In a lengthy opinion — it comes in two volumes — the Ninth Circuit again takes on a mobile home rent control ordinance, this time with a better result than usual for the property owners. The court determined the ordinance worked a taking, and remanded the case for a calculation of just compensation. Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (Sep. 28, 2009). Because the case is long, we haven’t had a chance to digest it yet, but here’s the court’s conclusion:
We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment on the takings claim and remand to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court may of course consider any materials presented by either party that are relevant to determining the total amount of just compensation due to the Park Owners. See, e.g., Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1354. As noted in Part III.A.1, the district court here did not consider the detailed figures included in either of the expert reports presented before it, possibly because it found that such evidence was precluded under a facial takings challenge under Penn Central. We have now held that a facial challenge under Penn Central exists as a viable legal claim, see supra pp. 13839-40, and affirmed that this court’s precedents and the nature of a takings inquiry allow for some evidence outside the text of the statute to be admissible. Id. at 13840-43. The district court may therefore properly consider such “detailed figures,” in addition to any other evidence it deems relevant, in conducting its analysis to ascertain the precise amount of just compensation owed to the Park Owners. See, e.g., Richardson, 124 F.3d at 1154 n.2 (noting that an example using exact dollar amounts is “illustrative” of the economic impact of the regulation in a facial challenge).
More to follow after a chance to read the opinion.