Here’s the letter request which we sent today to the California Court of Appeal, Second Division, asking the court to publish its recent opinion in Brost v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B246153 (Mar. 25, 2015). In our post about the case, we wrote “we hope there’s a motion to publish and that the court grants it. This case should be citeable as precedent.”
But as a colleague reminded us, a request to publish an opinion isn’t limited to just the parties to the case, and the California Rules of Court provide that “any person” may ask the court to publish an unpublished opinion, and we certainly fit that description. So today, we — along with our colleagues at Owners’ Counsel of America — wrote to the court that the Brost decision is significant (among other reasons) because it correctly applies the futility exception to takings ripeness, and also correctly analyzes a claim that nuisance-prevention was shown to be a “background principle” supporting the total prohibition on property owners rebuilding their homes.
We’ll let you know if the court says yes.