Dennis Seider v. City of Malibu, 21-55293

Background

Plaintiffs Dennis and Leah Seider sued the City of Malibu under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging three LIP provisions: (1) ban on signs that “purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property,” (2) permit-criteria language alleged to grant unbridled discretion, and (3) a requirement that applicants indemnify the City against third‑party suits.
Plaintiffs’ predecessors received a 1976 Commission-issued coastal permit that included a recorded easement granting public lateral access up to 25 feet inland from the mean high tide line.
In 2020 the California Coastal Commission issued a notice of violation concerning an earlier “PRIVATE BEACH” sign, asserting the sign interfered with the 1976 permit’s purpose of maximizing public beach access.
The district court dismissed the sign-related claims for failure to join the California Coastal Commission (a required Rule 19 party) and dismissed the indemnity claims as unripe.
The Ninth Circuit majority held the Commission has primary jurisdiction over a permit that would “lessen or negate the purpose of any specific permit condition” (LIP §13.10.2(B)(2)), vacated the dismissal of Claims One and Two and remanded with instructions to join the Commission (or commissioners) under Rule 19(a), and affirmed dismissal of the indemnification claims (Claims Three and Four).
Judge Collins dissented: he would have reversed the dismissal and remanded for merits, arguing the City—not the Commission—has permitting authority under state law, and that the indemnity claims were ripe.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the California Coastal Commission is a required Rule 19 party for the sign-permit claims	Seiders: Commission not necessary; City issues permits under Malibu’s LCP; plaintiffs seek relief against City practice	City & district court: Commission has primary jurisdiction under LIP §13.10.2(B)(2) because the 1976 permit condition could be lessened/negated	Majority: Commission has primary jurisdiction; Rule 19 joinder required—vacated dismissal and remanded to join Commission or commissioners (or only then consider dismissal under Rule 19(b))
Whether the district court properly dismissed Claims One and Two for failure to join the Commission	Seiders: dismissal improper; court should follow Rule 19(a) joinder mandate	City: dismissal appropriate absent joinder	Majority: district court abused its Rule 19 procedure by dismissing without ordering joinder; remand to join Commission or commissioners
Ripeness/standing of indemnification claims (Claims Three & Four)	Seiders: compelled indemnity imposes an Article III injury now and burdens First Amendment rights, so claims are ripe	City: claims speculative; indemnity would only arise if City itself ruled on the permit—and Commission has primary jurisdiction—so claims are unripe	Majority: because the Commission has primary permitting jurisdiction here, the indemnity claims would only arise if the City acted; affirmed dismissal of Claims Three and Four
Whether the panel should reach the merits of the LIP provisions	Seiders: merits should be addressed if procedural obstacles removed	City: procedural defects preclude reaching merits now	Majority: did not reach merits; remanded for joinder and left merits unresolved; dissent would have reached merits and found procedural dismissals erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Deschutes River All. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 1 F.4th 1153 (9th Cir. 2021) (Rule 19 discretionary-review standard)
Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2012) (speculative interference does not defeat complete relief under Rule 19)
ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2014) (ripeness and standing discussions)
Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Attorney Gen. of N.J., 297 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2002) (defending constitutionality of legislation is an executive function; intervention considerations)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (state officials may be sued in personal capacity under § 1983)
Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (compelled conditions affecting legal rights can constitute injury)
City of Malibu v. California Coastal Comm’n, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40 (Ct. App. 2004) (context on Commission’s historical role and the state statutory scheme for LCP adoption)