The City of Dana Point "red tagged" Petitioner's motel and then had a receiver appointed to oversee its rehabilitation without ever providing notice of the hearing. Thereafter, it set the property for a foreclosure sale. It did all of this by means of "ex parte" proceedings that provided no formal notice or hearing. That raises serious due process issues, both procedural and substantive, as well as a taking of property without just compensation.

Question 1: When government acts without notice in a way that seriously impacts the rights of citizens, does the lack of constitutionally required notice deprive the victim of property without due process of law?

Question 2: Is it finally time to rein in California's practice of ignoring this Court's line of regulatory takings decisions, based on Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), while charting its own more restrictive course on this federal constitutional issue for which this Court's decisions provide a floor?

When government acts without notice in a way that seriously impacts the rights of citizens, does the lack of constitutionally required notice deprive the victim of property without due process of law?