MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiffs Petal Pushers & More, Deborah Westwood, and Mitchell Myers, the owners of a restaurant and bar in Hermi-ston, Oregon, named “Nookie’s,” appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Her-miston and Hermiston Police Chief Daniel Coulombe on all claims. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
1. Intentional Interference with Business Relationships
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim that the City intentionally interfered with their business relationships with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission and Nookie’s customers. With respect to their relationships with the OLCC, even assuming that Westwood and Myers were real parties in interest, the district court correctly ruled that Plaintiffs failed to show actual interference with those relationships, as Nookie’s was still able to use its liquor license to the fullest extent. Nookie’s remained open for business; Plaintiffs’ license was neither revoked nor suspended; and Plaintiffs conceded that the control plan that OLCC implemented did not have a negative impact on their business. Plaintiffs simply did not suffer any harm. To the extent Plaintiffs have argued that they incurred legal expenses, there is no evidence of a causal link between the purported interference and these putative damages. See Allen v. Hall, 328 Or. 276, 281, 974 P.2d 199, 202 (1999) (en banc) (stating that the fifth element of a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship is “a causal effect between the interference and the harm to the relationship or prospective advantage”).
With respect to their relationships with Nookie’s customers, there was no evidence that the alleged interference actually damaged those relationships. See id. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Nookie’s lost any profit due to reduced patronage.
2. Malicious Prosecution
We agree that summary judgment was warranted on Westwood’s state law and § 1983 malicious prosecution claims. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Westwood, the record supports the district court’s finding that the City had probable cause to prosecute Westwood under Oregon Revised Statutes § 162.235 for obstructing police officers’ investigation of the July 22, 2007, incident at Nookie’s. See Rogers v. Hill, 281 Or. 491, 497, 576 P.2d 328, 331-32 (1978) (en banc) (“The tort [of malicious prosecution] consists in initiating or procuring criminal proceedings, from an improper motive and without probable cause, against another who is not guilty of the offense charged, and who ultimately gains a favorable termination of the proceedings.”). Even if Officer Goiter did not ask to enter the bar and Westwood did not intend to prevent him from doing *730so, Westwood admitted that, while standing at the entrance with a security guard and making hand gestures, she told Officer Goiter that he was not needed. Westwood attributed her hand gestures to her habit of using her hands when she speaks. Under the circumstances it was not unreasonable for Officer Goiter to have thought that Westwood was implying that she would not let him in to investigate and that she had placed her hands up to block his entry. See Blandino v. Fischel, 179 Or.App. 185, 191, 39 P.3d 258, 261 (Or.Ct.App.2002) (“In the context of a malicious prosecution claim, ‘probable cause’ refers to the subjective and objectively reasonable belief that the defendant committed a crime.” (citing Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 269 Or. 354, 358, 525 P.2d 118 (1974))).
Nor did Westwood establish the elements of a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim. She failed to show malice or reckless disregard and did not rebut the presumption of independent judgment. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 482 (9th Cir.2007). That Coulombe recommended prosecution and issued a citation did not show that Deputy District Attorney Kemp was pressured or given false information. See id. (“[The presumption of independent judgment] may be rebutted by showing, for example, that the prosecutor was pressured or caused by the investigating officers to act contrary to his independent judgment or that the investigating officers presented the prosecutor with information known by them to be false.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
3. Procedural Due Process
We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim based on the deprivation of their property interest in goodwill failed because the record contains no evidence of Nookie’s goodwill. Under Oregon law, “goodwill may not be attributed to a business if there is no evidence in the record to support it.” In re Marriage of McDuffy, 184 Or.App. 359, 364, 56 P.3d 449, 452 (Or.Ct.App. 2002). We disagree with Plaintiffs that Defendants did not seek summary judgment on that ground, as Defendants argued in their summary judgment motion that Plaintiffs had offered “no proof that defendants’ actions caused the OLCC or any other person to view plaintiffs in a more negative light.”
Defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ other procedural due process claims. We agree with the district court that there was no evidence of injury, as Plaintiffs never actually lost an OLCC license, and, assuming without deciding that Plaintiffs had a liberty interest in operating Nookie’s, Plaintiffs fail to show how they were deprived of that interest.
4. Equal Protection
Finally, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the necessary elements of a “class of one” equal protection claim. See Gerhart v. Lake Cnty., Mont., 637 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir.2011). Although the district court failed to consider Karen Cranford’s declaration and Coulombe’s letter to the OLCC, that evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, did not establish that Nookie’s was treated differently than other similarly situated property owners. Plaintiffs failed to provide, for example, evidence of the type or frequency of police activity directed at other businesses in Hermiston. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.
Because Plaintiffs did not establish any constitutional violation, we do not reach the issues of municipal liability and qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.