Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Guggenheim v. Goleta, No. 06-56306

By FindLaw Staff on September 28, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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


Opinion by Judge Bybee

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld


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

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard