v. City of San Buenaventura, 155 Cal. App.4th 104, 109, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 (2007) (“Persons dealing with a public agency are presumed to know the law with respect to any agency’s authority to contract”); Bollow v. Fed. Reserve Bank of San Francis co, 650 F.2d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir.1981) (federal employee charged with knowledge that his superior did not have legal authority to make assurances at issue: “it is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government’s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority”). Plaintiffs claims for violation of due process fail because the retirees have no vested property right to continue to receive the pooling benefit. See Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 872-73 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Plaintiff has not raised a genuine
holding due process requires that jurisdiction be based on more than a mere ownership interest in an entity located in the forum holding that unilateral expectation of continued service at a particular stateoperated leprosy hospital did not give rise to a due process claim holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim holding that a property interest sufficient to support a due process claim requires a binding assurance and not a mere unilateral expectation