This case was a 12-year battle challenging the constitutionality of the City’s efforts to force our clients to rent rooms in their small historic hotel to low-income permanent residents, rather than tourists. Ultimately, the City granted a permit allowing tourist use, but imposed a permit condition requiring the payment of $567,000. Thomas and Robert Field, the owners of the San Remo, claimed that the fee is extortion and violates the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After the case worked its way through both the state and federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts would not review Fifth Amendment takings claims de novo. Although a petitioner must seek redress in state court before he may seek redress in federal court, a federal court must defer to state court holdings.
To read a transcript of the oral argument in the Supreme Court click here.
To read the Petition for Writ of Certiorari click here.
To read San Remo’s Opening Brief on the Merits in the Supreme Court click here.
To read the City’s Supreme Court brief click here.
To read San Remo’s Reply Brief on the Merits click here.
Amicus curiae (friend of the Court) briefs:
Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Realtors - National Association of Home Builders- Washington Legal Foundation and US Chamber of Commerce - Steve Chabot, Chairman on the House Subcommittee on the Constitution - Franklin P. Kottshade - Elizabeth J. Neumont - Equity Lifestyle Properties- Evandro Santini/Santini Homes, Inc. - Defenders Of Property Rights and New England Legal Foundation
To read the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2004 opinion click here.
To read the Ninth Circuit’s first decision in 1998 click here.
The San Remo case was also in the California state courts. The California Court of Appeal held that the City’s imposition of the $567,000 fee is an unconstitutional Taking in violation of the California Constitution.
The California Supreme Court reversed the state court of appeal. By a 4 to 3 vote, the state supreme court held that the City’s actions did not violate the state constitution. Justice Brown’s dissenting opinion can be found beginning on page 39. To read that opinion click here.
