NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CITY OF LOS ANGELES AIHM HOTEL/MOTEL ASSOCIATION, in its representative capacity on behalf of its association members and Individual Plaintiffs Hotel/Motel Owners and Operators; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,
v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; et al. ,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 56399
D.C. No. 2:18

- cv - 01295

- DMG
MEMORANDUM *

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES, in its representative capacity on behalf of its association members,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; et al. ,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 56403
D.C. No. 2:17

- cv - 09306

- DMG

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUL 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee , District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 11 , 20 21 Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST , Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, * * Chief District Judge. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in two nearly identical § 1983 actions challenging the constitutionality of Los Angeles’s Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (“Ordinance”) . We have jurisdiction over th ese
consolidated appeal s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 129 1. O ur review is de novo , except
for the district court’s denial of leave to amend, which we review for abuse of
discretion. Fleming v. Pickard , 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2 009); Gompper v.
VISX, Inc. , 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
Plaintiff s ’ Fourth Amendment theories are without merit

. T he information sought by the Ordinance ’s annual reporting requirement

— including a given unit’s address, monthly rent , and o ther details routinely found in a “for

- rent ”
advertisement

— does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hotop v. City of San Jose , 982 F.3d 710, 715

– 16 (9th Cir. 2020). I nsofar as P laintiff s
maintain paper records of such information, the Ordinance does not authorize

** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.3

governmental trespass upon th ose papers

. See Lyall v. City of Los Angeles , 807 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) ( observing that a search occurs under the

common - law trespassory test “when the go vernment ‘physically occupie[s] private property for the purpose of obtaining information’”) (quoting United States v.

Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012)). Indeed, it is far from clear whether the particular
information

- collection method challenged here ( i.e., a regulatory process eliciting
annual disclosures ) eve n effect s a Fourth Amendment “search.” See Hotop , 982
F.3d at 720

– 21 (Bennett, J., concurring).

P laintiff s’ remaining claims are similarly infirm. First, regarding substantive and procedural due process, P laintiffs fail to show “that . . . they were deprived of a constitutionally protected life, liberty or property interest.” See i d. at 718 (internal quotation marks and c itations omitted). Second, regarding the Equal Protection Clause, landlords “are not members of a suspect class,” and “the distinctions drawn by the Ordinance ,” between properties that are and are not subject to rent stabilization, “easily . . . survive ra tional basis review.” See i d. at
717. T hird, regarding the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, P laintiffs “have shown no unconstitutionality” in what the Ordinance asks them to do

. See id. at
719

. The district court properly denied P laintiff s ’ request s for leave to amend their respective complaints by adding Takings Clause claims

. The complaints4

omitted any fact

ual averments supporting a Takings Clause claim, and the requests for leave to amend made clear no such averments would be forthcoming were leave granted. Together, these circumstances implicated concerns going to prejudice and delay. That the district court acted on these concerns was not an
abus e of discretion.
AFFIRMED.