Fed. Dist. Court in CA Dismisses Plaintiff’s Takings Claims on Ripeness Grounds but allows Equal Protection Claims to Continue

This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq.

Patrick Lustig (“Plaintiff”) alleged the City violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments when they determined that no development could be approved on his property and thereby deprived him of all reasonable economic use of his property and amounting to an unlawful taking without compensation. Plaintiff also alleged that the City’s actions constituted denial of equal protection because there were other nearby properties that had been allowed to develop.

Commencing on September 9, 2016 and continuing through August 15, 2021, Plaintiff had sought permission from the Defendant City to construct a single-family residence on Plaintiff’s Property (the “Property”). On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a plan to the Planning Department of Laguna Beach for a driveway for additional street access. On September 12, 2016, the City denied Plaintiff’s request because the Property was not a “building site” as defined by the City of Laguna Beach Zoning Code (the “Code”). Plaintiff for several years continued to try and have the Property classified as a building site and was last denied on August 16, 2021, when the City alleged their application for a variance was incomplete.

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit and alleged five causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (“Section 1983”), which guarantees a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials. Defendant moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were not ripe for adjudication because the City had not reached a “final decision” on Plaintiff’s proposed plans. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims were ripe, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the 90-Day Statute of Limitations under Section 65009(c)(1). As for Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim, Defendant argued it failed because Plaintiff did not identify a “similarly situated” property in “all material respects” where development was permitted by the City. In opposition, Plaintiff argued that the claims were ripe, that the statute of limitations had not run on any of the claims, and that his equal protection claim was adequately pled. Regarding the four takings claims Plaintiff asserted under Section 1983, the Court found that they were not yet ripe for review because the August 16 letter did not qualify as a final decision on the variance application and dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff alleged that the City treated them unfairly compared to other property owners, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim asserted that Plaintiff was intentionally treated differently without a rational basis. Plaintiff argues that the Property was similar to others in the area but had been subjected to additional requirements by the City.

Despite the defendant’s argument that the Property had unique constraints, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated that they were similarly situated to other property owners in all material respects. The Court denied Defendant’s motion regarding the Equal Protection Claim.

Therefore, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings.

Lustig v City of Laguna Beach, 2023 WL 6370231 (CD CA 8/10/2023)