Laserfiche WebLink
<br />[' <br />i <br /> <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Special I~SJ1e: Biweekly Edition- Page 5 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />complied with Sinkiewicz's request. <br />A week before the scheduled departurepf the Makdessians, the second <br />hearing in front of the zoning administrator took place. The Makdessians at- <br />tended the hearing with an attorney, ,but did not challenge the alternative con- <br />ditions to the original permit that the zoning administrator then imposed. <br />The Makdessians sued, claiming that the city violated their procedural <br />due process rights by moving the case from the city council to the zoning <br />administrator. The district court found thi~t the city did not deprive the <br />Makdessians of any property right, so no procedural due,process violation <br />occurred. The district court ruled for the icity, and the Makdessians ap- <br />pealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The court found that the districtqourt rightJ,yfound in favor of the city. <br />The court explained that for a successful procedural due process violation <br />claim, the Makdessians would have had to establish that the state, while acting <br />"under color of state law," denied the Makdessians of a U.S. constitutional or <br />federal right. While the court admitted that the Makdessians did establish that <br />the city acted under color of law in its actions', it did not fInd that the actions of <br />the city rose to a denial of rights. <br />Until the fInal hearing, the Makdessiansoperated their shop under the <br />terms of the original conditionalq.se permit. After the final hearing, the <br />Makdessians could have continued t:ljeirworlc at the shop under the new terms <br />of the permit, appealed the case back to the citY council, or sought a court order <br />from the state's superior court. "Instead, they chose to vacate the premises." <br />Thus, the city never deprived the Makdessi$1s of any right. <br />Also, although 'the city may have violatedla municipal ordinance when they <br />referred the pending case back to the zonillg administrator, the notice, two <br />proceedings, and availability of further appeal were sufficient to correct any <br />defect in procedural due process caused by the error. <br />The lower court's decision was thereby affirmed. <br />see also: Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. ,v. County of San Luis Obispo, 841 F.2d <br />872 (1987). <br />see also: Kerley [j~dustries Inc. v. PimaCou.nty, 785 F.2d 1444 (1986). <br /> <br />'. . <br />.. ..' <br />Editor's Note: Because Warren had a legitimate propertY interest that <br />was impacted by the city's actiOn, the d()llrt noted that'(i~~tain proce~ . <br />dures should be granted to him.'rhesepJ."ocedural rigl1ts included no- <br />tice of the government's actionssan eXjplanation of the government's' <br />rationale in taking such actions; and an;opp~rhinity for Warren to tell <br />his side of the story. <br /> <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. QuinlanTMj~ $ Thomsoll Weslbrarrd. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />161 <br />