Whether administrative agency can permanently deprive person of millions in fines using summary hearing process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2002, Petitioners Warren and Henny Lent bought a beachfront home in Malibu, California. Along the house’s east side, prior owners had long ago installed a gate, an exterior stairway, and similar residential accessories. Several years after their purchase, the Lents received a notice of violation from the staff of the California Coastal Commission contending that the Lents had violated the California Coastal Act by not removing these side-alley structures. Ultimately, Commission staff followed up on that notice by initiating an administrative penalty order proceeding against the Lents, seeking a fine of $950,000. At the December 2016, penalty hearing, the Lents and their attorney were allowed to speak and to present evidence. But they were afforded no right to subpoena witnesses or documentary evidence, no right to notice of those who would testify against them at the hearing, no right to demand testimony under oath, no right to confront or cross-examine witnesses, no right to exclude hearsay or speculative evidence, and no right to present rebuttal testimony or evidence. At the hearing’s conclusion, the Commission approved a penalty of $4.185 million against the Lents. One Commissioner explained that more than quadrupling the staff recommendation was necessary because “we don’t want to be in a position ... rewarding ... applicants that have been fighting us.” The questions presented are: 1. Cana state administrative agency, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, permanently deprive a person of millions of dollars in fines using a summary hearing ii process that dispenses with the heightened procedural safeguards traditionally afforded those who face a significant deprivation of property? 2. Is a $4.185 million fine, assessed to punish homeowners for failing immediately to remove ordinary residential accessories located within an undeveloped public beach-access easement, unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment? iii LIST OF ALL PARTIES The Petitioners are Warren and Henny Lent, as individuals and as trustees of the Lent Family Living Trust dated May 22, 1995. The Respondents are the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, the latter two entities as real parties in interest. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES The proceedings identified below are directly related to the above-captioned case in this Court. e Lent v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, No. BS167531, Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed May 24, 2018 e Lent v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, No. B292091, 62 Cal. App. 5th 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d. Dist. Apr. 5, 2021), as modified on denial of rehearing, Apr. 16, 2021