Whisper Lake Developments, Inc. v. Mahaffie

── Whisper Lake Developments, Inc. v. Mahaffie ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WHISPER LAKE DEVELOPMENTS, No. 25-2652 INC., D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01909-BJR Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW MAHAFFIE; MARK PERSONIUS; GARRETT SMITH; JON- PAUL SHANAHAN; ERIN PAGE; AMY KEENAN; THOMAS BRISSENDEN; and WHATCOM COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and SKAGIT HIGHLAND HOMES, LLC; MTT CONSTRUCTION, LLC; MTT HOLDINGS, INC.; THOMAS L. TOLLEN III; and MORGAN TOLLEN LINDBERG, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted April 22, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and KOH, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Whisper Lake Developments, Inc. (“Whisper Lake”) brought this Section 1983 lawsuit alleging constitutional violations under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by Whatcom County (“County”) and, in their official and personal capacities, County officials Matthew Mahaffie, Mark Personius, Garrett Smith, Jon-Paul Shanahan, Erin Page, Amy Keenan, and Thomas Brissenden (collectively, “County Defendants”).1 Whisper Lake appeals the district court’s dismissal of its federal claims and denial of leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. “We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim . . . . On review, we accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “We review the ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Whisper Lake also brought state law claims against County Defendants as well as Skagit Highland Homes, LLC; MTT Construction, LLC; MTT Holdings, Inc.; Thomas L. Tollen, III; and Morgan Tollen-Lindberg (collectively, “MTT Defendants”). Whisper Lake settled with MTT Defendants, so MTT Defendants have been dismissed from this appeal (Dkt. 87). 2 denial of leave to amend for an abuse of discretion, but we review the question of futility of amendment de novo.” B&G Foods N. Am., Inc. v. Embry, 29 F.4th 527, 534 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Leave to amend is properly denied as futile if “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Id. at 541 (citation omitted). 1. As a preliminary matter, the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering exhibits attached to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) because “material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered” in deciding a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). Additionally, the district court was “not . . . required to accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits” attached to the FAC. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). 2. Both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and F