due to actions that substantively were “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 474 (9th Cir.1991) (citing Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass’n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398, 1407 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990) (quoting Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926))). As an initial matter, we note that the fact that the City temporarily banned one particular type of amusement game does not in itself establish that the City unduly interfered with either the game operators’ or manufacturer’s ability to pursue their livelihood in the amusement game industry. Cf. e.g., id. (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Di Martini v. Ferrin, 889
holding that a former bank president who alleged that he was wrongfully discharged as a result of the actions of a state banking official must show that the acts left him unable to pursue any comparable job in the banking industry holding that where debtor lends himself to a scheme or arrangement whereby the banking authority on which the fdic relied in insuring the bank was or was likely to be misled the debtor is estopped from denying the obligation of a facially unconditional note holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding that a debtor has an obligation to pursue other opportunities if unable to earn enough in his or her current job holding that defendants position as bank vice president which allowed him knowledge of the banking system and the operations of the bank as well as the ability to oversee commercial and real estate loans and to act as a compliance officer qualified as a position of trust