Iten v. County of Los Angeles

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 7 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA ITEN, Personal Representative No. 24-2974 of the Estate of Howard Iten, D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:21-cv-00486-DDP-SSC v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 3, 2025 Pasadena, California Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Howard Iten appeals from the district court’s ruling dismissing with prejudice his operative complaint on the merits.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The County moratorium did not substantially impair Iten’s pre-existing contractual relationship with his tenant. See Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. 811, 819, 821 (2018) (holding that to determine when a law violates the Contracts Clause, courts apply a two-step test; the first step considers, among other things, the extent to which the law interferes with a party’s reasonable expectations). The County moratorium did not upset Iten’s reasonable expectations, because when Iten renegotiated the lease with his tenant, it was reasonably foreseeable that the lease might be affected by an eviction moratorium. The County moratorium, which Iten attached as an exhibit to the operative complaint, makes clear that the County first imposed a commercial eviction moratorium on March 19, 2020. The County re- ratified and amended its moratorium on March 31, 2020, April 14, 2020, May 12, 2020, June 23, 2020, July 21, 2020, and September 1, 2020, all before Iten renewed the lease with the tenant, which commenced September 1, 2020. The City of Lawndale imposed its own commercial eviction moratorium on April 6, 2020,2 also before Iten renewed the lease with the tenant. Moreover, the operative complaint acknowledges that “commercial lease contracts have traditionally been subject to some measure of government oversight.”3 Because Iten’s claim fails at step one, we do not reach the second step, whether the County moratorium is drawn in an appropriate and reasonable way to advance a significant and legitimate public purpose. Sveen, 584 U.S. at 819.

AFFIRMED.