Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)

Citation
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Parent Document
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Effective Date
1998-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (64)

Full Text

1,083 chars
Legislators are entitled to “absolute common-law immunity against civil suits for their legislative acts, which is parallel to the immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause.” Chappell v. Robbins, 73 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1996). In other words, legislators have absolute immunity when they “act in their legislative capacities, not in their administrative or executive capacities.” Chateaubriand v. Gaspard, 97 F.3d 1218, 1220 (9th Cir.1996). In this circuit, we determine whether an act is legislative by considering two questions: (1) whether the act involves “ad hoc decisionmaking, or the formulation of policy;” and (2) whether the act applies “to a few individuals, or to the public at large.” Chappell, 73 F.3d at 920; see also Bogan v. Scott-Harris, — U.S.-,-, 118 S.Ct. 966, 972, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (“Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities.”). The district court’s application of legislative immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Trevino v. Gates, 23 F.3d 1480, 1481 (9th Cir.1994).