Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02886/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02886-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BESARO MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FREMONT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-2886 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR NEW

TRIAL, TO ALTER

OR AMEND JUDGMENT

AND FOR RELIEF

FROM ADVERSE

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Besaro Mobile Home Park moves pursuant to Rules 59

and 60 for a new trial, to alter or amend the judgment or for

relief from an adverse judgment. Defendant City of Fremont opposes

the motion. The matter is decided on the papers and the hearing

set for December 8, 2006 is VACATED. Having considered all of the

papers filed by the parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. 

BACKGROUND

As discussed in the Court's previous orders, Plaintiff Besaro

is the owner of a mobile home park in Fremont. This controversy

arises out of Ordinance No. 2390, which amended Fremont's rent

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

control law. On December 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed its first

amended complaint (FAC), alleging claims against Fremont for: (1)

taking property "without payment of just compensation and/or due

process of law" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) taking

property in violation of the California Constitution; and (3)

declaratory relief. 

The Court dismissed the FAC, finding (1) that an as-applied

challenge under the Takings Clause was not ripe due to failure to

exhaust State remedies; (2) that the federal substantive due

process claim was not properly plead because it alleges a claim

that can be analyzed under the Takings Clause; (3) that any facial

challenge stated a cause of action that accrued when the vacancy

control ordinance was originally passed in 1992 and thus was barred

by the statute of limitations; and (4) that Besaro's allegations of

the lack of a valid purpose to support its Takings Clause claims

were conclusory and failed to state a claim.

The Court granted Besaro leave to amend its complaint,

instructing (1) that it could file an as-applied challenge to the

ordinance once it is exhausted; (2) that it could replead a

substantive due process claim if it could allege a claim that could

not be analyzed under the Takings Clause or another explicit

constitutional provision; (3) that it could replead its facial

challenge if it could allege a Takings Clause claim that accrued as

a result of the 2000 enactment of Ordinance No. 2390; and (4) that

it could replead the lack of public purpose claim if it could make

non-conclusory allegations to support its claim. 

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Besaro filed its second amended complaint (SAC) on July 19,

2006, alleging the same three claims. However, Besaro amended its

§ 1983 claim to clarify that it did not "allege a taking under the

just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment." SAC ¶ 41. 

Rather, Besaro claimed that Ordinance No. 2390 (1) constitutes a

"taking of [its] property without a valid public purpose and/or

without due process of law;" (2) constitutes a taking in violation

of the California Constitution; and (3) is "invalid and

unenforceable, both on its face and as applied [because it]

violate[s] rights guaranteed to Plaintiff under the federal and/or

state constitutions . . . including the right to rents that reflect

'general market conditions.'" SAC ¶¶ 41, 60.

Fremont again moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1), arguing that if Besaro was alleging a facial challenge it

was time-barred and if it was alleging an as-applied challenge it

was unripe, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that any claim, even if

properly before the Court, failed to state a claim.

On October 19, 2006, the Court granted with prejudice

Fremont's motion to dismiss the SAC. Plaintiff now argues that it

is entitled to Relief under Rules 59 and 60 and challenges two of

the Court's findings in that order: (1) that a Takings Clause

challenge based on the absence of a valid public purpose is a

facial challenge and (2) that Plaintiff does not have a

constitutional right to raise rents to reflect "general market

conditions." 

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Rule 59(e)

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that amendment or alteration

is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "if

(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

(2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial

decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening

change in controlling law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d

734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).

II. Rule 60

Rule 60(b) enumerates the grounds upon which a motion for

relief from an order or judgment may be made. It specifies the

following:

1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not

have been discovered before the court's decision;

3) fraud by the adverse party;

4) the judgment is void;

5) the judgment has been satisfied; or

6) any other reason justifying relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Here, Besaro moves for relief from final judgment on the first

ground, alleging that its "failure to file a request for judicial

notice in response to the statements in the City's reply brief

before October 19, 2006 was due to surprise, mistake or excusable

neglect" because the Court issued its order before the scheduled

hearing date. Plaintiff's Motion at 4. 

DISCUSSION

I. New Trial or Alteration or Amendment of the Judgment

Besaro first argues that it is entitled to a new trial or for

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

alteration or amendment of the judgment based on the Court's

misunderstanding of its claims. Besaro argues that, although it

clearly alleges in its complaint that "impermissible conduct under

the public purpose clause and/or the due process clause may be

challenged either on its face, or as applied," the Court

misinterpreted its claim as only a facial challenge. SAC ¶ 42. 

However, the Court acknowledged Besaro's allegation that its

public purpose clause challenge could be brought as an as-applied

or facial challenge but found that any claim based on the lack of a

valid public purpose is a facial challenge. This decision was

based in part on Besaro's inability to support its argument that a

public purpose clause challenge is an as-applied challenge. 

Moreover, a public purpose clause challenge is by definition a

facial challenge. If, as Plaintiff alleges, the statute lacks a

valid public purpose, its enforcement will always be

unconstitutional, regardless of how it is applied or how much

compensation the government offers. See Black's Law Dictionary 244

(8th Ed. 2004) (defining "facial challenge" as "A claim that a

statute is unconstitutional on its face -- that is, that it always

operates unconstitutionally."). 

The Court did not misinterpret Besaro's claim. Rather, as it

stated in the order dismissing original complaint, "[i]n the

interest of judicial efficiency . . . the Court [assumed] that

Besaro intended to bring only a facial challenge to the Ordinance,

and [did] not require Besaro to amend its pleadings to clarify that

issue." July 10, 2006 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

at 7-8. Further Besaro's claim that the Court did not rule on its

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

as-applied challenge is incorrect. As the Court stated in its July

10, 2006 order dismissing the original complaint, "to the extent

Besaro is seeking to bring an as-applied challenge to the

Ordinance, that claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling

once it is ripe for review." July 10, 2006 Order at 9. 

The Court denies Besaro's motion for a new trial or to alter

or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). 

II. Relief from the Judgment

Besaro also argues that it is entitled to relief from the

judgment under Rule 60, because it intended to file a request for

judicial notice including evidence it alleges proves that it has a

constitutional right to raise rents to "general market conditions." 

Besaro alleges that it failed to do so "due to surprise, mistake or

excusable neglect" when the Court decided the motion to dismiss on

the papers and filed its order before the scheduled hearing date. 

Besaro cites Rule 201's provision that "Judicial notice may be

taken at any stage of the proceeding" in support of its argument

that it is entitled to relief under Rule 60. Fed. R. Evid. 201(f). 

This provision allows the Court to consider a request for judicial

notice at any time during a proceeding, but does not excuse

Besaro's failure to file its evidence in opposition to Defendant's

motion to dismiss. The Court did not grant Defendant's motion to

dismiss until after all of scheduled papers and supporting

documents were filed. Therefore, the Court finds that Besaro is

not entitled to relief under Rule 60. 

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Besaro's motion for a new trial, to

alter or amend the judgment and for relief from an adverse judgment

is DENIED (Docket No. 39). Besaro's request for judicial notice is

denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12/20/06

Dated: CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-02886-CW Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 7 of 7