Summary
denying plaintiff's claim that the "mere fact that the hearing examiner was employed by the agency — or the City — was sufficient to show a due process violation because the officer who ordered the towing and storage worked for the agency also"
Summary of this case from Hupp v. City of Walnut CreekOpinion
No. 00-57091.
Filed July 7, 2003.
William A. Kent, Esq., Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Dorothy Berry, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Renee J. Laurents, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
ORDER
The district court issued an order granting summary judgment against Edwin F. David in his action against the City of Los Angeles. We affirmed on most issues. However, we reversed on David's claim that the delay in holding a hearing after David's car was seized violated his due process rights. See David v. City of Los Angeles, 307 F.3d 1143, 1145-47 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court disagreed with our disposition of that issue and reversed our decision in that respect. See City of Los Angeles v. David, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1895, 155 L.Ed.2d 946 (2003).
Therefore, based upon the decision of the Supreme Court, we affirm the district court's judgment in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.