Here's the latest complaint in a long train of complaints alleging that a COVID-related shutdown or moratorium is a taking or damaging of private property for public use.
This time, it's from Northern California wine country (Napa County Superior Court, to be specific), and the taking claims (skip to page 19 if you want to cut to the takings chase) only seeks relief under the California Constitution ("Private property may be taken or damaged for public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.").
The complaint alleges:
91. Coalition members have property interests in their respective outdoor-service restaurants, wineries, and related businesses. Prohibiting them from reopening for outdoor service while allowing similarly-situated businesses to reopen for indoor customer service, and without recourse or protection from arbitrary enforcement, constitutes a taking of their property under the California Constitution.
92. Defendants have deprived Coalition members of the economically beneficial and productive use of their property including, without limitation, their use licenses, business property, and opportunity to sell food, wine, and related services in outdoor areas, already resulting in the involuntary closing of many of its member businesses.
...
94. The Coalition respectfully seeks a declaration that the December Orders prohibiting outdoor dining and outdoor wine tasting services violates Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution and that Coalition members are entitled to compensation for their economic loss as a result of the taking.
Complaint at 20.
We shall follow along, no doubt with a glass of our favorite eminent domain-themed wine (even though that one is from an Oregon vintner), enjoyed only at home and with a mask.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Wine Country Coalition for Safe Reopening v. Newsom, No. 2...
