In a Takings Clause challenge to a city's mobile home rent control ordinance, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the city forfeited its right to argue that plaintiffs' action was not ripe; 2) a facial challenge under Penn Central existed as a viable legal claim; and 3) the regulation was invalid considering (a) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (b) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and (c) the character of the governmental action.
Argued and Submitted April 7, 2008
Filed September 28, 2009
Opinion by Judge Bybee
Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld
Julie Hayward Biggs and Amy E. Morgan, Los Angeles, CA