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

768 chars
Next, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor *477of the City and Councilman Svorinich on the retaliation claim. A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is a ruling on a question of law reviewed de novo. See Cohen v. Stratosphere Corp., 115 F.3d 695, 700 (9th Cir.1997). A dismissal with leave to amend is also reviewed de novo. See Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir.1996). If matters outside the pleadings are considered, the motion to dismiss is to be treated as one for summary judgment. See Keams v. Tempe Technical Institute, Inc., 110 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir.1997). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Waste Action Project v. Dawn Mining Corp., 137 F.3d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir.1998).