Barton Wayne Fishback v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, 2:17-cv-04644

Plaintiff Barton Wayne Fishback sued SMMC and MRCA in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging federal and state claims, including a Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment takings claim; defendants removed to federal court.
Defendants removed based on federal question jurisdiction arising from the federal takings allegation.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the federal takings claim should not be dismissed for lack of ripeness.
Plaintiff conceded the takings claim in the Complaint was unripe but argued futility of state remedies could excuse exhaustion of California inverse-condemnation procedures.
The Court found California inverse-condemnation procedures adequate and concluded futility was not shown; dismissed the federal takings claim without prejudice.
The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remanded the remaining action to Los Angeles Superior Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of federal Takings Clause claim	Fishback would allege futility of pursuing state inverse-condemnation, so federal claim should proceed	Federal claim is unripe because Plaintiff has not sought state compensation; state inverse-condemnation is adequate	Court: claim unripe; futility exception not met; dismiss federal takings claim without prejudice
Whether alleging § 1983 could cure ripeness	Plaintiff suggested intent to amend to assert § 1983; implied federal forum would be proper	Defendants asked court to retain jurisdiction if federal claims exist	Court: mere labeling as § 1983 would not cure ripeness; no viable § 1983 identified; court would try only federal claims and then likely decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims
Supplemental jurisdiction and disposition of state claims	Plaintiff requested remand rather than dismissal	Defendants sought retention of jurisdiction to resolve all claims in federal court	Court: declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after dismissing federal claim and remands the remaining state-law claims to state court

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (explaining Takings Clause secures compensation rather than prohibiting government interference)
Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (ripeness requires seeking state compensation procedures)
Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (affirming requirement to pursue state compensation before federal takings claim)
Daniel v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 288 F.3d 375 (9th Cir.) (physical and regulatory takings claims require seeking state procedures)
San Remo Hotel v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.) (California inverse-condemnation is adequate state remedy)
Christensen v. Yolo Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 995 F.2d 161 (9th Cir.) (futility exception applies only where state courts foreclose compensation under any circumstances)
Jama Constr. v. City of Los Angeles, 938 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir.) (unripe takings claims must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Austin v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 840 F.2d 678 (9th Cir.) (discussing futility standard for bypassing state remedies)
Exec. Software v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545 (9th Cir.) (standards for declining supplemental jurisdiction)
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d 931 (9th Cir.) (district court discretion to remand when no federal claims remain)
Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203 (9th Cir.) (same)