In an action claiming that defendant city and county failed to provide plaintiffs, Latino residents of neighborhoods in the city, with adequate municipal services for discriminatory reasons, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) given defendants' evidence of a lack of disparity in actual access to sewer services, plaintiffs' statistical evidence was insufficient to give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent; and 2) defendant-county presented valid reasons why it chose to undertake certain infrastructure projects first. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the parties' 2004 property tax agreement as merely an automatic renewal of a past action, and thus dismissing plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds; and 2) plaintiffs presented evidence of the discriminatory impact of certain city policies which, in turn, created a sufficient inference of discriminatory intent.
Read Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. Modesto, No. 07-16715
Appellate Information
Argued and Submitted May 11, 2009
Filed October 8, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Pollak
Counsel
For Appellants:
Brian Brosnahan, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, San Francisco, CA
For Appellee:
John E. McDermott, Howrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA
