UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NANUBHAI M. PATEL; No. 22-55294 LALITABEN N. PATEL; VIMAL NANU PATEL; VIMAL, INC., a D.C. No. California corporation, 8:21-cv-01707- DOC-KES Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. OPINION CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2023 * Pasadena, California

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 PATEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Filed July 11, 2023

Before: Susan P. Graber and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges, and John R. Tunheim,** District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

SUMMARY ***

42 U.S.C. § 1983 / Pre-Seizure Notice

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which plaintiffs alleged that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department violated their constitutional rights by failing to provide pre-seizure notice. The Sheriff’s Department seized $98,000 from Plaintiffs pursuant to a state court judgment. The panel concluded that the district court correctly held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of procedural due process. The panel considered the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), factors: the competing interests at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures, and the value of substitute procedures. First, the competing interests strongly weighed

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the ** District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PATEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 3

against a conclusion that plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights were violated. The City as creditor had a clear interest in collecting the money judgment because it prevailed before the California trial court and on appeal, and plaintiffs did not allege that the funds were exempt or were needed for subsistence. Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation under California’s procedures was small because the procedures required the clerk of the court only to transcribe the amount of the money judgment and take account of statutory defenses like the exemptions asserted by a judgment debtor. Finally, given the small risk of erroneous deprivation, the value of the substitute procedure proposed by plaintiffs did not outweigh the strong interests of the City. The judgment put plaintiffs on notice to apply for exemptions, which plaintiffs did not do. In addition, courts have largely rejected the suggestion that pre-deprivation notice is constitutionally required. 4 PATEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

COUNSEL Frank A. Weiser, Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Amber A. Logan, Logan Mathevosian & Hur LLP, Los Angeles, California; Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorney; Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney; Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney; Los Angeles, California; Henry P. Nelson, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Nanubhai M. Patel, Lalitaben N. Patel, Vimal Nanu Patel, and Vimal, Inc