Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for San Luis Obispo County in a property owner's facial and as-applied regulatory takings challenge to county land-use restrictions. The court held that the as-applied claim was not ripe because the owner had not obtained a final development determination or demonstrated futility, and that the facial challenge was unsupported. It also rejected the owner's procedural due process claims based on an allegedly conflicted county supervisor and upheld the denial of the County's request for attorneys' fees.

Holdings

1. An as-applied regulatory-takings claim is not ripe until the government has made a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the property and the plaintiff has established that available compensation is inadequate. The Ranch's informal proposal, without a meaningful development-plan application and variance application, did not satisfy that requirement.
2. The County's zoning restrictions were not facially invalid as a taking because the Ranch failed to show that the restrictions denied all beneficial or economically viable uses of the property, and the ordinance substantially advanced legitimate state interests.
3. A municipality is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because an individual official participated in a decision while allegedly having a conflict of interest. The plaintiff must show that the deprivation resulted from an official municipal policy or custom, including a deliberate choice by an official with final policymaking authority on the relevant subject.
4. The Ranch's § 1983 procedural due-process claim was barred because California law provided an available procedure for redress of the alleged conflicted participation.
5. The court did not decide whether the Ranch could bring a direct cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment because the issue was not clearly raised and the Ranch principally relied on § 1983.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the County attorneys' fees because the Ranch's action was not shown to be groundless or without foundation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Ranch's as-applied regulatory-takings claim was ripe without a final and authoritative determination of the permissible development and without meaningful applications for a development plan and variance.
2. Whether the County's zoning restrictions were facially invalid as a taking because they failed to advance legitimate state interests or denied the Ranch economically viable uses of its property.
3. Whether the County could be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural due process violations based solely on one supervisor's allegedly conflicted participation, absent evidence of an official municipal policy or custom.
4. Whether the availability of state-law remedies barred the Ranch's procedural due-process claim under § 1983.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the County attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Disposition

affirmed