Pierce v. San Diego Unified Port District

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the San Diego Unified Port District on claims arising from the seizure and destruction of the vessel Castle. The court held that the Port had authority under applicable ordinances to seize and destroy the vessel, that the due process and negligence claims failed, and that the Port was entitled to impound-related costs on its counterclaim. The disposition was designated nonprecedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because the appellants did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the former Port Director's authority to allow and authorize the Castle to rest at the seizure location.
2. The Port was not required to seek an injunction because Unified Port District Code section 8.25 was in effect when the Castle was seized and did not require injunctive relief.
3. Those provisions did not apply to the Castle's seizure because sections 522 and 526 concern abandoned vessels without a watchman, while the Castle was not impounded as abandoned and had a watchman present.
4. The Port had authority under Unified Port District Code section 8.25(a)(4) to seize and destroy the Castle.
5. The negligence claim failed because the appellants identified no statute imposing a mandatory duty on the Port.
6. Because the impoundment was lawful, the district court properly granted the Port's counterclaim and awarded impound-related costs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellants presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the former Port Director's authority to authorize the Castle to rest at the location from which it was seized.
2. Whether the Port was required to seek an injunction to enforce Unified Port District Code section 4.35.
3. Whether California Harbor and Navigation Code sections 504, 522, or 526 applied to the seizure and destruction of the Castle.
4. Whether the Port owed a mandatory duty supporting the appellants' negligence claim.
5. Whether the district court properly granted the Port's counterclaim for impound-related costs.

Disposition

affirmed