California Apartment Association v. County of Alameda, 3:22-cv-02705

Landlords and property owner organizations challenged eviction moratoria enacted in Alameda County and the City of Oakland during the COVID-19 pandemic, which barred evictions for non-payment of rent.
Plaintiffs argued that the moratoria caused substantial lost rent and decreased property values, amounting to a regulatory taking under the Takings Clause.
The moratoria lasted approximately three years and expired in 2023; during their duration, landlords could not evict tenants for non-payment but could sue for unpaid rent afterward.
Previous orders dismissed other claims (physical taking, due process, contracts clause), leaving only the regulatory taking claim subject to further amendment.
Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient economic impact for a regulatory taking, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a high threshold for value diminution.
Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding plaintiffs’ allegations insufficient under controlling law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the moratoria cause a regulatory taking (Penn Central)?	Moratoria resulted in lost rent, diminished property values, and interfered with investment-backed expectations.	Alleged property devaluation insufficient; temporary impact; back rent recoverable.	No taking; economic harm did not meet threshold.
Economic impact (Penn Central factor 1)	Plaintiffs allege significant losses, including upwards of 30%+ diminution in value on some properties.	No property lost 50%+ value; most losses below threshold in precedent.	Losses too low or unsupported for regulatory taking.
Interference with investment-backed expectations	Bought properties expecting enforceable leases and no such moratoria.	Rental investment is subject to regulation; moratoria temporary; remedies available.	No unreasonable interference.
Character of government action	Moratoria unfairly shifted public costs to landlords, akin to a physical appropriation.	Not a physical taking; public program adjusting economic burdens.	Regulatory action, not a compensable taking.

Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (Articulates the regulatory takings balancing test)
Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (Regulatory rent control not a per se taking)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (Emphasizes Penn Central test and differentiates regulatory from per se takings)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (Temporary moratoria analyzed as regulatory, not categorical, takings)
Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U.S. 394 (Significant diminution in value does not alone establish a taking)
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Zoning regulations upheld despite substantial diminution in value)
Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445 (Ninth Circuit binding authority on minimum threshold for regulatory taking diminution in value)