Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that a property owner's federal inverse-condemnation claim was not ripe because he had not first pursued available compensation through Hawaii state remedies. The court concluded that uncertainty or lack of development in state inverse-condemnation law did not make those remedies inadequate, absent a showing that state courts categorically barred recovery. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank requires a landowner alleging an inverse condemnation to pursue state compensation remedies before seeking relief in federal court when the availability of those remedies is uncertain or undeveloped.
- Whether Austin's claim involved a physical taking or oppressive conduct such that the Williamson County state-remedies ripeness requirement did not apply.
- Whether Williamson County could be applied retroactively to Austin's previously filed federal action.
Holdings
- An inverse-condemnation claim is not ripe for federal review until the landowner unsuccessfully pursues adequate state compensation remedies, even when state law is unclear or undeveloped. State procedures remain adequate unless state courts establish that landowners may not obtain just compensation through inverse condemnation under any circumstances.
- The state-compensation requirement applies because Austin did not suffer a physical taking; he retained title, possession, and the right to exclude the City and the public from the setback.
- The characterization of the City's conduct as oppressive conduct rather than oppressive regulation did not eliminate the requirement that Austin first pursue available state compensation remedies.
- Williamson County applies retroactively because its ripeness requirement affects federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and a court may not adjudicate the merits of a claim over which it lacks jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“Until Austin pursues unsuccessfully compensation in the state courts or those courts establish that he may not recover compensation through inverse condemnation procedures, his claim is not ripe for federal court review.” (840 F.2d at 679)
“In an inverse condemnation action, the property owner must show that he or she sought just compensation and that the state denied it.” (840 F.2d at 680)
“Because Williamson County affects our jurisdiction to hear takings claims, we must apply it retroactively.” (840 F.2d at 682)
Factual background
Austin owned a 16,339-square-foot lot in downtown Honolulu subject to a development plan requiring a 20-foot setback for a planned street widening. After the City rejected plans for a store that would occupy the setback, Austin negotiated with the City regarding its purchase of the setback, modified his lease and construction plans in reliance on the negotiations, and proceeded with construction outside the setback. The City later stated that it would not widen the street or acquire the setback for several years, prompting Austin's federal inverse-condemnation action.
Procedural history
Austin sued in federal district court seeking just compensation for an alleged taking of a setback area on his property. The district court found that the City's actions effected a taking and rejected the City's argument that Austin needed to seek a zoning variance before filing suit. The Ninth Circuit held that the claim was not ripe because Austin had not pursued available state compensation remedies, vacated the district court's order, and remanded for dismissal.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for dismissal because Austin's inverse-condemnation claim was not ripe and neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear it.