Eva Kollsman, City National Bank, Tashi Land Corporation, a New York Corporation v. City of Los Angeles, a Municipal Corporation

Paul Kollsman sought approval from the City of Los Angeles to develop an eighty-five acre subdivision. The City denied the application on the ground that Kollsman had failed to submit requested information. Kollsman filed an action in federal district court alleging that the City’s land use regulations violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and provisions of state law. Without addressing the federal constitutional claims, the district court held that Kollsman’s subdivision application must be deemed approved under California law. We conclude that the district court, 565 F.Supp. 1081 , should have abstained and allowed state courts to decide the questions of land use planning. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Paul Kollsman proposed to develop a seventy lot subdivision on an eighty-five acre tract of land located in the Santa Monica Mountains. On January 12, 1977, Kolls-man submitted to the City of Los Angeles a proposed tract map and an “Environmental Assessment Form.” The City notified Kollsman on February 16, 1977, that it would not accept his subdivision application before he submitted a draft Environmental…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

I believe that the majority errs in holding that the district court abused its discretion by not abstaining from deciding the merits. There are no uncertain state law questions that must be resolved here. Rather, the case turns principally on a factual issue with a painfully obvious answer. Moreover, I believe that the majority’s disposition of the case illustrates how procedural rules intended to aid the federal judiciary in performing its duties can, if misapplied, serve to deprive parties of a fair and adequate resolution of their dispute. By unnecessarily and improperly invoking the abstention doctrine, the majority does a disservice to both parties, and no favor to the federal courts. Rather than vacate the district court’s decision on abstention grounds, we should reverse its state law decision on the merits and remand the case to the district court for resolution of Kolls-man’s constitutional claims.

In January 1977, Paul Kollsman submitted to the City of Los Angeles an application for the development of a seventy lot *838 subdivision. While that application was pending, he filed an action in district court containing both state and…

737 F.2d 830 Eva KOLLSMAN, City National Bank, Tashi Land Corporation, a New York corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 83-5798. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 4, 1984. Decided July 17, 1984. Michael M. Berger, Fadem, Berger, McIntire & Norton, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. William L. Waterhouse, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Joseph Barbieri, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for amicus Cal. Coastal Comm. et al. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON * , District Judge. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 Paul Kollsman sought approval from the City of Los Angeles to develop an eighty-five acre subdivision. The City denied the application on the ground that Kollsman had failed to submit requested information. Kollsman filed an action in federal district court alleging that the City's land use regulations violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and provisions of state law. Without addressing the federal constitutional claims, the district…