Besaro v. Fremont

3 Citing cases

  1. Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont

    No. C 10-0478 CW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2013)

    Id. at 62. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in August 2008. RJN, Ex. 4, at 67; Besaro Mobile Home Park v. City of Fremont, 289 Fed. App'x 232, 232 (9th Cir. 2008). Five months later, in January 2009, Besaro filed a petition with the City for a "major rent increase."

  2. Cal. Ass'n for the Pres. of Gamefowl v. Stanislaus Cnty.

    1:20-cv-01294-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023)

    [i]n Bird, however, the Ninth Circuit explained that ‘little remains of the continuing violations doctrine.' ” (quoting Bird, 935 F.3d at 748-49)); Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, 289 Fed.Appx. 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (“The statute began to run on the facial challenge when the Ordinance was enacted in 1992 . . . [and] [t]he Amendment did not create a new facial cause of action because the aspect of the Amendment to which Besaro objects is a continuation of an aspect of the Ordinance that the City has had in place since 1992.”).

  3. Milpitas Mobile Home Estates v. City of Milpitas

    (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013)

    In fact, the Ninth Circuit later affirmed that the parkowner in that case must comply with Williamson. Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, 289 Fed. App'x 232, 233-34 (9th Cir. 2008). Having failed to provide any relevant argument on futility, the Parkowner has simply not met its burden of establishing that the Kavanau procedure would be futile.