The partnership that owns a mobile home park in Fillmore, California received a Ninth Circuit determination September 2 that it has standing to sue the city over "interference" with its application to subdivide the park.

The El Dorado Estates park was seniors-only when its owner applied to subdivide the property. In the court's description, the partnership alleged that city officials imposed "unreasonable delays and extralegal conditions" on the subdivision application for fear that, if approved, it might allow families to move in. The partnership therefore alleged it had suffered losses as a result of discrimination prohibited under the Fair Housing Act.

Without reaching the merits, the court found the partnership had standing to pursue its claim in federal court because it alleged it had suffered losses directly in the form of extra expenses caused by the city's allegedly unfair treatment of its application.

The case is El Dorado Estates v. City of Fillmore. For the opinion see

'Friendly Village' owners blocked from raising rents

The San Jose Mercury News reports a federal judge has sided with the city of Milpitas in its effort to stop the owners of "Friendly Village Mobilehome Estates" from raising their tenants' rents by 50 to 90 percent. The city's rental review board had found the proposed increases violated the local mobile home rent control ordinance. For details see the Mercury News report at

ADA claim upheld over street parking for local government offices

The Ninth Circuit ruled September 5 that a wheelchair user's right of access to local government offices in the city of Lomita included his need for accessible diagonal-stall on-street parking outside the buildings. The city had argued unsuccessfully that since no specific ADA regulations existed specifically for on-street parking, it was not required to provide that type of access. For the opinion see

More of the ParkMerced decision ordered published

The California First District Court of Appeal, in two increments on consecutive days, ordered publication for all of Part II of the ruling that approved San Francisco's ParkMerced expansion project. Part II addresses General Plan consistency. Part III, the CEQA review, remains unpublished. The case is San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco. See for the online docket showing the publication history and for the opinion. Initial reports on effects of the decisions appeared in the SF Chronicle at and the SF Business Times at The city's page for this large, dense project in the west of the city is at

Newhall Ranch litigation inches along with Cal Supremes

In the Newhall Ranch litigation before the State Supreme Court, the plaintiffs'/respondents' opening briefs on the merits have been filed (see, and the Court has refused to grant a stay to the related case of Friends of the Santa Clara River v. CA2/5 (County of Los Angeles). See

Check your local rail trail rights

In case you missed the case of Brandt Trust v. U.S., in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated certain "rail trail" rights, the Abbott and Kindermann law firm has a detailed new writeup at