Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20317/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20317-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Case No. C 00-20630 JF / C 01-20317 JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 2.1(c)

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 10/11/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES,

INC., et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ,

 Defendant.

_________________________________________

MHC ACQUISITION ONE, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ,

 Defendant.

Case Number C-00-20630-JF

Case Number C-01-20317-JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO

CLARIFY OBLIGATIONS UNDER

PARAGRAPH 2.1(c) OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On October 7, 2005, the Court heard the motion of Manufactured Home Communities,

Inc., MHC-DeAnza Financing Limited Partnership, Starland Vistas, Inc. and MHC A-1

(collectively “MHC”) to clarify MHC’s obligations under paragraph 2.1(c) of the Settlement

Agreement and Consent Decree in the above-entitled actions (“the federal actions”). The De

Case 5:01-cv-20317-JF Document 70 Filed 10/11/05 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

1

 The HOA’s motion for leave to file opposition is granted.

2

 The City requested that it not be required to appear at the hearing on the motion because

it has no present controversy with MHC and because its counsel was unavailable on the date of

the hearing. In light of the City’s stated position, the Court concluded that appearance by the

City’s counsel was unnecessary.

2

Case No. C 00-20630 JF / C 01-20317 JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 2.1(c)

(JFLC2)

Anza Santa Cruz Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) specially appeared through counsel to

oppose the motion.1 The City of Santa Cruz (“the City”) filed a statement setting forth its

position that the instant motion is not properly before the Court because there is no current

dispute between MHC and the City regarding the language of the Settlement Agreement and

Consent Decree.2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the motion without

prejudice.

MHC brought the instant federal actions to challenge the City’s mobilehome rent control

ordinance, which regulates the level of rents that may be charged to tenants of mobilehome

parks. MHC and the City entered into a written Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Settlement

Agreement”), approved by the Court in a Consent Decree, under which the City agreed to exempt

MHC from the mobilehome rent control ordinance under certain conditions. Specifically, MHC

agreed to offer existing tenants who were under rent control at the time of the Settlement

Agreement a thirty-four year lease containing internal “rent control” provisions limiting MHC’s

right to raise annual rents. The City agreed, however, that upon expiration of the lease and/or

upon change in tenancy, MHC may increase rent to market rates as determined in MHC’s sole

discretion. In other words, upon expiration of a tenant’s lease and/or upon change in tenancy, no

rent control will be in effect as to the space in question.

At the time the Settlement Agreement was executed, there were six tenants who were not

under rent control but who were parties to fifteen-year leases that will expire in 2006. MHC

agreed to offer these six tenants the thirty-four year lease in 2006, subject to the provision that

the six tenants’ initial starting rent under that thirty-four year lease will be the “then-current

market rent as determined by MHC in its sole discretion.” Settlement Agreement ¶ 2.1(c). MHC

asserts that it has begun negotiating the initial starting rent with these six tenants, and that the

Case 5:01-cv-20317-JF Document 70 Filed 10/11/05 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

Case No. C 00-20630 JF / C 01-20317 JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 2.1(c)

(JFLC2)

tenants have taken the position that ¶ 2.1(c) of the Settlement Agreement imposes at least some

constraint upon MHC’s ability to set the initial starting rent. MHC thus asks for clarification that

¶ 2.1(c) of the Settlement Agreement does not constrain its rights to set the initial starting rent at

whatever rate it chooses in its sole discretion. 

The HOA argues that there is no actual and present controversy between MHC and the

City and that thus it would be inappropriate for the Court to offer clarification of the Settlement

Agreement at this time. The HOA also asserts that the issue of the starting rent of the six tenants

in question is being arbitrated before Ret. Judge Eugene Lynch of JAMS, and that any decision

of this Court on the subject of starting rents would impermissibly interfere with the arbitration. 

MHC asserts that the issue of the starting rent of the six tenants initially was presented to Judge

Lynch, but that that issue has been withdrawn from the arbitration and no longer is part of the

arbitration.

The Court is quite troubled by the breakdown in communication evidenced by these

competing assertions and the tone in which the assertions were advanced at the hearing. 

Ultimately, however, the question of whether the six tenants in question are participating in the

arbitration is irrelevant to the instant motion. The Court is being asked to offer an advisory

opinion with respect to a controversy that might arise between MHC and non-parties to the

federal actions. The Court concludes that such an advisory opinion would be inappropriate under

well-established principles governing Article III jurisdiction and, specifically, the ripeness

requirement. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (holding that “[o]ur role is neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare

rights in hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the

powers granted the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.”).

The Court certainly understands MHC’s desire for clarity as to its rights and obligations

vis a vis its tenants, particularly given the contentious history of MHC’s litigation with the City. 

Clearly this Court has continuing jurisdiction to clarify its own orders. The Court concludes,

however, that MHC’s motion is premature. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without

prejudice to a future motion by any party in the event an actual controversy arises regarding

Case 5:01-cv-20317-JF Document 70 Filed 10/11/05 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

Case No. C 00-20630 JF / C 01-20317 JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 2.1(c)

(JFLC2)

construction of the Settlement Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/11/05

/s/ electronic signature authorized

_____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cv-20317-JF Document 70 Filed 10/11/05 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

Case No. C 00-20630 JF / C 01-20317 JF

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MHC’S MOTION TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 2.1(c)

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order sent to:

David J. Bradford djbradford@jenner.com 

Barbara H. Choi bchoi@abc-law.com 

Robert S. Coldren robertc@hkclaw.com, 

C. William Dahlin billd@hkclaw.com, 

David J. Bradford

Lisa T. Scruggs

Jenner & Block, LLC

One IBM Plaza

Chicago, Illinois 60611-7603

Robert S. Coldren

C. William Dahlin

Hart, King & Coldren

200 E. Sandpointe, First Floor

Santa Ana, California 92707

George J. Kovacevich

Barbara H. Choi

Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich

333 Church Street

Santa Cruz, California 95060

Paul T. Jensen

255 N. Market St., #190

San Jose, CA 95110

Mark B. Fredkin

William Siamas

Morgan, Franich, Fredkin & Marsh

99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 1000

San Jose, CA 95113-1606

Case 5:01-cv-20317-JF Document 70 Filed 10/11/05 Page 5 of 5