California Eminent Domain Report : a blog following condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings written by attorneys with Nossaman LLP.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last fall, we told you about a key rent control / takings decision, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, in which the Ninth Circuit held that a rent control ordinance consituted a taking.  In March, we reported that the Ninth Circuit had ordered an en banc hearing of the Guggenheim case. 

Yesterday, the Court held the en banc hearing, and while it may be some time before the Court issues its opinion, the hearing itself may provide some good insights about what may happen (and what it may mean in the larger context of regulatory takings claims).  

Very generally speaking, the Court was critical of both sides' positions, attacking the property owner's attorney with respect to how long the ordinances had been in place and whether his clients knew about them when they purchased the mobile home park, only to then attack the City's attorney about the magnitude of the transfer of value the ordinance effected.  

Ultimately, based on what I understand to have been the tone of the arguments, the Court may avoid the merits and rule on a statute of limitations argument, but time will tell.  In the meantime, eminent domain attorney Robert Thomas followed the arguments closely and wrote a comprehensive, three-part summary on his inverse condemnation blog.  It makes for great reading:

• Guggenheim argument summary, part 1
• Guggenheim argument summary, part 2
• Guggenheim argument summary, part 3