A California couple who say Santa Clara County damaged their property while trying to deal with a landslide threatening a public road have been allowed to continue parts of their legal fight. The couple say they spent more than $300,000 repairing the alleged damage, only to later receive a $676,703.22 bill from the county for its work. A federal judge has dismissed their current complaint but allowed them to amend some of their claims.Alejandro V Rubin and Lisa M Stein own property in an area designated as a “high-hazard landslide zone”, according to the court document. Their land includes a hillside overlooking Mount Madonna Road, a public road maintained by Santa Clara County. According to their complaint, a landslide began around March 2024, sending “soil and debris onto Mount Madonna Road”. The situation continued to worsen despite efforts by the couple and the county.In June 2024, the couple told the county that the landslide “posed an imminent threat to public safety”. The county then issued a Summary Abatement Order and entered the property to carry out remediation work. The couple alleged that the work caused substantial damage and “permanently destabilized the hillside”.Rubin and Stein said they spent more than $300,000 repairing hazardous conditions they alleged were caused by the county. They were later sent a $676,703.22 invoice for the county’s mitigation work. They filed their federal lawsuit in March 2026.
Six claims against county
The lawsuit named Santa Clara County, three county bodies and seven county officials. The couple brought six claims, including alleged violations of procedural due process, a Fifth Amendment taking, failure to train or supervise employees, inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property and negligence.The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. During the proceedings, Rubin and Stein dropped their three state-law claims including inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property and negligence. They also sought permission to pursue claims against the named officials individually rather than in their official capacities.The court also removed the County Board of Supervisors, Planning and Building Department and Roads and Airports Department as separate defendants, finding that they were parts of Santa Clara County.
Why notice claim was dismissed
The couple alleged that significant excavation work was carried out without “adequate notice or opportunity to appeal”. The county argued that the landslide presented an emergency and allowed officials to act without first holding a hearing.The judge pointed to the couple’s own statement that the landslide posed an imminent threat to public safety. Under California law, counties can take immediate action against a nuisance that poses a threat to public health or safety.The court therefore found that the county could begin the work without giving prior notice. It also said the couple still had an opportunity to seek an administrative hearing with the county.
Other claims dismissed
The couple had also alleged that the county’s actions amounted to a Fifth Amendment taking by depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their property. During the case, they sought to drop that argument and instead pursue a substantive due-process claim.The judge said the original claim had been presented as a takings claim and could not be changed into a substantive due-process claim at this stage. It was therefore dismissed.The court also dismissed their claim that the county failed to properly train or supervise employees. It found that the complaint did not provide enough facts showing that a county policy, practice or lack of training had caused a constitutional violation.
Legal fight can continue
US District Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s October 2 order dismissed the current claims but allowed the couple to amend several of them. The court said their lawyer had indicated that additional facts could be provided, meaning amendment would not necessarily be futile.Rubin and Stein can amend their procedural and substantive due-process claims, their failure-to-train or supervise claim and their claims against individual county officials. However, their Fifth Amendment takings allegations and three state-law claims cannot be amended.The couple must file an amended complaint within 45 days of receiving the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ final decision after an administrative hearing. The court also said failure to meet the deadline or correct the problems identified in the order would lead to the remaining claims being dismissed with prejudice.
