Facts

Reverge Anselmo and Seven Hills Land and Cattle Company LLC sued County of Shasta, the Board of Supervisors of Shasta County, Leslie Morgan, Russ Mull, Les Baugh, and Glenn Hawes in connection with a series of land use disputes. Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandate compelling defendants to award plaintiffs a land conservation contract pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, the Williamson Act. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs own and operate two properties in Shasta County. In 2007, plaintiffs purchased Bear Creek Ranch, a properly located three miles away from plaintiff's other property, Home Ranch. Plaintiffs planned to utilize Bear Creek Ranch for raising cattle. In doing so, they cleared vegetation that was growing in and around Bear Creek, which intersects the property. In October, plaintiffs received an order to cease operations in Bear Creek from the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for having caused erosion in the creek in violation of state and federal water quality laws. On Oct. 30, the county issued a notice of grading violation because plaintiffs caused erosion in the creek without having obtained a grading permit, in violation of the county's Grading Ordinance. Plaintiffs sought a Williamson Act contract for the Bear Creek Ranch property, but were denied.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended defendants harassed them by issuing numerous violations, hindering their operations. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants deprived them of their property without just compensation and without due process. Plaintiffs contended that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, including the Equal Protection Clause and due process rights by refusing to grant them the Williamson Act contract. Defendants also allegedly retaliated against plaintiffs.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the board's refusal to grant plaintiffs' application for a Williamson Act contract and corresponding zone amendment was reasonable because plaintiffs failed to receive the requisite votes. Moreover, it was unclear whether the state would end subvention payments to local agencies covered by Williamson Act contracts, and so the board did not approve plaintiffs' request for a Williamson Act contract and zone amendment due to possible fiscal consequences.

Result

U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.