Donna L. Chessen v. City of San Rafael

Background

Donna L. Chessen, trustee of the 1997 K&M Family Trust Dated 12-11-97, brought federal and state-law claims against the City of San Rafael concerning the city’s Mobilehome Rent Stabilization ordinance. The opinion states that the federal claim was a takings claim under the Constitution. Chessen characterized it as an “as-applied” challenge, meaning a challenge based on how the ordinance affected her particular property.

Federal Claim

The court held that Chessen had not plausibly stated a federal takings claim. It relied on a Ninth Circuit decision that had upheld San Rafael’s ordinance against a facial takings challenge, including challenges based on public use and a regulatory taking under the factors identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.

The court explained that Chessen’s theory was different from a claim that the ordinance’s particular impact on her property required compensation. Instead, she argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied because it did not actually apply to her property. The court held that determining whether state law applies in particular circumstances is a state-law statutory-interpretation question, not an as-applied federal takings claim.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims. The court cited considerations including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. It noted that the federal case was virtually duplicative of a case proceeding in state court and that the primary question was one of state law.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint. The dismissal was with leave to amend, and any amended complaint had to be filed within 14 days of the ruling. The court stated that it was highly skeptical that Chessen could state a federal claim on these facts. The opinion also states that the court took judicial notice of the existence and allegations of the parallel state-court complaint, but not the truth of that document’s contents, and that it did not consider the email thread in resolving the motion.