Marina Point Development Associates v. County of San Bernardino

Opinion

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARINA POINT DEVELOPMENT Case No. 5:19-cv-00964 RGK (KSx) ASSOCIATES, a California General Partnership, et al., [PROPOSED] Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT FOLLOWING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION v. Date: April 20, 2020 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et Time: 9 a.m. al., Courtroom: 850, 8th Floor Defendants. Lodged concurrently with: 1. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts 2. Request for Judicial Notice 3. Laura Crane Declaration 4. Chris Warrick Declaration 5. Terri Rahhal Declaration 6. Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of P&As 7. Proposed Order Granting MSA 8. Index of Exhibits and Exhibits On April 20, 2020, the above entitled action came on for hearing before the court for Defendant County of San Bernardino’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication in the alternative. The honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner presided over the hearing. The parties’ appearances were as noted in the record. Having fully considered the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement is granted, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant County of San Bernardino for the reasons stated below: . 1. Defendant is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims for relief because the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) do not weigh in favor of finding the County of San Bernardino’s actions with regards to the Plaintiffs’ project has resulted in a regulatory taking because: a. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the first factor of the Penn Central analysis weighs in favor of finding the County of San Bernardino’s actions caused an economic impact on the Plaintiffs of such significance that it equates to a physical occupation of the property. See Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. Land Use Comm'n, 950 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2020). b. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the second factor of the Penn Central analysis weighs in favor of finding the County of San Bernardino’s actions interfered with Plaintiffs’ reasonable investment backed expectations. See Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 452 (9th Cir. 2018), Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922), and Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1005 (1984). c. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the third factor of the Penn Central analysis weights in favor of finding the character of the County of San Bernardino’s US.328, 539-2005) 2.

3, 28-4988). 4, » City Of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 956 (Oth Cir 2011). 5. 2010) CA request for injunctive relief by itself does-not-state-a-cause-ofaction-”) Plaintiffs shall take nothing. Defendant shall recover its-costs. KQ Dated: May 18, 2020 HONORABLE JUDGE R. GARY KLAUSNER United States District Judge