Providing Realistic Remedies for Regulated Property Owners
At issue in this case was the ability of regulated businesses to function in accordance with applicable regulations without encountering undue administrative obstacles. Roger and Virginia Galland owned property subject to municipal rent regulation. They challenged in court the undue administrative burdens imposed on them in order to request rent increases. The trial court found that the Gallands’ rent increases were improperly denied and that the rent board’s process was unnecessarily complicated, denying the Gallands due process by repeatedly requesting unnecessary, voluminous documentation. The City appealed and the California Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s findings of undue delay, excessive procedure, and impoper denial, but held that the Gallands could not commence a federal due process claim before applying, again, to the City rent board to cover the shortfall in rents caused by the City’s conduct. The Gallands petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.
New England Legal Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation joined in a brief in their own names supporting the cert. petition arguing that, under the California rule, regulated businesses would face major obstacles in challenging unfair and overbearing regulatory process. The Supreme Court denied cert.
At issue in this case was the ability of regulated businesses to function in accordance with applicable regulations without encountering undue administrative obstacles. Roger and Virginia Galland owned property subject to municipal rent regulation. They challenged in court the undue administrative burdens imposed on them in order to request rent increases. The trial court found that the Gallands’ rent increases were improperly denied and that the rent board’s process was unnecessarily complicated, denying the Gallands due process by repeatedly requesting unnecessary, voluminous documentation. The City appealed and the California Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s findings of undue delay, excessive procedure, and impoper denial, but held that the Gallands could not commence a federal due process claim before applying, again, to the City rent board to cover the shortfall in rents caused by the City’s conduct. The Gallands petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.
New England Legal Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation joined in a brief in their own names supporting the cert. petition arguing that, under the California rule, regulated businesses would face major obstacles in challenging unfair and overbearing regulatory process. The Supreme Court denied cert.
RSS Feed
