MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of Santee

MEMORANDUM **

MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two (“MHC”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, denying its as-applied and facial takings, due process and equal protection claims arising out of the City of Santee’s enforcement of a series of rent and vacancy control ordinances applicable to mobile home parks, including one owned by MHC.

MHC’s as-applied takings claims were properly dismissed as unripe under Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), because MHC had not sought or been denied compensation from the City or through state procedures prior to commencing its actions. MHC’s facial takings claims were ripe but time barred, as each of its lawsuits was filed more than one year after the enactment of the rent and vacancy control provisions it challenged.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 544 U.S. 528 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005), decided after the district court’s dismissal, forecloses MHC’s facial takings claim based on its “failure to substantially advance” theory. See MHC v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022 , 1034 (9th Cir.2005)(“MHC’s facial…