Court Opinion

ID: 9483328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:17:40.364756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:33.998966
License: Public Domain

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree that the petition for rehearing must be granted in light of Yee v. City of Escondido, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992), and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). But I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that Azul’s cause of action is necessarily extinguished by De Anza Properties X., Ltd. v. County of Santa Cruz, 936 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir.1991). Yee not only overruled Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108 S.Ct. 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), upon which our opinion in this case was based; it implicitly overruled De Anza, which was premised upon the physical taking theory of Hall. See De Anza, 936 F.2d at 1086-87. De Anza is simply no longer good law for determining when a cause of action accrues for a takings claim. Thus, I would remand to the district court for determination of the statute of limitations issue in light of the intervening Yee and Lucas decisions, and the resultant obsoleteness of De Anza.