Rent Control Takings Case (Guggenheim) Resource Page

In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance (RCO) was a regulatory taking. The court found the case ripe under Williamson County, and addressed the merits of the takings claim under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

A sharply divided en banc court vacated the panel opinion, and held that the city's RCO did not work a regulatory taking, because the fact that the Guggenheims purchased their property subject to a rent-control regime was "fatal" to their investment-backed expectations. Our report on the en banc oral arguments is posted here. The video of the arguments is posted here. The en banc opinion is available here.

On March 11, 2011, the property owner filed a cert petition (available here), which presents single Question Presented:

In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court rejected the proposition that "postenactment purchasers cannot challenge a regulation under the Takings Clause." Id. at 626. In this case, a divided en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit distinguished Palazzolo on the basis that the plaintiff there had acquired the property by operation of law (instead of purchasing it) and held that the fact that petitioners had purchased the property subject to the challenged regulation was "fatal to [petitioners'] claim."

Is the purchaser of property subject to a regulatory restriction foreclosed from challenging the restriction as a violation of the Takings Clause?

The Court's docket entry for the case is here.

Here are the cert stage party and amicus briefs:

• Cert Petition

• City's Brief in Opposition

• Petitioners' Reply Brief

• Amicus Brief of Manufactured Housing Institute [Disclosure: we represent MHI, and filed this brief]

• Amicus Brief of Equity Lifestyle Partners

• Amicus Brief of Cato Institute

• Amicus Brief of the National Association of Home Builders

• Amicus Brief of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Reason Foundation

• Amicus Brief of Graphic Artists Guild, et al.

• Amicus Brief of the National Apartment Association

• Amicus Brief of the California Association of Realtors

• Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation

• Amicus Brief of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

Here are the briefs filed in the Ninth Circuit at the en banc stage:

• Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

• Appellants' Response to Petition for Rehearing by the Panel or En Banc

• City's supplemental authorities

• Appellants' supplemental authorities

Here are the Ninth Circuit amici briefs supporting the property owners:

• California Association of Realtors
  

• California Apartment Association
  

• California Mobilehome Parkowners Alliance

• Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
  

• Equity Lifestyle Properties

• Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, Goldstein Properties, Inc., and Morgan Partners, Inc.
  

• National Apartment Association
  

• Pacific Legal Foundation and Manufactured Housing Institute
  

• Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association

Ninth Circuit amici briefs in support of the City:

• American Planning Association, APA California, Constitutional Accountability Center, and Western Center on Law and Poverty

• League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties

• Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League