Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCP04588, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCP04588    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            The City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third and fourth causes of action is DENIED.

On 10/23/2019, DC Lake Holdings, LLC (Petitioner) filed a petition against the City of Pasadena (City), seeking: (1) a writ of mandate; (2) declaratory relief; (3) inverse condemnation; and (4) violation of Civil Rights.

            Now, the City moves for a judgment on the pleadings as to the third and fourth causes of action.

Discussion

             The City argues that Petitioner cannot state a claim for its third and fourth causes of action because these taking claims are not ripe, and does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim.

            The Court disagrees.

            The government may not take private property for public use without just compensation. (U.S. Const., 5^th and 4^th Amends.) The purpose of the rule is “to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.” (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 482 U.S. 304, 315.)

Usually, a takings action is ripe for review only if the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue. (Williamson Cty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank (1985) 473 U.S. 172, 186, overruled on other grounds by Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162, 2167.) If this requirement is not met, the claim is not ripe. (Id; Carson Habor Vill., Ltd.  v. City of Carson (9th Cir. 2004) 353 F.3d 824, 830.)

However, if Defendant’s theory were correct that Plaintiff’s challenge here could only be ripe once a final decision is made, Defendant could continue to put off a decision indefinitely without any recourse to Plaintiff. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) requires that Defendant either grant the sought concession or make specific findings set forth in the Government Code to reject it. (Cal. Gov't Code §65915(d)(l); Complaint ¶¶ 31, 33.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has done neither. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has made a number of concrete and definite decisions regarding his applications including determining that Plaintiff cannot use the SDBL, administratively withdrawing Plaintiff’s AHCP, or refusing to process the request unless Plaintiff revises its project to lower densities. Plaintiff alleges that these decisions are part of a pattern by Defendant of arbitrarily and unreasonably violating the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant’s conduct goes beyond a normal delay in the development process, and constitutes arbitrary and unreasonable conduct in violation of state law such that there has been a temporary taking, makes this claim ripe for adjudication. (See Ali v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 77 Cal.App.4^th 246.) If the Court were to conclude otherwise, Defendant could continue to mandate modifications to the application without ever making a final decision thereby precluding judicial review.

While it may be that Defendant’s conduct does not constitute arbitrary and unreasonable conduct, such that this case is not, in fact, ripe, the Court accepts well-pled allegations as true at the pleading stage. As a result, a determination as to whether or not a temporary taking has taken place is not properly made at this stage.

The Court also concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for inverse condemnation and the Civil Rights cause of action. As noted by Plaintiff, Defendant relies on cases which were not decided at the pleading stage to argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show an inverse condemnation.   

Based on the foregoing, the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third and fourth causes of action is denied.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November ___, 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.