The plaintiffs brought action against the defendants alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to U.S.C. § 1983, for unfair competition and interference with economic advantage. The plaintiffs contend that the City enforced all zoning restrictions against them while ignoring the violations of Defendant Shirazi. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court first looked at the equal protection clause, which “forbids the establishment of laws which arbitrarily and unreasonably create dissimilar classifications of individuals when, looking to the purpose of those laws, such individuals are similarly situated.” Furthermore, “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitution violation so long as the selection was not deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.”
The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause as they have failed to allege that they are similarly situated to any person who was treated differently. The Court found that Defendant Shirazi was unlike the plaintiffs by engaging in numerous violations of zoning regulations and had applied for a CUP. The plaintiffs also fail to allege a discriminatory motive. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the first and third causes of action was granted with leave to amend. Since the first and third causes were the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court did not consider the remaining claims.
Andy’s BP, Inc., v. City of San Jose, 2012 WL 2340072 (N.D.Cal.6/6/ 2012)