Lyndsey Ballinger v. City of Oakland

Good Law
24 F.4th 1287
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 1, 202219-16550California6,435 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYNDSEY BALLINGER; SHARON No. 19-16550

BALLINGER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-07186- v. HSG

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2020 Submission Withdrawn July 16, 2021 Resubmitted January 25, 2022 San Francisco, California

Filed February 1, 2022

Before: Richard R. Clifton, N. Randy Smith, and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge R. Nelson SUMMARY *

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the City of Oakland’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, which requires landlords re-taking occupancy of their homes upon the expiration of a lease to pay tenants a relocation payment.

Plaintiffs alleged that the relocation fee is an unconstitutional physical taking of their money for a private rather than public purpose and without…

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.