Peyman Pakdel; Sima Chegini v. City

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
P EYMAN P AKDEL; S IMA C HEGINI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
C ITY AND C OUNTY OF S AN
FRANCISCO; S AN FRANCISCO B OARD
OF S UPERVISORS ; S AN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF P UBLIC WORKS ,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17504
D.C. No.
3:17-cv-03638-
RS
ORDER
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Filed August 6, 2021
Before: Ronald M. Gould, Carlos T. Bea, and
Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.
Order

-- 1 of 2 --

2 P AKDEL V . C ITY & C TY. OF S AN FRANCISCO
COUNSEL
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.

-- 2 of 2 --