LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTRUCTION, HEALTH LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
• Garcia v. Brockway

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Levine v. City of Alameda

CIVIL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INDIAN LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Lawrence v. Dep't of the Interior

COMMERCIAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
• N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTRUCTION, HEALTH LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
Garcia v. Brockway, No. 05-35647
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments) Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Levine v. City of Alameda, No. 06-15480, 06-15481
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a city property manager against defendants-city and city manager alleging a due process violation stemming from his lay off, partial summary judgment for plaintiff and defendants is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding that: 1) plaintiff's procedural due process rights were violated and that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral third-party; and 2) the city manager was not personally liable based on qualified immunity and the city was not liable as a municipality. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INDIAN LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Lawrence v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 06-35448
In an action brought by an Indian tribe member employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) challenging the denial of increased retirement benefits payable to employees whose duties included firefighting, summary judgment for the BIA is affirmed where: 1) the government did not waive the time limit of 5 C.F.R. section 831.906(e) by failing to provide actual notice of the new time limit for filing to current employees; 2) the federal government's trust responsibility toward Indian tribes imposes no special notice obligation beyond that enunciated in the aforementioned rule; 3) the Indian Preference Act does not apply, and the regular provisions of the Civil Service Regulations govern plaintiff as they do any other employee; and 4) summary judgment on a disparate impact claim was proper. Read more...

COMMERCIAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, No. 05-16069
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits. Read more...