Hillary Falconer v. County of Santa Cruz

Good Law
367 F. App'x 791
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 23, 201008-17661California437 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The harm alleged by Falconer is the reduction of property value due to the recording of the notice of violation in the -real property records without constitution ally adequate procedure. Falconer’s due process claim became ripe when the County’s decision became final, see Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 920 F.2d 1496, 1507 (9th Cir.1990), which occurred at the time the County recorded notices of violation in 1998 and 2002, Santa Cruz County, Cal., Code § 19.01.080 (2009). The statute of limitations for challenging this alleged due process violation accrued when Falconer knew or “ha[d] reason to know of the injury that is the basis of [her] action.” RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.2002). Falconer knew that the County had recorded the notice of violation against her property on September 19, 2002, which is when the County sent notice of the recording to Falconer’s attorney. That notice also referred Falconer to Santa Cruz County Code § 19.01.080, which states that “[t]he Planning Director’s decision is final and not subject to further appeal.” Thus, Falconer knew that the County took value from her property by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.