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.
asserted
County → say → 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.
asserted
they → say → work
A federal judge has dismissed their current complaint but allowed them to amend some of their claims.
uncertain
them → dismiss → 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.
uncertain
Rubin → own → document
Their land includes a hillside overlooking Mount Madonna Road, a public road maintained by Santa Clara County.
asserted
land → include → County
According to their complaint, a landslide began around March 2024, sending “soil and debris onto Mount Madonna Road”.
uncertain
landslide → accord → Road
The situation continued to worsen despite efforts by the couple and the county.
asserted
situation → continue → couple
In June 2024, the couple told the county that the landslide “posed an imminent threat to public safety”.
asserted
landslide → tell → safety
The county then issued a Summary Abatement Order and entered the property to carry out remediation work.
asserted
county → issue → work
The couple alleged that the work caused substantial damage and “permanently destabilized the hillside”.
asserted
work → allege → hillside
Rubin and Stein said they spent more than $300,000 repairing hazardous conditions they alleged were caused by the county.
asserted
they → say → county
They were later sent a $676,703.22 invoice for the county’s mitigation work.
asserted
They → send → work
They filed their federal lawsuit in March 2026.
asserted
They → file → March
Six claims against county
The lawsuit named Santa Clara County, three county bodies and seven county officials.
uncertain
lawsuit → name → County
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.
uncertain
couple → bring → property
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case.
asserted
defendants → ask → case
During the proceedings, Rubin and Stein dropped their three state-law claims including inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property and negligence.
uncertain
Rubin → drop → property
They also sought permission to pursue claims against the named officials individually rather than in their official capacities.
uncertain
They → seek → 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.
asserted
they → remove → County
Why notice claim was dismissed
The couple alleged that significant excavation work was carried out without “adequate notice or opportunity to appeal”.
uncertain
work → dismiss → notice
The county argued that the landslide presented an emergency and allowed officials to act without first holding a hearing.
asserted
officials → argue → hearing
The judge pointed to the couple’s own statement that the landslide posed an imminent threat to public safety.
asserted
landslide → point → safety
Under California law, counties can take immediate action against a nuisance that poses a threat to public health or safety.
asserted
that → take → health
The court therefore found that the county could begin the work without giving prior notice.
uncertain
county → find → notice
It also said the couple still had an opportunity to seek an administrative hearing with the county.
asserted
couple → say → 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.
uncertain
actions → dismiss → property
During the case, they sought to drop that argument and instead pursue a substantive due-process claim.
uncertain
they → seek → 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.
uncertain
claim → say → stage
It was therefore dismissed.
asserted
It → dismiss → ?
The court also dismissed their claim that the county failed to properly train or supervise employees.
uncertain
county → dismiss → 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.
asserted
policy → find → 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.
uncertain
couple → continue → them
The court said their lawyer had indicated that additional facts could be provided, meaning amendment would not necessarily be futile.
uncertain
amendment → say → ?
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.
uncertain
Rubin → amend → officials
However, their Fifth Amendment takings allegations and three state-law claims cannot be amended.
uncertain
allegations → amend → ?
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.
asserted
couple → file → 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.
uncertain
claims → say → prejudice
The Aporia
