TED PAPAS V. CHARLES LEONARD, No. 12-35467 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TED PAPAS; ARCADIA ENTERPRISES, INC., an Oregon corporation; DOWNTOWN DELI AND GREEK CUSINA, an Oregon corporation, AKA Downtown Delicatessen, Inc., No. 12-35467 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00550-BR MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHARLES RANDALL (RANDY) LEONARD; CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2013** Portland, Oregon Before: ALARCĂ N, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court s order granting Defendants-Appellees (Defendants) motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the district court s conclusions that they: (1) failed to state a cognizable equal protection claim; (2) failed to produce evidence demonstrating that Defendants engaged in First Amendment retaliation; and (3) failed to produce evidence demonstrating that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs economic relations, in violation of Oregon law. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment as a class-of-one, in violation of the Equal Protection clause. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs allegedly disparate treatment was the result of discretionary decisionmaking, and the class-of-one theory is not cognizable with regard to discretionary actions. Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 660 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 603 (2008)). With regard to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim, Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence showing that a desire to chill speech was the but-for cause of Defendants allegedly retaliatory conduct. Dietrich v. John Ascuaga s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900 01 (9th Cir. 2008). Absent such causal evidence, Plaintiffs First Amendment claim fails. Finally, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs economic relations, because Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Defendants acted through improper means or with an improper motive. See Nw. Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 982 P.2d 1117, 1123 24 (Or. 1999). For the foregoing reasons, the district court properly granted DefendantsAppellees motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
