United States Ninth Circuit

In a Takings Clause challenge to a city's mobile home rent control ordinance, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the city forfeited its right to argue that plaintiffs' action was not ripe; 2) a facial challenge under Penn Central existed as a viable legal claim; and 3) the regulation was invalid considering (a) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (b) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and (c) the character of the governmental action.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/07/2008
• Decided 09/28/2009
• Published 09/28/2009

Judges

• Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN, ANDREWJ. KLEINFELD, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Mark D. Alpert, Robert S. Coldren (argued), and C. William Dahlin, Santa Ana, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Julie Hayward Biggs and Amy E. Morgan (argued), Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.