United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment of claims against defendant’s denial of continual use permit applications for telecommunications facilities is: 1) reversed in part, where defendant did not violate the time limits of the California Permit Streamlining Act as public notice did not occur prior to permit denial; and affirmed on all other claims, where: 2) under the Telecommunications Act, defendant’s decision to deny the permit applications was supported by substantial evidence; 3) plaintiff could not prevail under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 because it did not have a fundamental vested right to the continued use of its facilities; and 4) permit denial did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was rationally related to legitimate state interests.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/14/2014
• Published 08/14/2014

Judges

• Bybee

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel