Katherine Blumenkron v. Barton Eberwein
15-35847
| 9th Cir. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Katherine and David Blumenkron and Springville Investors, LLC challenge Multnomah County/Metro land-use designations labeling their property as a rural reserve.
- Oregon Court of Appeals remanded the countywide designation plan to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC); LCDC in turn remanded to Multnomah County and Metro, leaving the designation process open.
- Plaintiffs sought prospective relief (to change the designation) and damages based on alleged loss in property value.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Metro, Multnomah County, and LCDC on ripeness grounds; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed ripeness de novo and affirmed: plaintiffs’ claims were not prudentially ripe, and plaintiffs offered no evidence of actual damages during the period when the designation was settled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of prospective challenge to designation | Plaintiffs contend designation is final and causes ongoing injury, so claim ripe | Designation process was reopened by remands; no final administrative position yet | Not ripe — no final definitive position; prospective relief dismissed |
| Prudential ripeness / administrative resting place | Plaintiffs say courts should decide now | Agency process not at administrative resting place because remands leave issues unresolved | Not ripe — agency process not at resting place |
| Ripeness of damages claim | Plaintiffs argue damages already occurred (loss in value) and thus claim ripe | Plaintiffs presented no evidence of actual damages or specific plans (sale, loan, development) | Not ripe / dismissed — court found no evidence of incurred damages |
| Facial challenge to land-use regulations | Plaintiffs say facial attack is proper now | Defendants say factual development needed to assess arbitrariness/due process | Not prudentially ripe — facial claims need concrete application and factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. United States Airline Pilots’ Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing ripeness determinations)
- Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) (standard for reviewing factual findings on appeal)
- Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (ripeness contains constitutional and prudential components)
- Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1988) (final definitive position requirement for land-use ripeness)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (prudential ripeness: fitness and hardship factors)
- Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) (administrative resting place concept)
- Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (when an agency action is at a resting place)
- US West Commc’ns v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., 193 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 1999) (hardship requires more than possible financial loss)
- Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (facial challenges not ripe absent concrete application)