This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Inverse Condemnation
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Clark Fratus, Karla Fratus v. County of Contra Costa, Catherine Kutsuris, Jason Crapo, Michael Silva, Gano Thomas, Robert Erickson, Aruna Bhat, Keith Dennison and Does 1 to 50

Published: Oct. 29, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 30, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:14-cv-05533-MEJ Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kathleen E. Wells
(Kathleen E Wells Attorney at Law)


Defendant

Timothy J. Ryan
(Bold Polisner Maddow Nelson & Judson)


Facts

Plaintiffs Clark and Karla Fratus were owners of residential properties located in the Oakley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. Plaintiffs filed suit against the County of Contra Costa, Catherine Kutsuris, Jason Crapo, Michael Silva, Gano Thomas, Robert Erickson, Aruna Bhat, and Keith Dennison, in connection with actions defendants took against plaintiffs' properties.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants carried out unlawful enforcement actions against their properties, filing and illegally recording false building code violations. During an eight-year period of prosecution, plaintiffs claimed they were intentionally deprived of the use of their properties by defendants. They asserted causes of action for inverse condemnation, injunctive and declaratory relief, and violations of constitutional rights.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata, and that their claims for violations of their constitutional rights were barred by the statute of limitations and could not be maintained against the county. Defendants claimed there was no substantive due process violation, the equal protection claim failed for lack of evidence, their retaliation claim failed for lack of evidence, and several defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Result

The court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' federal claims. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 18, 2014.


#87029

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390