N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GHP M A NAGEM ENT C ORPOR

ATION; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , STR ATEGIC AC TIONS FOR A JUST EC ONOM Y; e t a l.,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntsAppe lle e s. No. 23-55013 D.C . No. 2:21-c v-06311-DDP-JEM
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 De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
MAY31 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.B e fore : SILER , ** B EA, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s . GHP M ana ge m e nt C orp. a nd thirte e n owne rs of Los Ange l e s a p artm e nt buildings (c olle c tive ly , “ Landlords” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the ir Fifth Am e ndm e nt Ta

k i ngs C la use c la im s c h a l le nging se c tion 49.99 of the Los Ange l e s M unic ipa l C ode , the C ity ’ s e vic tion m oratorium e na c t e d during the C OVID-19 pa

nde m ic . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd re vie w de novo thegrant of a

m otion to dism

iss. Fort v . W

ashington , 41 F.4th 1141, 1144 (9th C ir. 2022). The C ity argue s tha

t t he La ndlords la c k sta

nding to bring this a

c tion be c a

use the y did not a lle ge tha

t se c tion 49.99 thwa

rte d the ir e vic tion of thete na nts, a nd a la ndlord suffe rs no injury

unle s s a te na nt suc c e ssfully

ra ise s se c tion 49.99 a s a de fe nse to a

n e ffort to e vic t. W e disa gre e . To de m onstra te sta nding, a pla intiff
m ust show a

n “ i njury in fa c t,” am ong othe r e le m e nts. Lujan v . De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The C ity ha s prohibite d la

ndlords from e vic ting or
e nde avoring to e vic t a

te na nt for non-pa

ym e nt of re nt “ i f the te na

nt is una ble to pa y
re nt due to c irc um sta

nc e s re late d to the C OVID-19 pa nde m ic
. ” L.A., C a l., M un. C ode § 49.99.2(A). A la

ndlord who c om

plie s with this le ga l re quire m e nt m ust

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State 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. 2fore go re nta l pa ym e nts tha

t would otherwise be due unde r the le a se . Ea c h of the Landlords he re ha s a lle ge d e ithe r that som e of its te na nts “ have ta

ke n a dva n ta ge of the E vic tion M oratorium

to withhold pa

ym e nt of re nt,” or tha

t it lost rent due to owning a n a pa rtm e nt c om

m unity in Los Ange le s tha

t is subje c t to them o ra torium
. The se a lle gations of lost rent a s a re sult of c om

plia nc e with theC i ty ’ s a

pplic a ble ordina nc e s c onstitute

an injury in fa c t; “ [c ] e rta inly

the Supre m e C ourt ha s be e n
satisfie d by

le ss.” Barnum Timbe r C o. v . U.S. EPA , 633 F.3d 894, 898 (9th C ir. 2011); s e e also Luc as v . S.C . C oastal C ounc il , 505 U.S. 1003, 1012 n.3 (1992) (holding tha

t a c om pla int’ s pray e r for “ d am a ge s for the te m pora ry ta king” of prope rty wa s suffic i e nt to a lle ge injury in fa c t at the ple a ding sta ge ). The La ndlords fa ile d to sta

te a c la im for a Fifth Am e ndm e nt pe r se phy sic a l taking. Unde r the Supre m e C ourt’ s c urre nt jurisprude nc e , a sta tute tha t m e re ly
a djusts the

e x isting re lationship be twe e n la ndlord a nd te na nt, inc luding a djusting
re nta l a m ount, te rm s of e vic tion, a nd e ve n the ide ntity

of the te na

nt, doe s not e ffe c t
a ta king. Se eYe e v . C

i ty of Esc ondido , 503 U.S. 519, 527–28 (1992); se e also FC C v . Fla. Pow e r C

o rp. , 480 U.S. 245, 252 (1987) (“ [S] tatute s re gula ting the
e c onom ic re lations of la

ndlords a nd te na nts a re not pe r se tak i ngs.” ). “ The gove rnm e nt e ffe c ts a phy sic a l ta king only whe re it re quire s the la ndowne r to subm it to the phy sic a l oc c upation of his la nd” by a third pa rty . Ye e , 503 U.S. a

t
3527. The Supre m e C ourt ha s m a de an “ una m biguous distinction be twe e n a
c om m e rc ia l le sse e and a

n inte rlope r with a

gove rnm e nt lic e nse .” F

l a. Pow e r , 480 U.S. at 252–53; c

f. C e dar Point N

urse ry v . Hassid

, 594 U.S. 139, 152 (2021) (e xpla ining tha

t “ gove rnm e nt-a

uthoriz e d inva sions of prope rty

. . . a re phy sic a l takings” ). 1 And the C ourt m a y c onside r whe t

he r a sta tute e ffe c te d a

ta king “ we re the s tat ute , on its fa c e or a s a

pplie d, to c om

pe l a la ndowne r ove r obje c tion to re nt his prope rty

or to re fra in in pe rpe tuity from te rm inating a

te na nc y .” Ye e , 503 U.S.
a t 528. He re se c tion 49.99 doe s not e ffe c t a phy sic a l ta

king be c a u s e the Lan dlords volunta rily ope ne d the ir prope rty

to oc c upation by te n an ts. 2 M ore ove r, se c tion 49.99 did not c om

pe l la ndlords to re n t prope rty

in pe rpe tuity , but ra

the r a llowe d

1 The re fore H

ornev . De

p artme n t of Agric ulture , re lie d on by the La ndlords, is not on point, be c a

use it involve d a

third pa rty (the gove rnm e nt) ta

king prope rty , ra the r tha n a n a djustm e nt of volunta

ry re lations be twe e n

a la ndlord a nd a te n ant. 576 U.S. 350, 365 (2015).

2 B e c a u se we are bound by Ye e

, we de c line to follow He ights Apartme nts, LLC v . W alz , 30 F.4th 720 (8th C ir. 2022), whic h rule d tha t a n e vic tion ordina

nc e that prohibite d the nonre ne wa l or te rm ination of a le a se a bse nt spe c ifie d c irc um s ta nc e s c onstitute d a pe r se phy sic a l ta king. In re a c hing this c o nc lusion, He ights Apartme

nts d istinguishe d Ye e on the ground tha t the ordina

nc e in tha t c a se did not de prive la ndlords of the ir right to e vic t . Id. at 733. B ut a s e xpla ine d by Judge C olloton, se e He ights Apartme nts, LLC v . W alz , 39 F.4th 479, 480 (8th C ir. 2022) (C olloton, J., disse

n ting from

de nia l of re he aring e n ba nc ), the ordina

nc e in Ye e did pre c lude la

ndlords from

e vic ting the ir pre se nt te na nts, a s we ll a s the ir te na nts’ suc c e ssors in intere st, for m ost re a sons, a nd y e t “ did not e ffe c t a pe r se taking.” 4la

ndlords to e vic t the ir pre viously invite d te na nts for re a sons not otherwise prohibite d. 3 The La ndlords a lso fa ile d

to sta te a c la i m for a Fifth Am e ndm e nt re gula tory taking. He re the La

ndlords fa ile d to a lle ge the dim inution in prope rty va lue s the y suffe re d a s a

re sult of thee vic tion m oratorium , a nd a lle ge d only

the am o unt of re nt lost. “ B ut the m e re loss of som e inc om e be c a use of re g ulation doe s not itse lf
e sta blish a taking.” C

olony C ov e Props., LLC

v . C i ty of C arson , 888 F.3d 445, 451 (9th C ir. 2018). Inste a d, “ e c onom ic im pa c t is de t e rm i ne d by

c om pa ring the tota l
va lue of the a ffe c te d

prope rty be fore and a fte r the gove rnm e n t a c tion.” Id.; se e also Murr v . W

isc onsin , 582 U.S. 383, 395 (2017) (“ [O] ur te st for re gula tory taking re quire s us to c om pa re the va lue tha

t ha s be e n ta

ke n from the prope rty

with the v a lue that re m a ins in theprope rty .” ) (quoting K e y stone Bituminous C

oal Ass’n
v . De Be n e dic tis , 480 U.S. 470, 497 (1987)). Although C olony C ov e c onside re d the
e c onom ic im

pa c t o f a n a lle ge d ta king a fte r a jury

tria l , its form

ula for de te rm ining
e c onom ic im

pa c t i s binding a

t a ll sta ge s of the litiga

tion proc e ss. 888 F.3d a

t 451. W hile suc h dim inution in va lue ne e d not be shown whe re a sta tute c om ple te ly

3 The La ndlords’ re lia

n c e on Alabama Assoc iation of Re altors v . De partme nt of He alth and Human Se

rv ic e s , 594 U.S. 758 (2021) (per c uriam ), is m i spla c e d, be c a use tha t c a se he ld only

tha t the C e nte rs for Dise a s e C ontrol a nd Pre ve ntion la c ke d the a

uthority to pa ss a n e vic tion m oratorium , a

nd did not a ddre ss a

pe r se phy sic a l ta

k ings c la im
. Id. a t 763–65. 5a

bolishe s “ b oth the de sc e nt a nd de vise of a

pa rtic ula r c l a ss of prope rty ,” H

ode l v

. Irv ing , 481 U.S. 704, 717 (1987), suc h unusua l c irc um sta

nc e s a re not pre se nt he re . B e c a use we a ffirm

the grant of the m o tion to dism i ss, the que stion whe the r the d istric t c o urt e rre d in gra nting the m otion of theAllia n c e of C a lifornia

ns for C om m unity Em p owe rm e nt Ac tion, Stra

te gic Ac tions for a Just Ec onom y , a nd C oa lition for Ec o nom ic Surviva l to inte rve ne is m oot. Se e Pre tev . Bradbury , 438 F.3d 949, 959–60 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D
. 4

4 The m otion for judic ia l notic e , at Dkt. 9, is gra nte d
. Le e v . C

ity of Los Ange le s , 250 F.3d 668, 689–90 (9th C i r. 2001); Fe d. R
. Evid. 201(b). The m otion to file an am ic us brie f in support of the C ity , Dkt. 29, is denie d a s m oot. The m otion to file

an am ic us brie f, Dkt. 52, is denie d a s untim e ly . Fe d. R . App. P. 29(a )(6). 6