`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`JUL 7 2021
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-56399
`
`
`D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01295-DMG
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-56403
`
`
`D.C. No. 2:17-cv-09306-DMG
`
`
`
`
`
`CITY OF LOS ANGELES AIHM
`HOTEL/MOTEL ASSOCIATION, in its
`representative capacity on behalf of its
`association members and Individual
`Plaintiffs Hotel/Motel Owners and
`Operators; et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
`corporation; et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF
`GREATER LOS ANGELES, in its
`representative capacity on behalf of its
`association members,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
`corporation; et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`*
` This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`
`
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Central District of California
`Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Argued and Submitted June 11, 2021
`Pasadena, California
`
`Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,** Chief
`District Judge.
`
`
`The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in two nearly identical
`
`§ 1983 actions challenging the constitutionality of Los Angeles’s Rent
`
`Stabilization Ordinance (“Ordinance”). We have jurisdiction over these
`
`consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, except
`
`for the district court’s denial of leave to amend, which we review for abuse of
`
`discretion. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009); Gompper v.
`
`VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment theories are without merit. The information
`
`sought by the Ordinance’s annual reporting requirement—including a given unit’s
`
`address, monthly rent, and other details routinely found in a “for-rent”
`
`advertisement—does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hotop v.
`
`City of San Jose, 982 F.3d 710, 715–16 (9th Cir. 2020). Insofar as Plaintiffs
`
`maintain paper records of such information, the Ordinance does not authorize
`
`
`
`
`** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge
`
`
`for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`governmental trespass upon those papers. See Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807
`
`F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) (observing that a search occurs under the
`
`common-law trespassory test “when the government ‘physically occupie[s] private
`
`property for the purpose of obtaining information’”) (quoting United States v.
`
`Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012)). Indeed, it is far from clear whether the particular
`
`information-collection method challenged here (i.e., a regulatory process eliciting
`
`annual disclosures) even effects a Fourth Amendment “search.” See Hotop, 982
`
`F.3d at 720–21 (Bennett, J., concurring).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are similarly infirm. First, regarding substantive
`
`and procedural due process, Plaintiffs fail to show “that . . . they were deprived of
`
`a constitutionally protected life, liberty or property interest.” See id. at 718
`
`(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Second, regarding the Equal
`
`Protection Clause, landlords “are not members of a suspect class,” and “the
`
`distinctions drawn by the Ordinance,” between properties that are and are not
`
`subject to rent stabilization, “easily . . . survive rational basis review.” See id. at
`
`717. Third, regarding the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, Plaintiffs “have
`
`shown no unconstitutionality” in what the Ordinance asks them to do. See id. at
`
`719.
`
`
`
`The district court properly denied Plaintiffs’ requests for leave to amend
`
`their respective complaints by adding Takings Clause claims. The complaints
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`omitted any factual averments supporting a Takings Clause claim, and the requests
`
`for leave to amend made clear no such averments would be forthcoming were
`
`leave granted. Together, these circumstances implicated concerns going to
`
`prejudice and delay. That the district court acted on these concerns was not an
`
`abuse of discretion.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
