Recently in Property Law Category

In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).

Read National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 05-56814

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2007

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Pregerson

Dissent by Judge Trott

Counsel

For Appellants:

Tamara N. Rountree, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Deborah Sivas and Noah Long, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, Stanford, CA

In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Read Robinson v. US, No. 07-17052

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2009

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Nelson

Counsel

For Appellants:

Joseph P. Mascovich, Randolph Cregger & Chalfant LLP, Sacramento, CA

For Appellee:

Tamara N. Rountree, Environment & Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In an action under the Housing and Community Development Act challenging eviction notices issued by defendant-landlord, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the Department of Housing and Urban Development's "good cause" regulation did not preempt the operation of the City of Los Angeles's eviction control ordinance.

Read Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, No. 07-56697

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2009

Filed October 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw

Counsel

For Appellant:

Chris J. Evans, Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP, Irvine, CA

For Appellees:

Michael E. Soloff, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA

A. Christian Abasto, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

In a Takings Clause challenge to a rent control ordinance, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is reversed where the district court erred in determining that prior state court decisions striking plaintiff's "England reservations" of its federal constitutional claims meant there was no valid reservation.

Read Los Altos El Granada Investors v. Capitola, No. 07-16888

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted March 12, 2009

Filed October 7, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bybee

Counsel

For Appellant:

Robert S. Coldren, C. William Dahlin, and Mark D. Alpert, Santa Ana, CA

For Appellees:

John G. Barisone, Santa Cruz, CA

Henry E. Heater and Linda B. Reich, San Diego, CA

In debtor's appeal from the district court's order affirming a bankruptcy court's decision limiting the debtor's homestead exemption in his bankruptcy petition to $125,000 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 522(p), the order is affirmed in part where no pre-petition appreciation of the property at issue occurred.  However, the order is reversed in part where "any amount of interest that was acquired," as used in section 522(p)(1), meant the acquisition of ownership of real property and the monetary cap in section 522(p) did not apply to property to which a debtor acquired title more than 1215 days before she or he filed a bankruptcy petition.

Read In re: Greene, No. 07-16067

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2008

Filed October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Timlin

Counsel

For Appellant:

David Rankine and Michael Lehners, Reno, NV

For Appellee:

Robert C. Vohl, Reno, NV

In a debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's order limiting the homestead exemption in his bankruptcy petition, the order is affirmed in part where there was no pre-petition appreciation of the property at issue; but reversed in part, where perfection of a homestead exemption does not constitute acquisition of a property interest for purposes of 11 U.S.C. section 522(p)(1), and thus the debtor's homestead was not subject to the $125,000 cap contained in section 522(p).

Read In re Greene, No. 07-16067

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 12, 2008

Filed October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Timlin

Counsel

For Appellant:

David Rankine and Michael Lehners, Reno, NV

For Appellee:

Robert C. Vohl, Reno, NV

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.

Read Guggenheim v. Goleta, No. 06-56306

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2008

Filed September 28, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bybee

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld

Counsel

For Appellants:

Mark D. Alpert, Robert S. Coldren, and C. William Dahlin, Santa Ana, CA

For Appellee:

Julie Hayward Biggs and Amy E. Morgan, Los Angeles, CA

In an action by a putative class of persons whose financial assets escheated to the California Controller's Office pursuant to California's Unclaimed Property Law (UPL), alleging insufficient notice and mishandling of plaintiffs' property, order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and defendants is affirmed in part where the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiffs' claims for restitution.  However, the order is reversed in part where the state was not constitutionally required to pay any interest under the UPL.

Read Suever v. Connell, No. 08-15884

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted July 13, 2009

Filed August 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Smith

Counsel

For Appellants:

William Wayne Palmer, Law Offices of William W. Palmer, Sacramento, CA

Daniel J. Culhane, Law Offices of William W. Palmer, Sacramento, CA

For Appellees:

Robin B. Johansen, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, San Leandro, CA

James C. Harrison, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, San Leandro, CA

In an antitrust action alleging that defendant realtors representing developers tied the sale of undeveloped lots to services and commissions for developed property, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where there was no market for listing and referral services among potential buyers of newly-constructed houses, and thus no competition in the allegedly tied market to be harmed.

Read Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., No. 08-35536

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2009

Filed July 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rymer

Counsel

For Appellants:

Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA

Craig R. Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA

For Appellees:

Eugene A. Ritti, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Boise, ID

Brad P. Miller, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Boise, ID

In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in which the debtor sought to rescind the sale of his foreclosed home, bankruptcy court's order rescinding the sale is affirmed where the buyer failed to notify the debtor of his rights under California's Home Equity Sales Contract Act, and the parties' settlement agreement did not affect this obligation.

Read Hoffman v. Lloyd, No. 08-15814

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2009

Filed July 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Schroeder

Counsel

For Appellant:

Jeffrey Goodrich, Goodrich & Associates, San Francisco, CA

For Appellee:

Dennis Davis, San Francisco, CA