Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Santa Barbara, County of

Citation: 33 ELR 20272
No. No. 01-57218, (9th Cir., 09/23/2003)

The court reverses a district court dismissal of a property owner's claims of retaliation and denial of equal protection and due process against a county that imposed conditions, delays, and fees in connection with the owner's application for a polo field and residential building permit. The district court dismissed the claims as "as applied" takings claims that had failed to meet the finality requirements for ripeness under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Yet, these claims are not "as applied" takings claims. Rather, they are separate 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims supported by allegations of discrete constitutional violations of the owner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This determination does not overrule or limit the traditional "as applied" takings analysis since the owner's alleged constitutional injuries are separate from any purported taking. The district court, however, properly held that the owner's remaining claims not pertaining to the polo field and the building permit were barred by the state's one-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
A. Barry Cappello
Cappello & McCann
831 State St., Santa Barbara CA 93101
(805) 564-2444

Counsel for Defendants
David Pettit
Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit
1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 600, Los Angeles CA 90017
(213) 629-9040