Facts

Plaintiff initially asserted ten causes of action against defendants for various alleged harms suffered in connection with various properties owned by plaintiff within the City of Roseville. Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged a physical taking, violation of due process, quiet title to express easement, quiet title to equitable easement, private nuisance, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (arising from the City's hosting free public concerts), violation of the California Constitution's proportionality requirements related to water fees (Proposition 218), and several petitions for writ of mandate under California law alleging violations of the California Public Records Act, challenges to City Building Code citations issued to plaintiff, and a writ of mandate seeking to unwind the sale of City property to University Development Foundation on the grounds that the City violated the California Surplus Land Act.

Plaintiff's first amended complaint was dismissed on defendants' first set of 12(b)(6) motions. The court allowed leave to amend the federal takings and due process claims and the state law quiet title and nuisance claims. The court dismissed all other claims without leave to amend, allowing plaintiff to re-file them in state court.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again alleging a physical taking, violation of due process, and supplemental state law claims for quiet title, and private nuisance.

Plaintiff also filed a complaint in state court alleging his state law claims for violation of the Unfair Competition Law and for writs of mandate for violations of the Public Records Act, to set aside Building Code citations and to set aside the City's sale of a former fire station to University Development Foundation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended he suffered harms due to physical taking, violation of due process, quiet title and nuisance all arising from a boundary dispute. In his third amended complaint in state court, he alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law because the City sponsored public concerts that allegedly competed with plaintiff's saloon business, and writs of mandate to set aside City citations for various Building Code violations, to compel the City to comply with the Public Records Act, and to set aside the sale of surplus City property to University Development Foundation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the federal case under rule 12(b)(6) and demurred in the state court case.

Result

The court granted defendants' 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed all of plaintiff's claims without leave to amend, except for the takings claim, which was dismissed with final leave to amend as he failed to allege the existence of a City policy which had deprived him of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff was given twenty days to file a third amended complaint but failed to do so, and the court dismissed the action in total and entered judgment. No federal appeal was filed. Plaintiff realleged his state law claims in state court. After numerous voluntary amendments, the court sustained demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment.

Other Information

The state court case is currently on appeal in the Third District (Case No. C090903). JUDGE: Charles D. Wachob (Placer County Superior Court) on the state case.