Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution” | holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution” | holding that a takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution” | concluding that a plaintiff “complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” where § 1983 “was available . . . but plaintiff failed to file its complaint within the applicable limitations period” | stating that a “litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” | stating that a “litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” | holding plaintiff had no direct right of action under Constitution and was required to have asserted claim for constitutional violation through § 1983 | stating that there is “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution” and thus “a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” | explaining that there is “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution . . . a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | dismissing appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where federal takings claim was not brought under § 1983 | finding plaintiff had “no cause of action directly under the United States 7 || Constitution.” | dismissing appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where federal takings claim was not brought under § 1983 | “[A] litigant complaining of a 11 violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “[L]itigant[s] 23 complaining of a violation of constitutional rights must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “a litigant complaining of a violation of a 24 constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution …. [A] litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citing cases) | “Plaintiff has no cause of 3 action directly under the United States Constitution. . . . [A] litigant complaining of a 4 violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. We have previously held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. . . . [A] litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citing cases) | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. We have previously held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. We have previously held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. We have previously held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. We have previously held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly 2 under the United States Constitution.” | “Plaintiff has no cause 19 of action directly under the United States Constitution.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly 13 under the United States Constitution.” | “[A] litigant complaining of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” | “Plaintiff has no cause of action directly 6 under the United Sta