Faust v. Walt Disney Co.

Full title: Kenneth L. FAUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Mark…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 28, 2001

22 F. App'x 825 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

22 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2001) Kenneth L. FAUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Mark Harrah, Claudia Arevelo, Jim Chaffee, City and County of San Francisco, Fred Lau, Dirk Beijen, Darcy Keller, John Loftus, Michael Biel and Daniel Yawczak, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-16052. D.C. No. CV-99-1386-MJJ. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 28, 2001

Submitted November 9, 2001 ¹.

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding.

Before NOONAN, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Appellant Kenneth L. Faust ("Faust") appeals from the district court's order of May 2, 2000 granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on Faust's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and dismissing pendent state law claims.

The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have jurisdiction on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The basic facts of this case were set forth by the district court in its order. Faust appeals contending that disputed material issues of fact remain.

Faust appeals from a summary judgment; therefore, we review the record of the district court de novo. Viewing the evidence in the light the most favorable to the non-moving party, we must determine if any issues of material fact exist. See Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir.1995).

Even accepting the facts that Faust disputes in the light most favorable to Faust, the district court was correct in concluding that the police had probable cause to arrest Faust under § 485 of the California Penal Code.

Because the police had probable cause to arrest Faust, no constitutional violation occurred and it is unnecessary to determine if the officers would benefit from qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). For the same reason, Faust's § 1983 claim against Disney must fail. The § 1983 claim against Disney must also fail because Faust's allegations against Disney fall far short of establishing that Disney should be treated as having acted under the color of state law. See Arnold v. International Business Machines, 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir.1981).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.