PEACE RANCH, LLC V. BONTA, No. 22-16063 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseIn the case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Peace Ranch LLC challenged the constitutionality of California AB 978, a mobilehome-rent-control statute. Peace Ranch alleged that if it increases mobilehome rents more than AB 978 permits, the California Attorney General would enforce AB 978 against it. However, Peace Ranch also alleged that AB 978 does not apply to its mobilehome park. The Court of Appeals concluded that Peace Ranch had adequately established standing based on a pre-enforcement injury. The court reasoned that Peace Ranch was trapped between complying with a law that it believes does not apply to it or risking enforcement proceedings by raising rents. This dilemma, the court ruled, is the precise predicament that supports pre-enforcement standing. As such, the court reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of standing.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Pre-enforcement Standing. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing for lack of standing an amended complaint brought by Peace Ranch LLC seeking to enjoin the enforcement of California AB 978, a mobilehome-rent-control statute.
Peace Ranch alleged that if it raises mobilehome rents more than AB 978 allows, the California Attorney General will enforce AB 978 against it and seek sanctions. Alternatively, Peace Ranch alleged that AB 978 does not apply to its mobilehome park. In response, the Attorney General argued that Peace Ranch cannot not state a pre-enforcement injury if it also alleges that the statute is inapplicable.
The panel held that Peace Ranch adequately pled standing based on a pre-enforcement injury.
The panel determined that its analysis would be guided by whether there was a substantial threat of enforcement and not the likelihood of whether any such enforcement action would ultimately lead to sanctions. Applying the pre- enforcement challenge framework set forth in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), and construing the allegations in Peace Ranch’s favor, the panel determined that Peace Ranch (1) specifically pled its intention to raise rents and its ability to do so arguably affected a constitutional interest, (2) plausibly alleged that it refrained from raising rents because of the Attorney General’s interpretation of AB 978, and (3) demonstrated a substantial threat of enforcement given that the Attorney General not only refuses to disavow its intent to enforce AB 978 but also admits that AB 978 targets Peace Ranch.
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.