JACQUELINE SIMONELLI V. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, No. 13-16664 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACQUELINE C. SIMONELLI, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-16664 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01250-LB v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 17, 2015*** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Jacqueline Simonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her takings action arising out of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s approval of a development next to Simonelli’s property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Simonelli’s action as unripe because Simonelli had not been denied compensation through any state court procedures. See Williamson Cnty. of Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 175 (1985); see also San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that takings claims are unripe until the plaintiff has sought and been denied compensation through the state’s procedures, and that abstention is “irrelevant” since there are no claims from which to abstain). The City’s requests to dismiss the appeal, and to strike Simonelli’s declaration, presented in its answering brief, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16664

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.