Here's another one from the Ninth Circuit, argued on what one advocate called "land use day at the Ninth Circuit" (except, unlike the other two cases argued that day, the decision in this one gets published).
In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (Dec. 8, 2022), the panel upheld the dismissal of a takings case, holding that federal courts should abstain from considering regulatory takings cases in favor of pending state court eminent domain actions, even when the condemnor instituted the state court action in response to the federal takings claim (and even though, unlike the other two cases argued that day, the federal takings claim is ripe).
This one started in federal court, where the property owner asserted the city's rejection of its development application worked a taking. In response, the city ran to state court and filed an eminent domain action to take the owner's fee simple interest in the land (we presume that's the property the city is condemning, because the opinion doesn't specify). Next, the city ran back to federal court with its state court complaint in hand and asked the federal court to exercise Pullman abstention to let the state court condemnation action play out first. The district court agreed ... federal case gone (for now).
Rejecting the owner's argument that abstention here was just a backdoor state-procedures exhaustion requirement -- both of which were rejected by the Supreme Court in Knick and Pakdel -- the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel first concluded that there's nothing in either of those cases that make federal takings claims immune from Pullman abstention. Those cases involved ripeness and exhaustion, and didn't say anything that prohibit federal courts from ducking federal civil rights issues. See slip op. at 7 ("As an initial matter, neither Knick nor Pakdel explicitly limit abstention in takings litigation. Neither case even addresses abstention."). Abstention is to avoid "friction" between federal and state courts, and to prevent federal courts from unduly interfering with the delicate balance between the states and the federal courts. Id.
Addressing the owner's argument that Pullman abstention results in a de facto return to the state court exhaustion requirement rejected by Knick, the panel concluded that "[t]he state court can adjudicate the eminent domain action without reaching the regulatory taking issue because eminent domain and regulatory takings suits compensate property owners for different injuries." Slip op. at 9.
Eminent domain compensates property owners for the forced sale of their properties to the government; the property is transferred to the government, and the owner is paid the property’s fair market value as of the date the government made a deposit on the property. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.310. A regulatory taking action, on the other hand, compensates a property owner for “[t]he economic impact of [a] regulation . . . and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538–39 (2005) (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)); Steven J. Eagle, Regulatory Takings § 8-9(a) (2021) (surveying methods of calculating compensation proportional to harm and level of interference).
Id.
In our view, the actual differences between a regulatory takings/inverse claim and an exercise of eminent domain are not those identified by the court, because it isn't so much about different injuries (eminent domain isn't at all about "injury" at all), but more like different property being taken and valued. Here, the owner's regulatory takings claim asserts that by engaging in some otherwise legitimate function (denial of permission to develop), the government has, from the owner's perspective, effectively condemned the right to use the property (the development rights), or even the fee simple interest if this is framed as a Lucas taking, but has not provided just compensation for the interest(s) taken. On the other hand, the owner's argument in the state court eminent domain case isn't that the government action is unconstitutional because it has not provided compensation, but that it has not paid (or offered) enough compensation for whatever interests it is taking. Those differences have nothing to do with the owner's "injury."
And wait, you say, in the eminent domain action, doesn't the property owner have to raise the issues he's raising in the regulatory takings action as part of his defense or as part of the highest and best use of the property? We'd think yes, that the owner has some sort of argument, or defense, or counterclaim that the eminent domain action isn't fully compensating him for the interests actually taken, and either should (or more likely must) raise these issues in the state court. Or would be taking a pretty big risk by not raising the issue.
But the Ninth Circuit panel saw no downside, and concluded that the owner could somehow reserve the federal claim, even with an England reservation!
The Gearings could defend the eminent domain action without challenging the constitutionality of the City’s enforcement of LUP Section 9.3.5 or other regulations, and simply recover the fair market value of the property as restricted by those regulations.1 When the eminent domain action concludes, they could then litigate their regulatory taking claim in federal court and recover damages for the economic impact of the regulation and interference with their investment-backed expectations. See Lingle, 544 U.S. at 538–39. The Gearings have not cited, and we are not aware of, any support for their assertion that the constitutionality of the City’s restrictions on their properties must be adjudicated before compensation can be determined for purposes of eminent domain.----------------------------------1 To the extent the Gearings argue that this would result in issue preclusion that would bar their federal claims, they are incorrect, because issue preclusion only applies to issues that were “actually litigated and decided in the prior proceedings.” Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Washington, 8 F.4th 853, 864 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). As noted, the Gearings would not be required to litigate their takings claim in the eminent domain action. Thus, this case is distinct from San Remo Hotel II, in which the property owners were required to litigate their takings claim in state-court proceedings in order for those claims to ripen for federal review. See 545 U.S. at 347.
Slip op. at 9-10.
Having determined that Pullman abstention was not categorically precluded, the panel found it simple to conclude that the doctrine should be invoked here because land use is a "sensitive area of social policy." But if Pakdel and Knick, stand for anything, they to reflect the Supreme Court’s thorough rejection of the longstanding trope that takings claims challenging land use regulations are “local” matters outside the competency of federal judges, and that federal courts need to give local governments a lot of leeway and right-of-first-action when it comes to restricting property owners' uses.
The Court made clear that land use and takings claims are civil rights matters and are to be treated like every other civil rights claim. If federal courts can resolve cases about monkey selfies, nude dancing, creating Valentine’s Day artwork out of naked bodies, and whether pet pigeons are diseased (all examples taken from cases in which a federal court resolved the issues) then it doesn't seem like a straightforward land use question is uniquely sensitive or so inherently local as to be beyond the ken of federal judges expressly tasked by Constitution (amend XIV) and statute (section 1983) with dealing with the issue.
More on the decision here ("Does Pullman Abstention Apply to Federal Takings Claims Post-Knick?") and here ("This Week at the Ninth: Abstention and the Golden Globes").
Will there be more on this one? Stay tuned.
Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022)
