Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6240
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Colony Cove purchased Colony Cove Mobile Estates in Carson in 2006 for about $23.05 million, financed with ~$18 million in debt resulting in annual debt service over $1.3 million.
- Carson adopted a 1979 Mobilehome Space Rent Control Ordinance and a set of Guidelines implementing it, with 1998 revisions to align with amendments.
- The Board must consider 11 enumerated factors plus Guidelines when evaluating rent increase applications and may use an additional GPM analysis (not an entitlement).
- In 2006 Carson amended the Guidelines to add a Maintenance of Net Operating Income (MNOI) analysis guiding rent increases, excluding debt service from that analysis.
- Colony Cove applied in 2007 for a substantial rent increase; the Board granted a modest increase in August 2008 after evaluating multiple methodologies.
- Colony Cove then filed federal § 1983 claims challenging the scheme as unconstitutional and sought state-court mandamus; the district court dismissed several claims, and Colony Cove appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of facial takings claim | Colony Cove argues 2006 Guideline amendment created a new injury. | City argues the 1979 Ordinance and 2006 Guidelines have no new substantive effect; time-barred. | Facial takings claim time-barred; 2006 Amendment did not revise the 1979 Ordinance. |
| As-applied takings ripeness | Williamson procedures are inadequate for timely compensation given magnitude of taking. | Kavanau adjustment provides adequate state procedure; no need for federal relief. | Claim unripe; Kavanau procedure available but Colony Cove did not pursue it. |
| As-applied substantive due process viability | Board’s arbitrary application could deny a fair return independent of takings. | Takings analysis governs; due process claim subsumed by Takings or rational basis review. | Claim dismissed as subsumed by Takings; no independent due process claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (facial challenge timeliness; new injuries from amendments do not alter earlier version)
- Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (facial taking timing: adoption date governs limitations period)
- Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo, 548 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of Kavanau adjustment procedure; ripeness for as-applied takings)
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (state procedures required before federal takings claim; final decision and denial of compensation)
- Crown Point Development, Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007) (due process challenges to land use can be preempted by Takings where applicable)