Peyman Pakdel v. City and Cty. of S.f.Peyman Pakdel v. City and Cty. of S.f.
ORDER
Order
Jeffrey W. McCoy, James S. Burling, and Erin E. Wilcox, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; Paul F. Utrecht, Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP, San Francisco, California; Thomas W. Connors, Black McCuskey Souers & Arbaugh, LPA, Canton, Ohio; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kristen A. Jensen and Christopher T. Tom, Deputy City Attorneys; Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; City Attorney‘s Office, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER
The Supreme Court has vacated the previous judgment in this case and remanded the case for further proceedings. Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 141 S. Ct. 2226 (2021). The Supreme Court also suggested that Plaintiffs’ takings theories should be reevaluated in light of its decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021). See Pakdel, 141 S. Ct. at 2229 n.1.
Accordingly, the panel opinion, 952 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2020), and the accompanying memorandum disposition, 798 F. App‘x 162 (9th Cir. 2020), are vacated. We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court in Pakdel and Cedar Point Nursery.