Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jason P. SHURNAS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jan Lynn OWEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight (formerly State of California Department of Corporations) and State of California, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Jason Shurnas appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his first amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Morrison v. Peterson, 809 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 2015).
Shurnas contends that section 25532 of the California Corporations Code is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide sufficient notice that a recipient must request a hearing within 30 days after receiving a desist-and-refrain order. Shurnas’s challenge fails because section 25532 adequately describes the remedies available to a recipient of a desist-and-refrain order, and the state is not required to provide “individualized notice of state-law remedies.” City of W. Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 241, 119 S.Ct. 678, 142 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because any amendment would have been futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
To the extent that Shurnas attempts to challenge section 25532 on the ground that it does not comply with procedural due process under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), such a challenge was not argued specifically and distinctly in his opening brief. Because “[w]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief,” Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994), we do not address it.1
AFFIRMED
FOOTNOTES
1. We deny Owen’s motion to strike Shurnas’s Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter as moot.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-17277
Decided: February 26, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)