This is one of ours -- argued by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois -- so we won't be offering any commentary.
But we just have to post the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in Iten v. County of Los Angeles, No. 22-55480 (Aug. 30, 2023), because it discusses two significant issues, and sets out a roadmap for how to successfully plead a Contracts Clause claim.
First, standing. The court held that a commercial property owner -- a retired auto mechanic who leased his premises to an auto repair shop -- has Article III standing to challenge the County's commercial eviction moratorium which prevented the owner from evicting the tenant when it stopped paying rent but did not vacate. The court distinguished the standing requirement of "demonstrating injury in fact" from the question of whether the plaintiff has actually been injured. The first is a pleading requirement and turns on the nature of the claim, while the latter is a factual question for the trier-of-fact. Slip op. at 10-12. That is an important distinction that many frequently forget. We've all been in cases where the merits question gets bootstrapped into a question of whether the plaintiff is injured.
Second, to see whether Iten met the pleading requirement, the opinion goes into the nature of a claim under the Contracts Clause, noting it "was the most litigated constitutional provision in the nineteenth century." Slip op. at 13. But as we know, the Contracts Clause later fell out of favor with the courts, and "[s]trict application of the Contracts Clause ended in the Minnesota Moratorium case." Slip op. at 15. The Ninth Circuit continued:
The modern approach to the Contract Clause now considers not only whether the law impairs the obligation of the contract, but asks how “substantial” that impairment is and whether the state law is an “appropriate” and “reasonable” use of state police power. See Sveen v. Melin, 138 S. Ct. 1815, 1821–22 (2018) (quoting Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411–12 (1983)). Although, post-Blaisdell, a Contracts Clause claim analysis requires additional inquiries, the merits of a Contracts Clause claim has always started with whether or not there is a change in a law (an “obligation”) that has impaired the original agreement of the parties.
Id.
Next, the court noted that "mortgage moratoria were, from the beginning, at the heart of the Contracts Clause. A law affecting or changing the terms the parties previously agreed to is the quintessential example of what the Contracts Clause was designed to prohibit." Id. This means that Iten, who is prohibited from evicting his non-paying commercial tenant because the County's prohibition, has standing to challenge the County's (alleged) realignment of the agreement between him and the tenant.
The court rejected the district court's rationale that despite the legal prohibition, Iten might have tried to evict the nonpaying tenant. The moratorium requires nonpaying tenants who wish to invoke the ordinance's protection to inform an owner, but the tenant here did not. Thus, the district court reasoned, Iten could have evicted for nonpayment of rent. The Ninth Circuit had a different view:
To show injury and causation for standing purposes, Iten need not allege that he would have been able to evict his Tenant “but for” the Moratorium. Nor need he show that his Tenant qualifies for the affirmative defense provided by the Moratorium. Rather, Iten need only allege that the Moratorium imposed additional rights, remedies, conditions, or procedures that impair the obligations to which he and his Tenant had contracted. Iten has made that showing here. He has alleged that Los Angeles County changed the framework for his lease with his Tenant by creating an additional affirmative defense for the Tenant, enacting a year-long forbearance period for unpaid rent, prohibiting Iten from charging late fees or interest, and adding civil and criminal penalties beyond those previously provided under California landlord-tenant law. Furthermore, the value of a commercial property is often tied to the value of its leases. Iten alleged that the Moratorium “undercut the economic value and security of [his commercial leases].” Thus, so long as the Moratorium was in effect, the economic value of Iten’s property, as influenced by the value and strength of the leases of that property, was diminished, and “[a] specific, concrete, and particularized allegation of a reduction in the value of property owned by the plaintiff is sufficient to demonstrate injury-in-fact at the pleading stage.” Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2011).
Slip op. at 17-18.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected the conclusion that Iten "would have prevailed" in a state court eviction action, instead holding that "it was improper to speculate how a California court would have responded to an eviction action brought by Iten." Slip op. at 19.
The essence of the Contracts Clause claim is that the owner "is protesting the fact that he even has to run the gauntlet of additional procedures that were not in place when the Tenant signed the lease." Slip op. at 20. The court cautioned against "conflat[ing] constitutional injury with contractual impairment," and set out a roadmap for how to plead these claims (at least in the Ninth Circuit):
For purposes of standing, Iten alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that he suffered an injury traceable to the Moratorium for purposes of standing: He alleged that he was a commercial landlord living in Los Angeles County; that both he and the Tenant believed that the Moratorium applied to their lease agreement; and that the Moratorium altered the terms of his contract with his Tenant. Iten alleged that the Moratorium limited the legal procedures he may take to evict his Tenant for nonpayment of rent; that it prevented him from charging late fees or interest, which his lease otherwise allows him to do; and that it imposed additional penalties that chilled his ability to test the viability of eviction. In sum, Iten, at least for purposes of filing a complaint, has alleged that the obligations of his contract had been “taken away or materially lessened.”
Slip op. at 24.
Our congratulations to our colleague Kady for the win!
Iten v. County of Los Angeles, No. 22-55480 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023)
