Opinion ID: 3033388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The City Ordinance as applied violates the

Text: Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
their homes for a premium (based on rent control savings), the premium transfers value of MHC’s land to the tenants.
and reasonable return on MHC’s investment. VIII. The City’s Ordinance does not substantially advance a legitimate governmental objective. It is facially invalid as violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved to dismiss MHC’s complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, ripeness, failure to present a federal question, and California’s statute of limitations. The City also moved for attorneys’ fees and sanctions. The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and granted the City’s attorneys’ fees. The court denied sanctions. The district court dismissed Counts I (procedural due process), II (equal protection), and III (biased hearing officer) under Rooker-Feldman and res judicata. The district court dismissed Counts IV (procedural due process), V (declaratory relief), and VI (enforcement), as not ripe for adjudication and for failing to present a federal question. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts V and VI as related to the Individual Defendants. The takings claims, Counts VII (as applied) and VIII (facial), were dismissed as untimely (ripeness and statute of limitations) and as improper under Rooker-Feldman and res judicata. MHC filed a timely Notice of Appeal on September 16, 2003. 11176 MANUFACTURED HOME CMTYS. v. SAN JOSE