N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KATHERINE B LUM ENKR ON, e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. B AR TON EB ER

W EIN, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s m e m be r of the Land C onse rvation & De ve l opm e n t C om m ission e t a l. De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35847 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00351-B R
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 6, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s , a nd TIGAR , ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED DEC 4 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Jon S. Tiga

r, Unite d State s Distric t

Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nts, Ka the rine a nd Da vid B lum e nkron, a

nd the SpringvilleInve stors, LLC , a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the
m unic ipa l a nd sta t e a ppe lle e s, M e tropolita

n R e giona l Gove rnm e nt (“ M e tro” ), M ultnom ah C ounty , and the La nd C onse rvation a

nd De ve lopm e nt C om

m i ssion (“ LC DC ” ). The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e n t be c a

use Appe lla

nts’
c la im s ste m

m ing from

la nd use de signa

t ions on the ir prope rty

we re not prude n tia lly

ripe . W e a ffirm
. 1. R e vie wing thede te rm ination of ripe n e ss de novo a nd the unde rly ing fa c t ua l findings for c le a

r e rror, we c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err in gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba sis of ripe n e s s. A ddington v
. Unite d State s Airline Pilots Ass’n , 606 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th C ir. 2010); Frank MusicC orp. v . Me t ro-Goldw y n-May e r, Inc ., 772 F.2d 505, 513–14 (9th C ir. 1985). R ipe ne ss c onta ins “both a c onstitutiona

l a nd prude ntia l c om

pone nt.” Portman v . C

ty . of Santa C

lara , 995 F.2d 898, 902 (9th C ir. 1993). A
c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge to la

nd use re gula

tions is ripe

whe n a litiga n t re c e ive s the pla nning c om

m ission’ s “ fina l de finitiveposition re ga rding how it will a

pply the
re gula tions a t issueto the pa

rtic ula r la nd in que stion.” He r

rington v . C

ty . of Sonoma , 857 F.2d 567, 568–69 (9th C ir. 1988). He re , the distric t c ourt c onc lude d that be c a u se the Ore g on C ourt of Appe a ls re m ande d the ove ra ll la nd use
2de signa

tion pla n for M u ltnom ah C ounty to LC DC , whic h in turn re m an de d the de signa tion to M ultnom ah C ounty

and M e tro, “ t

he M ultnom a

h C ounty urba n- and
rura l-re se rve de signa

tion proc e s s ha s re ope ne d a nd Pla intiffs will ag a in ha v e an opportunity

to pe rsua d e M ultnom ah C ounty to c ha nge the de signa

t ion” of the ir la nd. Appe lla

n ts e ffe c tive ly

c onc e de tha

t furthe r de te rm inat ions re ga rding the sta tus of the i r la

nd re m a in, a sse rting tha

t “ if LC DC re -a c knowle dge s the de signa tion of [the ir la

n d ] a s rura l re se rve ” the a p pe lla nts “ w ill” suffe r in the future . The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Appe lla nts’ c l a im s for prospe c tive re l ie f from

the de signa

tion of the i r la

nd a re not ripe , a s Appe l le e s’

“ fina l de finitive position”is not y e t c le a r. H e rrington , 857 F.2d a

t 568–69. Prude n tia l ripe ne ss ha s a

“ twofold a spe c t, re quiring us to eva luat e both the fitne ss of the issue s for judic ia l de c ision a nd the ha rdship to the

pa rtie s of withholding c o urt c onside ra tion.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardne r , 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967). An a dm inistra

tive a c tion is fit for judic ia l re vie w whe n a n a ge n c y ’ s de c ision is a

t an “ a dm inistra

tive re sting pla c e .” C

ottonw ood Env tl. Law

C tr. v . Unite d State s Fore st Se rv . , 789 F.3d 1075, 1084 (9th C ir. 2015). B e c a use Appe l la n ts’ la nd de signa

tion is c urre ntly unde r re v ie w, the a ge nc y proc e ss ha s no im m e diate e ffe c t, a

nd is not a

t an “ a dm inistra

tive re sting pla c e .” Ass’n of Am. Me d . C olls. v . Unite d State

s , 217 F.3d 770, 780 (9th C ir. 2000) (providing tha t a n 3a c tion is a

t a n a dm i nistra

tive re sting pla c e whe re it “ is a de finitivesta

t e m e nt of a

n a ge nc y ’ s position”

and “ re quire s im

m e diate c om

plia nc e ” ).

“ To m e e t the ha

rdship re quire m e nt, a

litiga nt m ust show tha

t withholding
re vie w would re s ult in dire c t a nd im m e diate ha

rdship a nd would e nta il m ore tha

n possible fina

nc ia l loss.” US W

e st C ommc ’ns v . MFS Inte le ne t, Inc
. , 193 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th C ir. 1999) (c ita tion omitte d). Appe lla

nts’ de c l ara tion tha

t the ir prope rty
va lue de c re a se d be twe e n

2006 a nd 2012, a

tim e pe riod whic h inc lude s whe n the de signa tion we nt into e ffe c t, c onstitute s nothing mo re tha n “ possiblefina

nc i a l loss.” Id. A c c ordingly , Appe lla nts c la i m s for prospe c tive re l ie f are not ripe
. 2. Appe lla

nts a rgue tha t e ve n if the ir prospe c t ive c la im s a re not ripe , the i r dam a g e s c la i m s a

re . Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t “ [a ] lthough Pla i ntiffs c onc e iva

bly c ould ha ve inc urre d da

m a ge s while LC DC ’ s August 19, 2011, Ac knowle dgm e nt Orde r wa s on a ppe a l , the re is not a

ny e vide n c e in the
re c o rd tha t during tha

t pe riod Pla intiffs a c t

ua lly inc urre d . . . da

m a ge s ” be c a

use

“ Pla intiffs ha

ve not sta te d tha t the y inte nd to se ll the ir la

nd, to obtain a

loa n se c ure d by

a m ortga ge on the ir la

nd, or to de v e l op the ir la

n d in a wa y inc onsiste nt with therura l-re s e rve de signa tion.” The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm ination tha t Pla i ntiffs ha

ve not suffe re d da

m a ge s is re vie we d

for c le ar e rror, and with no error a ppa re nt, we a ffirm
. Frank

MusicC orp , 772 F.2d a

t 513–14.
43. Appe lla nts a lso a rgue that the ir fa c i a l c ha lle nge s to the la nd use
re gula tions a re ripe . The se c ha lle nge s, howe ve r, are not prude ntia lly ripe be c a use furthe r fa c tua l de ve lopm e n t would signific a

n t ly a i d the c ourt in de te rm ining whe the r Appe lla

nts we re tre ate d a

rbitra rily , a nd whe the r the y

re c e ive d due proc e ss. Lujan v . N

at’l W ildlife Fe de ration , 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990) (holding a fa c ia l
c ha lle nge not ripe “ until thesc o pe of the c ontrove rsy ha s be e n re duc e d to m ore m ana ge a ble proportions, a

nd its fa c tua l c om

pone nts fle she d out, by

som e c onc re te
a c tion a pply ing the re gula

t ion to thec la im a

nt’ s situa tion in a fa shion tha

t ha rm s or thre ate ns to ha

rm him .” ). AFFIRM ED.

5