Peyman Pakdel and his wife owned a
tenancy-in-common (TIC) apartment in San Francisco. The petitioners along with other owners entered into an agreement to convert the 6 units of the building into condominiums. A 2015 San Francisco ordinance required non-occupant owners of the units to mandatorily provide lifetime lease for their tenants. Subsequently, the petitioners and the other owners acquired the city's approval for the conversion. Eventually the petitioners offered to buy out their existing tenant's lease in exchange for the tenant voluntarily vacating the property, the tenant declined. Pursuant to this, the petitioners filed a suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the respondent. The District Court, citing
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City ruled that the petitioners' takings claim was not "ripe" for federal resolution until the petitioners had exhausted all state remedies. Despite the subsequent overturning of the Williamson County case by the Supreme Court, the
Ninth Circuit court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case.
Arguments The petitioners, including Pakdel, argued that the lifetime lease mandate was an unconstitutional regulatory taking. They claimed that the mandate violated the protections guaranteed under the fourth and fifth amendment takings clauses as it unlawfully seizes the owners' property and infringes upon the owners' right to occupy their property. The respondents, including San Francisco, argued that the petitioners had to exhaust all the state remedies available to them and therefore did not satisfy the "finality" requirement of the state. == Ruling ==