Carrico

Carrico v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
656 F.3d 1002·2011 WL 3890748·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18485
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 201109-17151California2,547 words

Opinion

Opinion

Block, J.

The Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (“SPOSFI”) and Mary Figone appeal the district court’s judgment rejecting their facial First Amendment and vagueness challenges to portions of “Proposition M,” a popularly enacted amendment to the rent-stabilization ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco (“the City”). Because we conclude that both SPOSFI and Figone lack standing, we cannot reach the merits of their challenges. Instead, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

I

San Francisco voters approved Proposition M in November 2008. As pertinent here, the proposition amended the City’s rent-stabilization ordinance to prohibit residential landlords and their agents from attempting, “in bad faith,” to “coerce the tenant to vacate with offers of payments to vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation.” S.F. Admin. Code § ST.lOBiaXO).

SPOSFI is a nonprofit association of approximately 1,500 residential landlords in San Francisco. In February 2009, it filed suit in the district court, seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring…

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.