The California Supreme Court has remanded one takings case against the Coastal Commission to the Second District Court of Appeal, in Los Angeles, to be reconsidered in light of the high court's decision in another takings case against the Coastal Commission. In Coastal Commission v. Buckley, No. B081544, the Second District reversed a $2.1 million takings award against the California Coastal Commission, saying that the evidence on the record does not establish that the Commission's actions against a single-family property owner in Malibu constitutes a regulatory taking. The court also ruled that the Coastal Commission did not have jurisdiction over the project because it was located in a single-family zone, meaning jurisdiction lies with the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. (CP&DR Legal Digest, December 1997.) However, in May, the California Supreme Court ruled in a different that a temporary taking did not occur when an erroneous decision by the California Coastal Commission delayed a property owner's plans to build a house in Malibu In Landgate Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 17 Cal.4th 1006, the Coastal Commission rejected the property owner's argument that a temporary taking should have been found under the temporary taking doctrine contained in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987). The court ruled in favor of the Coastal Commission by a 4-3 vote. "We conclude that the present case falls squarely into the category of a normal delay rather than a temporary taking," Mosk said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar. (CP&DR, June 1998.)