Stardust Mobile Estates LLC v. City of San Buenaventura

*301 MEMORANDUM *

Stardust Mobile Estates (“Stardust”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claims against the City of San Buenaventura (the “City”) and the City’s Rent Review Board. We AFFIRM.

Stardust alleges that the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Control Stabilization Ordinance fails to substantially advance a legitimate government interest. The district court dismissed this claim as unripe; we affirm on different grounds. See Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (stating that this court may affirm dismissal on any ground supported by the record). The Supreme Court recently held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that the “ ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and ... has no proper place in ... takings jurisprudence.” — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2087 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005). Lingle requires that Stardust’s claim, whether brought facially or as applied, be dismissed with prejudice. See Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051 , (9th Cir 2005).

To the extent that Stardust also brings an as-applied regulatory takings challenge on the ground that by denying Stardust’s application for a rent increase, the City…