United States Ninth Circuit

In an action involving a municipal rent control ordinance, the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the complaint contained no claim upon which relief could be granted, because its as-applied takings claim was unripe; 2) its facial claims failed to satisfy the applicable statute of limitations; 3) its due process and equal protection claims lacked merit under the U.S. Constitution; 4) the principles of abstention justify the district court's dismissal of the petition for a writ of administrative mandamus; and 5) the appellate court declines to disturb the state trial court's subsequent decision denying the writ.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/07/2007
• Decided 11/25/2008
• Published 11/25/2008

Judges

• O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:, Before: CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, argued the cause for the petitioner/plaintiff-appellants;  Edith R. Matthai, Steven S. Fleishman, Robie & Matthai APC, Los Angeles, CA, and Elliot L. Bien, Bien & Summers LLP, Novato, CA, were on the briefs.


• For Appellees:
  
• Henry E. Heater, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater LLP, argued the cause for the respondents-appellees;  Timothy McNulty, San Luis Obispo County Counsel, San Luis Obispo, CA, and Donald R. Lincoln and Linda B. Reich, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater LLP, San Diego, CA, were on the briefs.