In a case that illustrates the lengths a court will go to avoid dealing with the merits of a takings challenge, the Ninth Circuit in Equities Lifestyle Prop., Inc., v. County of San Luis Obispo (No. 05-55406) (Sep. 17, 2007), held that the plaintiff was both too early (not yet ripe under Williamson County) and too late (missed the statute of limitations). In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to a voter-approved mobilehome “rent stabilization” (rent control) ordinance. The court ruled:
- Standing: the county challenged the ability of the plaintiff to bring suit because it did not have “title ownership” of the mobilehome park. The court held that pecuniary injury, not title ownership is the key to standing, and allowed the suit to proceed.
- Takings: the court rejected the “as applied” takings challenge on Williamson County grounds because the plaintiff had not availed itself of available state procedures to obtain compensation (Kavanau adjustment). In other words, the claim was filed too early.
- Takings: however, the court rejected the “facial” takings challenge because it was filed too late. The ordinance was approved in 1984, and the plaintiff acquired the property in 1997. The court held, citing Palazzolo, that the plaintiff had one year from date of acquisition to file its claim.
- Substantive due process: the court held that it had already determined that rent control ordinances are “rationally related to a legitimate public purpose,” citing Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson, 37 F.3d 468, 472 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds, WMX Tech. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997).
- Equal protection: the court held that mobilehome owners are not a “suspect class” and the ordinance is therefore reviewed only under the “rational basis” standard. The court upheld the classification.