Rent control cases rarely thrill us. They’s often long, the ordinances and rules being challenged are usuallylabyrinthian, and from our point of view, the results are mostly unsatisfying.
The California Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, No. B227092 (Oct. 21, 2013) doesn’t deviate from that pattern: it’s 50 pages long, the city’s mobilehome rent control system for determining a “fair” return for the park owner will make your head hurt, and in the end, the court held that the property owner was not entitled to make a profit after the payment of debt service. So we’ll leave it to you to read the details in the case itself if those issues interest you.
But what did catch our eye was the final few pages, in which the court reversed the lower court’s determination that the property owner reserving its federal takings claims for federal court resolution under England was “irrelevant, false, or improper,” and struck it:
Appellant’s federal takings claim based on the Board’s 2008 determination of the 2007 rent increase applications was dismissed by the district court for lack of ripeness under Williamson. Having received a clear message from the district court, appellant did not file a claim in federal court following the next year’s Board determination. When appellant thereafter filed the superior court actions, it included the England reservations in order to advise the court and respondents that it had no intention of resolving its federal constitutional claims in state court, but would resort to federal court for resolution of such claims when the matters were ripe. Although the Ninth Circuit has held that insertion of an England reservation in a state court pleading is not a strict prerequisite to preserving federal claims, we conclude that it is neither “irrelevant, false or improper” for purposes of a motion to strike. The presence of the England reservation clarifies in a manner helpful to both the court and the opposing party that a litigant wishes to limit the state court action to state issues. On the other hand, striking a reservation may lead to unnecessary confusion and duplication, as the litigant may feel compelled to raise federal issues in the state action although he or she intends to litigate the matters in federal court. Moreover, to allow a motion to strike to succeed in this situation would only lead to pointless law and motion practice, as a state court order striking the reservation cannot curb a federal court‟s jurisdiction for the reasons stated in Los Altos II. Accordingly, we conclude that the better practice is to permit assertion of England reservations where the litigant’s federal claims have been dismissed for lack of ripeness under Williamson, or where the litigant anticipates such dismissal and files first in state court.
Slip op. at 49-50. Seems about right to us.
Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, No. B227092 (Cal. App. Oct. 21, 2013)