Rent-Control Intricacies And Complications.

A mobile home park owner attempted to raise rents in a rent-control area, and the City’s Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board approved increases, but not in the amount sought. The mobile home park owner filed suit in federal court asserting facial and as-applied takings and due process claims. The federal trial court concluded the facial takings and due process claims were time-barred, and the as-applied takings claim was unripe. The federal court further concluded the park owner’s substantive due process claim fails because there is no fundamental constitutional right to raise rents, “and the Board’s actions did not amount to egregious or shocking official conduct lacking a legitimate government interest.” The state trial court denied the mobile home park’s petitions for writ of administrative mandate. The state court also struck the park’s attempt to reserve its federal claims under England v. Medical Examiners (1964) 375 U.S. 411, which holding provides that a state court determination may not be substituted, against a party’s wishes, for his right to litigate federal claims fully in federal courts. The state appellate court affirmed the state trial court’s decision denying the petitions for extraordinary relief because substantial evidence supported the determination that the rent levels set by the Board provided the mobile home park a fair return. But the appellate court reversed the trial court’s striking the mobile home park’s reservation of its rights to make another federal claim when the issue is ripe. (Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4;October 21, 2013) (As Mod. November 18, 2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 840.