Summary Judgment at 1-3 (CR 180). Finally, Appellants reasonably contend that the only reason they did not again specify the basis for their due process claims orally before the district court is that the court expressly indicated that it did not want to hear argument on the issue. Accordingly, we conclude that the goodwill and pursuit-of-oceupation claims were not waived, and proceed to consider whether Appellants should be allowed to pursue either of the claims on remand. 1. Business goodwill Appellants claim that the City’s acts deprived them of a property interest in the goodwill of their businesses. We look to state law to determine if business goodwill is properly characterized as a property interest. See, e.g., Saranno’s Gaseo, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Because the issue of whether Arizona law
holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived holding that a prisoner cannot be deprived of a protected liberty interest in goodtime credits without procedural due process holding that when a business purchases goodwill and a trade name it acquires a valuable property right and that is the right to inform the public that it possesses the experience and skill associated with the previous enterprise holding that where state law treats goodwill as property business goodwill is a property interest entitled to protection the owner cannot be deprived of it without due process holding that the root requirement of due process is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest