In Herrera v. City of Palmdale, published March 20, 2019, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court order dismissing declaratory and injunctive relief claims and staying damages claims in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit. The city obtained an inspection warrant of the plaintiffs' motel to search for suspected code violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the city violated the Fourth Amendment in carrying out the warrant. The city then issued a notice and order to repair and abate and ordered the plaintiffs and their tenants to vacate the motel. Two days later the governmental defendants closed the motel and evicted the plaintiffs and tenants. The plaintiffs sued the governmental defendants in federal court. Almost simultaneously, the city filed a nuisance complaint against one of the plaintiffs and the motel, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including declaring the motel a nuisance and putting the motel into receivership. The district court concluded that Younger abstention applied.
The 9th Circuit agreed that Younger abstention applied to the plaintiffs' causes of action for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages for alleged violation First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Contract Clause, arising out of the closing of the hotel and the orders to repair and abate, were subject to Younger abstention, because success on those claims in the federal action would interfere with the state court nuisance action; and because all of the elements of Younger abstention were satisfied. But the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment damages claims for the carrying out of the inspection warrant were not subject to abstention. Success on those claims would not interfere with the state court action.
Comments