stated in McIntyre v. Bayer, 339 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.2003): In order to state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first establish that he possesses a constitutionally protected property interest. And by the same token, the absence of any actionable constitutional violation negates by definition the existence of a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights ( Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989)). In summary, we also affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for Appellees on Association's Takings Clause and conspiracy claims that are premised on City's imposition of the 2005 Final Offer. And that means Association has struck out on all substantive aspects of its appeal.