that the procedures, as applied, are insufficient to afford due process. Doc. No. 13 at 15, 22 (arguing that the Echo Park Injunction “deprives [Plaintiff] of basic constitutionally protected freedoms” because “the post-deprivation remedies provided by the City are insufficient”) (emphasis added); see also Doc. No. 59 at 28 (“The pleadings the City relies upon confirm that the due process claim invoked [before the superior court] was against the issuance of. the injunction, not its individual application.”) (emphasis added). “[I]t is well-established that the facial upholding of a law does not prevent future as-applied challenges.” In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 430 (5th Cir. 2010); see, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act holding that the plaintiff could bring an asapplied challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act despite the court upholding the statute on its face holding that grandparents standing to bring suit under a custody statute was not a jurisdictional question that the court of appeals could raise on its own motion holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations