N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAYM IN VAGHASHIA; e t a l .,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, a m unic ipa l c orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-56064 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-03257-DM G-JPR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B OGGS, * * R

AW LINSON, a

nd H.A. THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Ja ym in Va gha shia , e t a l. (Appe lla nts) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the i r a c tion brought unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a lle ging viola t ions of theFifth Am e ndm e nt Ta

kings C la use a nd the Fourte e n th Am e ndm e nt Due Proc e ss C la use . 

# FIL ED
FEB 1 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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 Da nny J. B oggs, Unite d

Stat e s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Appe l la

n ts’ a c tion is pre d ic a te d on the c onve rsion of the ir tra nsie nt oc c upa

nc y
m ote l into a

re side ntia l hote l pursua

nt to Los Ange le s M unic ipa l C ode Artic le 7.1 of C ha pte r 4, R e s ide ntia l Hote l Unit C onve rsion a nd De m olition Ordina

nc e § 47.70 e t se q . The distric t c ourt dismi sse d the c la im s unde r R ule 12(b)(6) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
.

“ W e re vie w denov o a

distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of a m o tion to dism

i ss unde r R ule 12(b)(6), a c c e pting a l l fa c tua l a lle gations in the c om pla int a s true and
c onstruing them

in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty .” C oronav irus Re p. v . Apple

, Inc
. , 85 F.4th 948, 954 (9th C i r. 2023) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ The c om pla i nt m ust pla usibly give rise to a

n
e ntitle m e nt to re lie f. . . .” Id . (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 1. Whe n e xam ining a

c la im unde r the Takings C la use , we c onside r “ the
e c onom ic im

pa c t o f the re gula

tion on the

c l a im ant a

nd, pa rtic ula rly , the e xte nt to whic h the re gula

tion ha s inte rfe re d with distinct inve stm e nt-ba c ke d e xpe c tations.” Lingle v . C he v r on U.S.A. Inc

. , 544 U.S. 528, 538-39 (2005) (c ita tion a nd a lte ra tion
om i tte d). Ac c o rding to Appe lla nts, dimi nution of the i r prope rty va lue e sta

b lishe d the re quisitee c onom ic im pa c t. B ut “ m e re dim inution in the va l ue of prope rty , howe v e r se rious, is insuffic ie nt to de m o nstra te a ta king.” C onc re te Pipe& Prods.
2of C

al., Inc . v . C

o nstr. Labore rs Pe nsion Tr. for S. C al. , 508 U.S. 602, 645 (1993) (c ita tions omitte d )

. 2. Appe lla

nts c onte nd tha

t be c a u se “ [t] h e ordina

nc e ta ke s a way the
e sse ntia l right from

Appe lla nts to e xc lude pa

rtie s from oc c u py i ng a nd re nting units
and the ir m ote l on a

long te rm

ba sis,” it “ am ounts to a

phy sic a l pe r se ta

king.” Howe ve r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s c la rifie d that a

phy sic a l pe r se ta

k ing oc c urs

“ [w] he n the gove rnm e n t . . . a

ppropria t[e s] priva

te prope rty

for itse lf or a

third pa rty .” C e d ar Point N

urse ry v . Hassid

, 141 S. C t . 2063, 2071 (2021) (c ita tion
om i tte d). B e c a

use the gove rnm e nt did not a ppropria te Appe lla

nts’ prope rty , the distric t c o urt did not err in dism issing Appe lla nts’ c la im unde r the Takings C la

use . 3. “ The funda

m e nta l re quire m e nt of due proc e s s is theopportunity to be he ard at a m e an i ngful tim e and in a m e aningful m anne r. . . .” Platt v

. Moore , 15 F.4th 895, 904 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). “ To show a proc e dura l due proc e ss viola t ion,” a pla i ntiff “ m

ust prove two distinc t
e le m e nts: (1) a

de priva tion of a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty

or prope rty inte re s t, a nd (2) a de nia l of a d e quate proc e dura l prote c t ions.” Unite d State s v . 101 House c o, LLC , 22 F.4th 843, 851 (9th C ir. 2022) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). Although due proc e ss e nc om

pa sse s a “ p roc e dura l right to a

tim e ly he aring a nd de c i sion,” Le v e nthal v . U.S. De pt. of Labor , 766 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th
3C ir. 1985), Appe lla n t s did not alle ge tha

t the de l ay

in this c a se de prive d the m of a libe rty or prope rty

inte re s t, suc h a s the a

bility to re nt the i r units on a short-te rm ba sis whilethe proc e e dings we re pe n ding. Se e 101 House c o, LLC , 22 F.4th a t 851. 1 The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in dismi ssing Appe lla n ts’ due proc e ss
c la im
. 4. C ontra

ry to Appe lla

nts’ argum e nt, the distric t c ourt did not a bsta in unde r Railroad C

omm’n of Te

x . v . Pullman C

o. , 312 U.S. 496 (1941). In fa c t, the distric t c o urt de c line d the C ity of Los Ange le s’ s m otion for Pullman a bste ntion. Inste a d, the distric t c ourt de c l ine d to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the
c la im for issua nc e of a writ of m andate unde r state la w. The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision wa s we l l within its disc re tion. Se e Ov ev . Gw inn , 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ A c ourt m ay de c line to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic t ion ove r re late d sta te -law c la im s onc e it ha s dism isse d a ll c la im s ove r whic h it ha s origina l jurisdic tion.” ) (c i tations a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

1 Appe lla nts c onte nd tha

t the ha rm le ss e rror sta

nda rd is ina pplic a ble whe n de te rm i ning whe the r a

due proc e ss viola

tion oc c urre d. W e are not pe rsua de d. Se e ASSE Int’l, Inc . v . K

e rry , 803 F.3d 1059, 1079 (9th C ir. 2015) (re m anding to the distric t c o urt to de te rm ine whe t he r the proc e d

ura l due proc e ss viola

tion wa s ha rm le s s); se e also A l Haramain Islamic Found., Inc . v . U.S. De

pt. of Tre asury , 686 F.3d 965, 989 (9th C ir. 2012), as ame nde d (artic ulating theburde n of proof to de m onstra

te tha t a proc e dura l due proc e ss viola tion ha rm e d a pla intiff). 4