Schneider et al v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 128

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/15/2016 ORDERING The Hardestys did not produce evidence that would allow a rational trier of fact to find defendants Testa or Norris deprived the Hardestys of a constitutionally protected right or intended to drive the mining operation out of business. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the substantive due process claim against both. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOSEPH HARDESTY and YVETTE
HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-2414-KJM-KJN

v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

JAY SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

No. 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN
ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

24
25

On June 9, 2016, the court issued an order on the parties’ motions for summary

26

judgment in the partially consolidated cases captioned above. Order June 9, 2016, ECF No. 283.

27

Defendant Stephen Testa requests clarification of the court’s ruling as to Joseph and Yvette

28

Hardesty’s ninth claim, asserted against him among several other defendants. ECF No. 284.
1

1

Defendant Gay Norris also requests the court make clear its reasons for granting her motion for

2

summary judgment on the same claim. Id.

3

The Hardestys’ ninth claim alleges the defendants substantively deprived them of

4

due process. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 192–204, ECF No. 74. In short, they allege the defendants

5

drove their sand and gravel mining operation out of business by arbitrarily enforcing the

6

California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 2710

7

et seq., at the behest of legislators and the Hardestys’ competitors. The Hardestys did not produce

8

evidence that would allow a rational trier of fact to find defendants Testa or Norris deprived the

9

Hardestys of a constitutionally protected right or intended to drive the mining operation out of

10

business. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the substantive due process claim

11

against both. See Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (“To state a substantive

12

due process claim, the plaintiff must show as a threshold matter that a state actor deprived it of a

13

constitutionally protected life, liberty or property interest.”); id. at 1088 (“[O]nly ‘egregious

14

official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense’: it must amount to an

15

‘abuse of power’ lacking any ‘reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental

16

objective.’” (quoting Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998)).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 15, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2