San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco
The owners of the San Remo Hotel sued the city of San Francisco after the city planning commission ruled that the Hotel was subject to a hotel conversion ordinance that required its owners to pay a fee for converting the hotel from residential to tourist use. The owners of the Hotel first sued in federal district court, claiming that the ordinance was a facial and “as applied” “taking” under the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution. The district court ruled that the facial takings claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals abstained, holding that the owners should first pursue their “as applied” takings claim under the California constitution in state court. After losing in state court, the owners returned to federal court, where the district court again ruled that the facial takings claim was time barred, and additionally ruled that the state court ruling against the owners on the “as applied” takings claim precluded any future litigation on the issue. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the decision in state court precluded any future litigation on the takings question and further that the doctrine of issue preclusion can bar relitigation in federal court of issues necessarily decided in state court, even when the plaintiffs have been forced to litigate in state court because the federal court has abstained.
Question Presented:
Is a Fifth Amendment Takings claim barred by issue preclusion based on a judgment denying compensation solely under state law, which was rendered in a
state court proceeding that was required to ripen the federal Takings claim?
