Jesse Elizondo v. City of Junction City
669 F. App'x 855
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jesse and Randee Elizondo sought a preliminary injunction to stop the City of Junction City from removing a maple tree located in front of their home.
- The City decided to remove the tree because it violated a 30-foot visual setback at an intersection, had buckled nearby sidewalk, and interfered with installing an ADA-compliant ramp.
- The Elizondos argued the City violated their procedural due process rights and the Equal Protection Clause by removing the tree.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction; the Elizondos appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and reviewed underlying legal questions de novo, then affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elizondos were denied procedural due process before tree removal | City failed to provide adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard | City held public meetings, considered Elizondos’ arguments, and gave adequate explanation | Denied — process was adequate (notice, explanation, opportunity to be heard) |
| Whether City violated Equal Protection by treating Elizondos differently | City treated them differently than other property owners without rational basis | Other properties were not similarly situated; City had rational bases (cost, uniform aesthetics) | Denied — no showing of disparate treatment of similarly situated persons and City had rational bases |
| Standard of review for the injunction denial | N/A (procedural posture) | N/A | District court’s denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal issues reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- DISH Network Corp. v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary injunction denials)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (abuse of discretion defined as legal error or clearly erroneous factual assessment)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction factors)
- Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) (application of Winter in Ninth Circuit)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural due process requires notice, explanation, opportunity to respond)
- Gerhart v. Lake Cty., Mont., 637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (Equal Protection requires intentional differential treatment of similarly situated persons)
- Seeboth v. Allenby, 789 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding state determination of dissimilarity supports rational basis)
- Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1981) (aesthetics can be legitimate rational basis for zoning decisions)