Marina Point Development Associates v. County of San Bernardino ( 2020 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARINA POINT DEVELOPMENT Case No. 5:19-cv-00964 RGK (KSx) ASSOCIATES, a California General 12 Partnership, et al., [PROPOSED] 13 Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT FOLLOWING SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT MOTION 15 v. Date: April 20, 2020 16 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et Time: 9 a.m. 17 al., Courtroom: 850, 8th Floor Defendants. 18 Lodged concurrently with: 19 1. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts 2. Request for Judicial Notice 20 3. Laura Crane Declaration 21 4. Chris Warrick Declaration 5. Terri Rahhal Declaration 22 6. Notice of Motion and Motion; 23 Memorandum of P&As 7. Proposed Order Granting MSA 24 8. Index of Exhibits and Exhibits 25 26 27 1 JUDGMENT 2 On April 20, 2020, the above entitled action came on for hearing before the court 3 for Defendant County of San Bernardino’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Summary 4 Adjudication in the alternative. The honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner presided over the 5 hearing. The parties’ appearances were as noted in the record. 6 Having fully considered the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS HEREBY 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary 8 Judgement is granted, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant County of San 9 Bernardino for the reasons stated below: . 10 1. Defendant is entitled to judgment as to Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims for 11 relief because the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. 12 City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) do not weigh in favor of finding the County of 13 San Bernardino’s actions with regards to the Plaintiffs’ project has resulted in a 14 regulatory taking because: 15 a. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the first factor of the Penn Central 16 analysis weighs in favor of finding the County of San Bernardino’s actions caused an 17 economic impact on the Plaintiffs of such significance that it equates to a physical 18 occupation of the property. See Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. Land Use Comm'n, 950 19 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2020). 20 b. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the second factor of the Penn Central 21 analysis weighs in favor of finding the County of San Bernardino’s actions interfered 22 with Plaintiffs’ reasonable investment backed expectations. See Colony Cove 23 Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 452 (9th Cir. 2018), Pennsylvania 24 Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922), and Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 25 U.S. 986, 1005 (1984). 26 c. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the third factor of the Penn Central 27 analysis weights in favor of finding the character of the County of San Bernardino’s 1 2 US.328, 539-2005) 3 2. 4 5 7 3, 8 9 10 11 12 | 28-4988). 13 4, 14 15 16 17 18 || » City Of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 956 (Oth Cir 2011). 19 5. 20 21 22 || 2010) CA request for injunctive relief by itself does-not-state-a-cause-ofaction-”) 23 Plaintiffs shall take nothing. 24 Defendant shall recover its-costs. KQ 25 || Dated: May 18, 2020 HONORABLE JUDGE R. GARY KLAUSNER United States District Judge 27 28