Stein v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife CA3
C076561
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- Kemoo Trout Farm (KTF) in Calaveras County tested positive in the 1980s for Myxobolus cerebralis (whirling disease); DFG (now Fish and Wildlife) used compliance agreements to allow limited operations while restricting distribution/expansion.
- Paul Stein owned KTF until 1997, leased it, and ultimately sold it in 2007 to the Colemans; DFG imposed restrictive conditions on the Colemans’ 2007 registration (UV treatment, disease‑resistant strains, no live fish leaving the facility).
- The Colemans operated under those conditions, sued Stein for nondisclosure, settled in 2011, and assigned any claims against DFG to Stein.
- Stein sued DFG and individual officials in 2011 for inverse condemnation and Section 1983 deprivation of property; the trial court denied demurrer but later granted defendants’ summary judgment and excluded some of Stein’s evidence.
- On appeal Stein argued the summary judgment was procedurally irregular, he had standing (by assignment and independently), equitable estoppel excused failure to seek administrative mandamus, evidentiary rulings were erroneous, and individual defendants were not immune.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment: Stein lacked standing to pursue inverse condemnation (no administrative mandamus by Colemans, so nothing assignable), equitable estoppel failed, diminution in value alone is not a taking, and Stein lacked a protected property interest for his Section 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stein) | Defendant's Argument (DFG / officials) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural irregularity of summary judgment | SJ should be denied because the motion used a repetitive separate statement and failed to dispute alleged misconduct; motion was "irregular on its face" | Use of same facts for multiple grounds is permissible; pleadings/compliance adequate | No irregularity shown; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting SJ |
| Evidentiary rulings on opposing declarations | Many of Stein’s and Reynolds’ declaration statements were admissible and created triable issues | Court properly sustained legitimate objections; excluded inadmissible evidence | No abuse of discretion; any alleged errors were non‑prejudicial because no triable issue of material fact remained |
| Inverse condemnation standing / exhaustion | Stein claims standing by assignment from Colemans and independently for lost sale value; equitable estoppel should excuse failure to seek writ of administrative mandate | Colemans believed DFG decision was final and did not petition for mandamus, thus waived inverse condemnation; diminution in sale value is not a taking; individuals cannot be sued for eminent domain | Stein lacks standing: Colemans did not exhaust administrative remedies so had no claim to assign; equitable estoppel not established or appropriate against public policy; diminution in value alone insufficient for inverse condemnation |
| Section 1983 due process and individual liability | DFG actions were arbitrary, created underground policy, deprived Stein of property; officials not immune | Stein had no cognizable property interest (no mandatory right to transfer or renewal of compliance agreement); claims untimely; qualified immunity for officials | Section 1983 fails: Stein lacks protected property interest or proof of deliberate, egregious government action; defendants’ motion properly granted (court did not need to resolve timeliness/qualified immunity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnes v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.App.4th 688 (review of summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal, 36 Cal.4th 1028 (consideration of evidence on summary judgment — sustain objections exclude evidence)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (administrative mandamus exhaustion required before inverse condemnation)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (diminution in value alone is not a taking; measure of compensation differs)
- Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal.4th 1003 (standard for substantive due process challenge to administrative action — requires grave unfairness/deliberate flouting of law)
- City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (equitable estoppel against government limited by public policy)
- Doran v. Houle, 721 F.2d 1182 (renewal of licenses/past renewals do not by themselves create a protected property interest)
- Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 (property interest analysis: agency discretion defeats entitlement claim)