Matthew Gabbert, et al. v. Josephine County, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a third amended complaint brought by former tax-delinquent property owners. The court held that the counties could potentially face federal municipal liability because alternatives existed to retaining surplus foreclosure proceeds, and that the allegations sufficiently stated a takings claim under the Oregon Constitution.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs plausibly stated a federal Takings Clause claim against the counties because, under their theory, the counties had alternatives available to compensate the plaintiffs and were not compelled by Oregon law to retain the surplus proceeds without compensation.
2. The plaintiffs plausibly stated a takings claim under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution because the alleged facts support an inference that the counties intentionally authorized the alleged takings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Third Amended Complaint stated a federal Takings Clause claim against the counties despite allegations that the counties acted pursuant to Oregon's statutory scheme for distributing surplus foreclosure proceeds.
2. Whether the Third Amended Complaint stated a takings claim under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution despite defendants' argument that they lacked the intent required for an intentional taking.

Disposition

other