FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641458
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of Santee

No. 8641458 · Decided May 3, 2007
No. 8641458 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
May 3, 2007
Citation
No. 8641458
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two (“MHC”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, denying its as-applied and facial takings, due process and equal protection claims arising out of the City of Santee’s enforcement of a series of rent and vacancy control ordinances applicable to mobile home parks, including one owned by MHC. MHC’s as-applied takings claims were properly dismissed as unripe under Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), because MHC had not sought or been denied compensation from the City or through state procedures prior to commencing its actions. MHC’s facial takings claims were ripe but time barred, as each of its lawsuits was filed more than one year after the enactment of the rent and vacancy control provisions it challenged. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 544 U.S. 528 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005), decided after the district court’s dismissal, forecloses MHC’s facial takings claim based on its “failure to substantially advance” theory. See MHC v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022 , 1034 (9th Cir.2005)(“MHC’s facial takings claim asserts that the Ordinance fails to ‘substantially advance’ a legitimate state interest. This claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent holding [in Lingle ].”) MHC now seeks a remand to pursue alternate takings theories. Because these alternative theories were never raise before the district court, we decline MHC’s request. Nor does Lingle resurrect MHC’s substantive due process and equal protection claims. Like the facial takings claim, these claims are subject to a one year limitations period. MHC did not commence either of its lawsuits within a year of the effective date of the subject rent and vacancy control provisions. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two (“MHC”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, denying its as-applied and facial takings, due process and equal protection claims arising out of the City of Santee’s enfor
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two (“MHC”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, denying its as-applied and facial takings, due process and equal protection claims arising out of the City of Santee’s enfor
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of Santee in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 3, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641458 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →