Facts

Lyndsey and Sharon Ballinger filed suit against the City of Oakland in relation to its Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, which required plaintiffs to pay their tenants approximately $6,582.40 to move back into their Oakland home. The challenged ordinance extended a previous city-imposed relocation payment program to additional no-fault evictions, including owner move-in evictions and condominium conversions. The ordinance set uniform relocation payment at $6,500 per unit for studios and one-bedroom apartments, $8,000 per unit for two-bedroom apartments, and $9,875 per unit for apartments with three or more bedrooms.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The Ballingers were members of the military and in 2015 received orders to transfer to the Washington D.C. area. They intended to return to their three-bedroom home on MacArthur Blvd. in Oakland following their Washington assignment, so they rented their house for one year, beginning Sept. 13, 2016. After the one-year lease expired, it would convert to month-to-month tenancy. The lease did not anticipate the ordinance potentially requiring them to pay, and did not specify that the Ballingers intended to return to the home. In late 2017, the Ballingers were reassigned to the Bay Area and in March 2018, they gave their tenants sixty days' notice to vacate the home. The Ballingers made the payments as required under the ordinance.

The Ballingers sued alleging a Takings Clause claim, claims for unconstitutional exaction of private property, uncompensated and unconstitutional taking, unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violation of due process, and unconstitutional interference with the obligation of contract.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The city moved to dismiss and denied the allegations that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The city alleged the Ballingers could not assert a private takings claim to challenge an alleged regulatory taking.

Result

The court granted the city's motion to dismiss. The court concluded there was no taking in this case, and the Ballingers could not plead an unconstitutional exaction claim based on the ordinance because it was generally applicable legislation. Further, the court found no precedent supported the Ballingers' argument that legislation requiring payment constituted a physical taking giving rise to the just compensation requirement of the Takings Clause. The court also concluded the Ballingers did not allege constitutional deprivation by a state actor, so their Fourth Amendment claim failed. Additionally, the court determined the Ballingers' due process claim failed because they did not plead facts reasonably supporting the conclusion that the ordinance was impermissibly retroactive, arbitrary, or irrational. Lastly, the court found the Ballingers did not allege substantial impairment of their contractual relationship with their tenants.