Jama Const. v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 15 July 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-55475,90-55475
• Citation: 938 F.2d 1045
• Parties: JAMA CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Board of Building and Safety Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles; Department of Building and Safety of the City of Los Angeles; City Council of the City of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1045

938 F.2d 1045

JAMA CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Board of Building and Safety Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles; Department of Building and Safety of the City of Los Angeles; City Council of the City of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-55475.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 16, 1991.

Decided July 15, 1991.

Fred N. Gaines and Benjamin Reznik, Reznik & Reznik, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Susan D. Pfann, Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before PREGERSON, BRUNETTI and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff Jama Construction Corporation, Inc.'s (Jama) action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 is barred by a previous state court judgment. The district court held that plaintiff's Sec. 1983 action is barred by its earlier suit in state court under the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm, but on a ground other than that relied on by the district court.

BACKGROUND

This appeal involves property located at 171 Church Lane, Los Angeles, California (property). In 1983 and 1984, the City Council for the City of Los Angeles (Council) initiated a number of suggested zone changes that would allow multi-unit development on the property. In 1983, and a second time in 1984, the City Planning Commission prepared environmental assessment and negative declaration reports for the recommended zone changes. After much debate, the Council passed an ordinance implementing a zone change with a 66-unit limit.

Plaintiff Jama bought the property after the zone change ordinance became final. To obtain approval to develop the property as an apartment building, Jama needed to obtain a permit to remove dirt from the site. After a public hearing where considerable public opposition to the project was expressed, the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners (Board) ordered that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project.

On December 29, 1988, Jama filed suit in Superior Court, requesting a writ of mandate ordering the issuance of all clearances and permits necessary to begin construction without completion of the EIR. Jama argued that the Board had exceeded its authority in requiring the EIR because there had been no changes to the project since the prior environmental review.

Apparently in response to the litigation, the Board decided to reconsider its decision requiring an EIR for the project. After a public hearing on March 7, 1989, the Board reversed its earlier decision, concluding that an EIR was not required. Dissatisfied homeowners and an adjacent business appealed to the Council. On April 26, 1989, the Council reversed the Board, ordering that all permits be held in abeyance until completion of an EIR.

On June 5, 1989, the Superior Court held a hearing on Jama's request for the writ. It held that "the City had exceeded its authority when it required an EIR because there was nothing in the record to show that the circumstances required by the California Environmental Quality Act to trigger environmental review had occurred." Jama Construction Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 89-5432, slip op. at 3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 1990) (Order ).

On September 13, 1989, Jama filed a complaint in the district court seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and the Fifth Amendment for a temporary regulatory taking of property without just compensation. On February 23, 1990, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that, under the doctrine of res judicata, Jama's action was barred by the prior state court action.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3217, 110 L.Ed.2d 664 (1990).

The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss "because plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata." Order at 8-9. We may affirm, however, on any ground supported by the record. Charley's Taxi Radio Dispatch Corp. v. SIDA of Hawaii, Inc., 810 F.2d 869, 874 (9th Cir.1987). Because we determine that the district court should have dismissed Jama's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we have no reason to decide whether the action would be barred by res judicata as well. ¹

In Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), the Supreme Court enunciated two requirements a plaintiff must meet before bringing a taking claim in federal court. First, the Court confirmed that "a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue." Id. at 186, 105 S.Ct. at 3116. Second, a taking claim is premature unless the plaintiff has sought "compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so." Id. at 194, 105 S.Ct. at 3120. The Court explained that, "because the Fifth Amendment proscribes takings without just compensation, no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied. The nature of the constitutional right therefore requires that a property owner utilize procedures for obtaining compensation before bringing a Sec. 1983 action." Id. at 194 n. 13, 105 S.Ct. at 3120 n. 13 (emphasis in original); see also MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 350, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2566, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986) ("a court cannot determine whether a municipality has failed to provide 'just compensation' until it knows what, if any, compensation the responsible administrative body intends to provide").

We find this second requirement to be dispositive here. Jama did not seek compensation through California procedures before bringing its federal action. Because Jama's action is not ripe for decision, we dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398, 1404 (9th Cir.1989) ("lack of ripeness deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990). ²

AFFIRMED.

1 In its complaint, Jama breaks down its action into two claims: (1) "undue interference with property rights" under Sec. 1983 and (2) unlawful taking. The district court reasonably read the complaint as presenting a single claim for a temporary regulatory taking of property under Sec. 1983 and the Fifth Amendment. As discussed in the text, we dismiss this takings claim as unripe.

In its reply brief and at oral argument, Jama characterizes its undue interference claim as a due process claim distinct from its takings claim. On a motion to dismiss, a complaint must be read broadly "to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Electrical Constr. & Maintenance Co. v. Maeda Pacific Corp., 764 F.2d 619, 623 (9th Cir.1985). To the extent that Jama's complaint does allege a due process claim, Jama is...