49Hopkins, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-00811
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In 49Hopkins v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Illston dismissed three claims without prejudice, denied the motion in part, and deferred four claims pending amendment.
49Hopkins, LLC’s claims against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Planning Commission, the San Francisco Planning Department, the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors were affected. Three claims were dismissed without prejudice, while four claims remained pending for further ruling after amendment.
What happened
49Hopkins, LLC sued the City and County of San Francisco and other defendants after the company’s construction project was stopped and its 2014 building permit was canceled. The company claimed it had a vested right to build under that permit, which allowed remodeling and an addition, but demolition had gone beyond the permit’s limits.
The court concluded that 49Hopkins did not have a vested right in the 2014 permit because the demolition violated the permit and made the permitted project impossible to complete. It dismissed the company’s first three claims—for vested rights, due process, and inverse condemnation—for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and allowed amendment. The court denied the motion in part and deferred ruling on the remaining four claims until after an amended complaint was filed.
Judge Illston entered the order on February 28, 2020. The remaining claims concerned equal protection, excessive fines, and two state-law requests for court orders requiring government action. The company could file a second amended complaint by March 27, 2020.
The detailed version
- 49Hopkins, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:19-cv-00811
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
49Hopkins, LLC owned property at 49 Hopkins Avenue in San Francisco. A 2014 permit authorized removal of an existing sunroom, interior remodeling, and a vertical addition, while requiring that specified portions of the existing structure be maintained. 49Hopkins purchased the property and permit in January 2017, and work began in August 2017.
While removing portions of the pool house, the contractor found structural elements that the complaint alleged were compromised and unsafe. The contractor removed those elements even though the permit required them to be maintained. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection later issued a notice of violation stating that the demolition appeared to have exceeded the permit’s scope and ordering 49Hopkins to stop work and obtain a new building permit.
The Planning Commission later approved a different project that required rebuilding a replica of the original 1935 structure. After further proceedings, it limited a revised project to 3,280 square feet, required at least 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit, and removed a proposed roof deck. 49Hopkins alleged that these restrictions made the project economically infeasible.
The amended complaint asserted seven causes of action: four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for vested rights, due process, equal protection, and excessive fines; an inverse-condemnation claim; and two state-law claims seeking a writ of mandate.
Vested-rights issue
The court explained that California’s vested-rights doctrine can protect a property owner who, in good-faith reliance on a government permit, has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities. The court concluded that 49Hopkins could not claim a vested right in the 2014 permit because the unpermitted demolition violated the permit and made the authorized interior remodeling and vertical addition impossible to complete. The court stated that 49Hopkins might have other property rights and interests, but did not have a vested right in that permit.
Rulings on the claims
The court dismissed the first cause of action, brought under § 1983 for violation of fundamental vested rights, with leave to amend. The court found that the complaint did not identify the constitutional provision or federal right that the claim sought to enforce.
The court dismissed the second cause of action, for due process, with leave to amend to identify the property rights allegedly taken from 49Hopkins. To the extent the claim depended on a vested right in the 2014 permit, the court agreed with the defendants that no such right existed.
The court dismissed the third cause of action, for inverse condemnation, with leave to amend to the extent it depended on vested rights in the 2014 permit. Inverse condemnation is a claim that government action took private property for public use without just compensation.
The court deferred ruling on the fourth cause of action, for equal protection, and the fifth cause of action, under the Excessive Fines Clause. The court stated that both claims might be sufficient to survive dismissal but suggested that 49Hopkins strengthen them in a second amended complaint, particularly in light of the ruling concerning the lack of a vested right.
The court also deferred ruling on the sixth and seventh causes of action, which sought writs of mandate under specified California statutes. The defendants had argued that these claims were untimely and inadequately pleaded, while 49Hopkins disputed those arguments. The court deferred ruling until after 49Hopkins filed a second amended complaint and noted concerns about the timeliness and nature of the state-law claims.
Disposition
The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part. The first, second, and third causes of action were dismissed for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and 49Hopkins was allowed to amend. The motion was denied in part, and ruling was deferred on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action until after the amended complaint. The court permitted 49Hopkins to file a second amended complaint by March 27, 2020.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.