Pacific Community Resource Center v. City of Glendale ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PACIFIC COMMUNITY RESOURCE No. 15-35280
CENTER, (PCRC); MICHAEL J.
CASSIDY, Director, Pacific Community D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01272-MC
Resource Center,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF GLENDALE, OREGON, City
Staff and Council Members; FRED
JENSEN, Mayor; BETTY STANFIL, City
Manager; KAREN MEHL, Council
Member; ALLEN KING, Council Member;
AUDINA JEPHSON, Council Member; JIM
E. STANDARD, Council Member; BILL
BOAL, Council Member; CONNIE
STEVENS, Council Member,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,** District
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the
Judge.
Pacific Community Resource Center and Michael J. Cassidy (collectively,
“PCRC”) appeal from the jury verdict and judgment in favor of the City of
Glendale, Oregon and various city officials (collectively, “City”). PCRC’s failure
to designate the judgment in its Notice of Appeal, as required by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B), is not a jurisdictional bar because PCRC’s intent
to appeal the judgment can be fairly inferred and the omission did not prejudice the
City. Lynn v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 804 F.2d 1472, 1481 (9th Cir.
1986). We therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
PCRC challenges the district court’s jury instruction that “[t]o establish a
‘class of one’ claim under the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs must demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) defendants intentionally treated
plaintiffs differently from others similarly situated; and (2) there was no rational
basis for this difference in treatment.” PCRC contends that the district court
misstated the law by not instructing the jury that the City bore an initial burden of
providing a rational basis for treating PCRC differently than others similarly
situated.
PCRC did not contemporaneously object to the district court’s instruction,
and such an objection would not have been pointless under the circumstances.
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
2
Because PCRC did not properly preserve its challenge, we have discretion to
review the district court’s instruction for, at most, plain error. Chess v. Dovey, 790
F.3d 961, 970–71 (9th Cir. 2015); C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1016–18
(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). Under plain error review, we
consider “whether (1) there was an error; (2) the error was obvious; and (3) the
error affected substantial rights.” City of Sonora, 769 F.3d at 1018.
Applying this standard, the district court’s instruction was not plainly
erroneous. The final instruction correctly stated the law and comported with the
way in which this Court and the United States Supreme Court previously have
described the essential elements of a “class of one” claim. See Village of
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam); Gerhart v. Lake
Cty. Mont., 637 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2011); N. Pacifica LLC v. City of
Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3