Jeffrey S. ONeil v. California Coastal Commission

I. INTRODUCTION

19 Defendants California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) and the County of Santa 20 Barbara (“SB”) each move to dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey S. O’Neil’s First Amended 21 Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges that Defendants’ conduct constituted an 22 unconstitutional taking and a violation of substantive due process. (See generally 23 SB’s Mot. to Dismiss (“SB Mot.”), ECF No. 21; CCC’s Mot. to Dismiss (“CCC 24 Mot.”), ECF No. 25.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS CCC’s Motion 25 and DENIES SB’s Motion.1 26

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motions, the Court deemed the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. II. BACKGROUND In 1996, Plaintiff O’Neil purchased the property located at 2551 Wallace Ave., 3 Summerland, California (“Subject Property”). (FAC ¶¶ 1, 24, ECF No. 12.) O’Neil 4 files this suit against the CCC, a state administrative body, and SB alleging their 5 conduct denied him of all economic, beneficial, and productive use of the Subject 6 Property without just compensation. (FAC ¶¶ 4, 6, 7.) The…