Case Name: SIERRA LAKE RESERVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF ROCKLIN; The Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission; Carlos Urrutia; Rusty Selix; Rudolf Michaels; George Paras, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-03-16
Citations: 987 F.2d 662
Docket Number: No. 89-15371
Parties: SIERRA LAKE RESERVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF ROCKLIN; The Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission; Carlos Urrutia; Rusty Selix; Rudolf Michaels; George Paras, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, KOZINSKI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 987
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
SIERRA LAKE RESERVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF ROCKLIN; The Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission; Carlos Urrutia; Rusty Selix; Rudolf Michaels; George Paras, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-15371.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 16, 1993.
Before GOODWIN, KOZINSKI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The "[t]wo recent state court opinions [that] refused to follow our decision in Hall [v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1986)]," Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1991), have proven prescient. See Yee v. City of Escondido, — U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1527, 1531, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992). We therefore vacate Part I of the Sierra Lake Reserve opinion, which dealt with the physical taking claim. We retain Part II because the due process and equal protection claims it considered are unaffected by Yee. See — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 1531. We express no opinion on whether the city ordinance could constitute a regulatory taking — a question Yee leaves open, see id. — because no regulatory taking argument was made to us or the court below.