Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm.
950 F.3d 610
9th Cir.2020Background
- In 2011 the Hawaii Land Use Commission reverted 1,060 acres on Hawai‘i island from a conditional urban classification back to agricultural after ~22 years of unfulfilled development promises.
- Bridge Aina Le‘a bought the larger parcel (3,000 acres, including the 1,060 acres) in 1999; a 2005 amendment required Bridge to build 385 affordable units by Nov. 17, 2010.
- The Commission issued orders to show cause (OSC), held hearings (including a 2009 voice vote), rescinded and reinstated the OSC, and issued the final Reversion Order on April 25, 2011 finding failure to meet conditions.
- Bridge and DW pursued a state agency appeal; the circuit court vacated the Reversion Order, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part (finding procedural statutory error but rejecting substantive due process/equal protection claims) and remanded.
- Bridge sued in federal court asserting Lucas and Penn Central takings and equal protection claims; a jury found takings and awarded $1 nominal damages. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL, held Bridge failed to prove a Lucas or Penn Central taking, vacated the judgment, and affirmed dismissal of the equal protection claim on issue-preclusion grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reversion was a Lucas categorical taking (total deprivation) | Reversion eliminated all economically beneficial use of the 1,060 acres; valuation expert showed an 83.4% loss and only token residual value. | Land retained substantial residual economic value under agricultural classification; many economically beneficial uses (and rezoning possibility) remained; Lucas requires total loss. | Reversed (JMOL for State). No Lucas taking: residual value and permissible agricultural uses preclude categorical taking. |
| Whether the Reversion was a Penn Central taking (multi-factor balancing) | Economic impact large (claimed loss and disrupted sale), interference with investment-backed expectations, and concentrated, burdensome character. | Valuation evidence flawed (wrong reference date); actual diminution small given temporary duration; Bridge knew of conditions and deadlines at acquisition; action was enforcement of generally applicable reclassification procedure. | Reversed (JMOL for State). Penn Central factors weigh against a taking—economic impact and reasonable expectations insufficient. |
| Whether Bridge’s equal protection claim is precluded by the Hawaii Supreme Court decision | The state court remand left issues unresolved and therefore did not produce a final, preclusive judgment. | Hawaii Supreme Court adjudicated equal protection in the agency appeal; identical issue, final on the merits, and Bridge had full and fair opportunity to litigate. | Affirmed dismissal. Issue preclusion applies; equal protection claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (categorical rule: regulation that deprives owner of all economically beneficial use is a taking)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor test for regulatory takings: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of government action)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (clarifies Lucas vs. Penn Central and proper takings analysis)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (temporary deprivations and delay are incidents of ownership; duration matters)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (token residual interests do not defeat a taking claim if otherwise total)
- Del Monte Dunes at Monterey v. City of Monterey, 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (importance of context and history in takings claims)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017) (uses and aggregated interests inform whether all economically beneficial use is lost)