Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Property

PropertyRegulatory TakingsRipenessFinalitySection 1983regulatory takingfinal decisionripeness

Facts

Petitioners partially owned a multiunit residential building in San Francisco that was originally organized as a tenancy-in-common, and they agreed with the other owners to pursue condominium conversion. Under San Francisco's conversion program, non-occupant owners who rented out their units had to offer tenants a lifetime lease as a condition of conversion. Petitioners, who had a renter in their unit, agreed during the conversion process to offer such a lease, and the city approved the conversion. A few months later, petitioners asked the city either to excuse them from executing the lifetime lease or to compensate them for it, and the city refused both requests while stating that failure to execute the lease violated the program and could result in enforcement action.

Issue

When a property owner brings a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim under §1983, is the claim unripe because the owner failed to comply with the agency's prescribed administrative procedures for obtaining an exemption, even though the government has already reached a conclusive position applying the regulation to the property?

Rule

The finality requirement for a federal regulatory takings claim is relatively modest: the plaintiff need show only that there is no question about how the regulation applies to the particular property and that the government has reached a definitive position inflicting an actual, concrete injury. Once the government has adopted that final position, exhaustion of state or administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to suit under §1983.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Nina Alvarez owns a duplex. The city informed her in writing that before she could obtain a remodeling permit, she had to record a permanent no-rent covenant on one unit, denied her later request for a waiver, and warned that any noncomplying work would trigger penalties. Nina did not file an internal administrative appeal that city rules ordinarily allow.

If Nina files a §1983 action alleging a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking, is her claim ripe?

Explanation. The majority described finality as a relatively modest requirement. A takings plaintiff need show there is no question how the regulation applies to the particular property and that the government has reached a definitive position inflicting an actual, concrete injury. Here, the city told Nina she must accept the covenant or face penalties, so the dispute is not hypothetical. Under the majority, failure to pursue further administrative procedures does not defeat ripeness once the government has already adopted a conclusive position. (Derived from Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco (n.d.).)