Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the defendants in an inverse-condemnation and civil-rights action involving alleged restrictions on the plaintiffs’ property under a flood-control project and related local policies. The court held that failure to submit a development plan did not, by itself, bar facial or certain other takings claims, and that material factual issues remained regarding the effects of the regulations and any unreasonable delay in condemnation proceedings. The case was remanded for trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Martinos' failure to submit a development plan barred their facial inverse-condemnation challenge to the Water District's ordinance and related governmental actions.
- Whether the alleged delay and other conduct surrounding the planned condemnation could constitute a taking or planning blight notwithstanding the absence of a development-plan application.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the Martinos' claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.
Holdings
- Failure to submit a development plan is not, by itself, a bar to an attack on a land-use ordinance on its face.
- A taking may occur without physical invasion when a public entity excessively delays condemnation or otherwise acts unreasonably in implementing a public project, and the absence of a development plan is irrelevant to that theory.
- Summary judgment was improper on the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 because an action for damages under § 1983 for overregulation of land is cognizable and the Martinos were entitled to an opportunity to prove such a claim.
Key quotations
“We hold, therefore, that the failure to submit a development plan is not, in and of itself, a bar to an attack on the ordinance "on its face."” (¶ 38)
“A "taking" may be found without any physical invasion where, for example, "a public entity acting in furtherance of a public project directly and substantially interferes with property rights and thereby significantly impairs the value of property...."” (¶ 39)
“Based on the above analysis, the district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment is reversed and the case remanded for trial.” (¶ 51)
Factual background
The Martinos owned approximately 4.4 acres in Morgan Hill, California, part of which had long been slated for eventual acquisition by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for a flood-control channel and levee. Morgan Hill and the Water District required or contemplated dedication or reservation of a substantial right of way, and Morgan Hill later adopted a policy prohibiting development within floodway areas. The Water District advised the Martinos that a 180-foot right of way would be required if they submitted a development plan during the project's restudy period and that acquisition would likely not occur until 1985. The Martinos did not submit a development permit application or attempt to sell the property, and alleged that the governmental actions deprived the property of beneficial economic use and depressed its value.
Procedural history
The Martinos sued the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of Morgan Hill, and the Water District's chief real estate agent for damages based on an alleged taking without just compensation and violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the claims were not ripe because the Martinos had not submitted a development plan. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.
Remand instructions
The district court was instructed to conduct a trial and determine whether the ordinance and related governmental actions prevented the best use of the property or extinguished a fundamental attribute of ownership, and whether the defendants' implementation of the Llagas Project, including delay in commencing condemnation proceedings, was sufficiently unreasonable to constitute compensable planning blight. The district court should also address whether submission of a development plan would have been an idle and futile act for any as-applied claim.