Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01651/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01651-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEACE RANCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROB BONTA, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General 

of the State of California; 

and DOES 1 through 20, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s 

(“Defendant”) motion to dismiss. Mot., ECF No. 24-1.1 Peace 

Ranch, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. Opp’n, ECF No. 29. 

Defendant replied. Reply, ECF No. 31. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

As this is the second round of motions to dismiss, the Court 

does not repeat the factual background here. That background is 

set forth extensively in the operative complaint, the parties’ 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was

scheduled for June 7, 2022.

Case 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

briefings, and the Court’s prior order. See Order Granting 

Defs.’ First Mot. to Dismiss (“Prior Order”) at 2-4, ECF No. 20.

The pertinent procedural background is as follows: on 

February 7, 2022, the Court granted the first motion to dismiss 

for lack of standing. See generally Prior Order. The Court 

explained: “Plaintiff has failed to allege an injury in fact. AB 

978 applies to mobilehome parks located within and governed by 

the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. However, 

Peace Ranch consists of two parks, one in Anaheim and one in 

Fullerton, with two different permits. Accordingly, it has not 

alleged an ‘intention to engage in a course of conduct [. . .] 

proscribed by a statute,’ nor a ‘realistic danger of sustaining a 

direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or 

enforcement.’ Plaintiff, therefore, does not have standing.” 

Id. at 7-8 (internal citations omitted). Thereafter, Plaintiff 

filed a first amended complaint. See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), 

ECF No. 23. Defendant now moves again to dismiss. See generally

Mot.

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice 

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of six

exhibits: (1) the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community 

Development’s analysis of AB 978 as amended April 21, 2021; 

(2) the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community 

Development’s Background Information Request Form for AB 978; 

(3) AB 978 as amended on May 5, 2021; (4) the Senate Judiciary 

Committee’s analysis of AB 978 amended June 14, 2021; (5) AB 978 

as amended on June 24, 2021; and (6) AB 978 as approved by the 

Case 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Governor and chaptered. Pl.’s Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), 

ECF No. 30. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s request 

for judicial notice of these same documents. Prior Order at 5. 

The Court takes judicial notice again as these documents are

legislative history whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned and thus a proper subject for judicial notice. See

Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005). 

B. Legal Standard 

A defendant may move to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If the plaintiff lacks 

standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, 

then the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the case 

must be dismissed. See Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 

1067 (9th Cir. 2011). Once a party has moved to dismiss for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the 

opposing party bears the burden of establishing the court’s 

jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

C. Analysis

Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the FAC for the same 

reason it dismissed the original complaint: Plaintiff lacks 

standing because it has failed to sufficiently allege any 

injury-in-fact. Mot. at 6-7; Reply at 1. In the FAC, Peace 

Ranch attempts to fix the standing issue the Court previously 

identified by pleading the following: RLP “straddles two cities 

[in Orange County]: Anaheim and Fullerton.” FAC ¶¶ 13, 17. The 

Legislature designed and enacted a rent cap applicable only to 

Case 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Orange County mobilehome parks straddling two cities, of which 

the Legislature concluded there was only one: RLP. Id. ¶¶ 34-

36. “The Legislature and Defendant Attorney General 

(collectively, ‘the State’) believe that Rancho La Paz is a 

single park straddling two cities and is therefore subject to AB 

978.” Id. ¶ 40. “Given the State’s clear position, and to 

avoid injury in the form of an action seeking to enforce AB 978 

and associated penalties based on the belief that RLP is a 

single park, Peace Ranch has been forced to conform its conduct 

to the mandates of AB 978” by “maintain[ing] its rents below the 

rent cap imposed by AB 978.” Id. “Absent this threat, Peace 

Ranch would not have been compelled to keep RLP’s rents below AB 

978’s cap.” Id. According to Plaintiff, these allegations

establish “a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a 

result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.” Opp’n at 11 

(citing to Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 

289, 298 (1979)). 

However, the Court agrees with Defendant that these

allegations still fall short of establishing a realistic danger 

of injury from AB 978’s operation. Reply at 1. Because 

Plaintiff continues to allege RLP is “actually two separate parks

(one in Anaheim and the other in Fullerton,” FAC ¶ 40, it does 

not meet the criteria of a “qualified mobilehome park.” See

Prior Order at 7-8. Plaintiff’s choice to comply with AB 978 is 

irrelevant. Mot. at 6. Voluntary compliance with a law that 

does not apply does not constitute an injury-in-fact. Id. Nor 

did Plaintiff bring forward caselaw supporting its position that 

an injury-in-fact can exist where the challenged statute does not

Case 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

actually apply to the plaintiff. See Opp’n at 10-12. As 

Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s two principal cases — Bland v. 

Fessler, 88 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 1996), and LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 

F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2000) — are readily distinguishable because 

they both involved First Amendment rights and this case does not. 

Reply at 1. 

Plaintiff again fails to carry its burden to show it has

standing. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Accordingly, the FAC 

is dismissed.2 Finding further amendment would be futile, the 

Court dismisses this case with prejudice. See Zucco Partners, 

LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(explaining that “where the plaintiff has previously been granted 

leave to amend and has subsequently failed to [correct the 

deficiencies] the district court’s discretion to deny leave to 

amend is particularly broad”). 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITH 

PREJUDICE Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2022

2 Because the Court dismisses for lack of standing, the Court 

does not reach the parties’ additional 12(b)(6) arguments. See

Mot. at 7-15; see also Opp’n at 12-21.

Case 2:21-cv-01651-JAM-AC Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 5