David Hood v. CA Department of Agriculture
Fighting California’s lawless general searches under the guise of pest control
David is fighting back with free representation from PLF. He filed a federal lawsuit to restore his right to be secure in his own property and limit the government’s ability to trespass on private property under the guise of an unconstitutional general warrant.
Sanchez v. Torrez
New Mexico landowners defend property rights from state-sanctioned trespassing
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid made it clear that the government cannot force property owners to allow public trespassers on their private land without just compensation. Doing so is an unconstitutional property taking, even if the private land in question happens to be a streambed.
Shear Development Co., LLC v. California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Commission unlawfully blocks home construction
Shear Development is asking the California Supreme Court to reverse the CCC’s unlawful permit denial, confine the CCC to its proper role under the Coastal Act, and affirm that courts, not agencies, should resolve questions of statutory interpretation
John Doe et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice et al.
DOJ’s unconstitutional registry rules trap some Californians in a bind
John is challenging Congress’ unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue SORNA requirements—a clear violation of the non-delegation doctrine and separation of powers.
Seider v. City of Malibu
Property rights on the line in family’s battle for beachfront signage
Dennis and Leah Seider simply want to alert beachgoers to where the public right of access to the beach ends, the Seiders’ private Malibu property begins, and the way to the nearby public beach. Their best hope to protect their property rights and avoid potential confrontations with beachgoers would be a sign. But that hope faded when they learned the city prohibits signs that mark property boundaries. Worse, even if they wanted to try, they’d need to apply for a sign permit and agree to an indemnification clause that might require them to pay the city’s costs of any legal challenge to their permit. While the city can require permits for signs, it can’t prohibit speech about property lines to surreptitiously expand public beach access across private land. To restore their property rights, including the right to exclude trespassers, the Seiders are challenging the sign restrictions in a federal lawsuit.
Pietro Family Investments v. California Coastal Commission
Builder battles the California Coastal Commission’s basement ban
When Chris Adamski, a Monterey County, California contractor, and his longtime mentor and friend Mike Pietro bought four properties in the county’s Carmel Point neighborhood in 2014, they planned to develop two houses to sell, and then build one house for each of them—Chris for his large family, and Mike for retirement. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) reversed the permits for three of the lots because Chris and Mike couldn’t prove with 100 percent certainty that their land contains no archeological resources. The CCC effectively banned basements in the area and illegally expanded their oversight of local building regulations. Because the Commission has neither the jurisdiction nor the right to create arbitrary new land use laws through permitting, Chris and Mike are suing in state court.
Barnette v. HBI, LLC
Taking tax-foreclosed property requires proper notice
In 2002, Walter Barnette was working in the Omaha suburb of Bellevue when he spotted an acre of land in a growing neighborhood. Though he lives across the nearby border with Iowa, he bought the property with the intent of one day building a home. Walter fell on hard times, however, and failed to pay his 2010 and 2011 property taxes—$986.50—to Sarpy County, Nebraska. Sarpy County sold that debt to an investment company, with the requirement that they send notice warning that if Walter failed to pay his full debt, the County would give his land to the investor. The investment company sent notice via certified mail, which the post office returned as unclaimed. Walter never received notice. But rather than try sending a first-class letter, the company published a notice in a small Nebraska newspaper. The county then gave Walter’s $25,000 property to the private investor and gave Walter nothing. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that that this poor attempt at notice was enough. It is unfair to take such a valuable property as payment for a smaller debt. But it is even more unfair, as the government failed to ensure meaningful notice before inflicting extreme financial consequences on a citizen.
Shands v. City of Marathon
Government takes family’s land and uses gimmicks to avoid paying for it
The Shands family has owned Shands Key, a small Florida island, since the 1950s. Purchased by World War II surgeon and Mississippi hospital owner Dr. R.E. Shands, the island was originally zoned for residential use and could have been developed with at least seven homes. Today, however, government regulations designed to protect the environment prohibit any development on the island—not even a dock, thus reducing the property’s value by 98 percent. But rather than pay the family compensation for this taking, the city offered “transferrable development rights” or a promise that the family can develop property somewhere else. Because the government can’t use gimmicks such as “transferable development rights” (TDRs) to avoid paying for taking property, Dr. Shands’ four children are fighting back in state courts.
Donnelly v. City of San Marino
Holding local California governments accountable for banning “granny flats”
Accessory dwelling units, better known as “in-law apartments” or “granny flats,” have long been recognized as a valuable and essential component of California’s response to the state’s worsening housing shortage. So essential in fact, state law establishes a right to build ADUs, severely limiting local governments’ restrictions on new ADU development. Despite this state law, the city of San Marino adopted building code restrictions that forbid homeowner Cordelia Donnelly from adding an ADU over her garage. Because state law dealing with ADUs fully preempts local restrictions, Cordelia asked the California Supreme Court to recognize her right to create more housing.