Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz

Caution
818 F.2d 1449
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 7, 198786-1504, 86-1624California4,078 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hall, J.

The Kinzli plaintiffs (Kinzlis) brought this action against the City of Santa Cruz (City), alleging that the City violated their federal and state rights as property owners. The Kinzlis now appeal the district court’s holdings in favor of the City, specifically: (1) the district court’s dismissal on the merits of the Kinzlis’ claim that the adoption of a local ordinance deprived them of their property without just compensation in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) the district court’s dismissal on the merits of the Kinzlis’ claim of a violation of their right to equal protection; (3) the district court’s dismissal of their claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; and (4) the district court’s grant of the City’s motion for summary judgment on the Kinzlis’ claim of denial of substantive due process rights and their claim of federal constitutional violations arising from the City’s 1970 condemnation of their property. We hold that all of the Kinzlis’ claims were not ripe for adjudication by the district court, and therefore vacate the district court’s judgment.

I

A

The factual background of the Kinzlis’ claims is exhaustively…

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.