Guggenheim v. Goleta, No. 06-56306

In a Takings Clause challenge to a city's mobile home rent control ordinance, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the city forfeited its right to argue that plaintiffs' action was not ripe; 2) a facial challenge under Penn Central existed as a viable legal claim; and 3) the regulation was invalid considering (a) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (b) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and (c) the character of the governmental action.

Read Guggenheim v. Goleta, No. 06-56306

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2008

Filed September 28, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bybee

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld

Counsel

For Appellants:

Mark D. Alpert, Robert S. Coldren, and C. William Dahlin, Santa Ana, CA

For Appellee:

Julie Hayward Biggs and Amy E. Morgan, Los Angeles, CA