Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates, a California Limited Partnership v. City of Morgan Hill City of Morgan Hill Rent Review Opinion Commission

Good Law
353 F.3d 651·2003 WL 22961340·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25419
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 200302-15986California4,756 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates (“Hacienda”) brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of the City of Morgan Hill’s (“City’s”) vacancy control ordinance, Ordinance No. 1090 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prevents mobile home parks from raising the rent on a mobile home “pad” when the mobile home is sold. Hacienda alleges that the Ordinance allows existing tenants to capture a “premium” on the sales price of their mobile homes because the new tenants are guaranteed low rent. Hacienda argues that this premium is an unconstitutional taking.

District Judge Whyte found that Hacienda had not met the ripeness requirements imposed on regulatory taking cases by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), and therefore dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final district court decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we now affirm.

I. Background

Hacienda operates a 165-unit mobile home park (“Park”) in Morgan Hill. Mobile home owners generally rent a space, or “pad,” in a mobile home park, while the park provides common…

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.