In Cwynar v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 637, plaintiffs challenged a city ordinance on the ground it constituted a taking of their property. (Id. at p. 643.) The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint. The court of appeal reversed because "plaintiffs have alleged, or may well be able to allege, sufficient facts to support their claim that the ordinance constitutes a taking of their property without just compensation in violation of the state and federal Constitutions." (Id. at pp. 643-644.) In a passage Massingill relies upon, the court stated: "At this pleadings stage in the litigation, whether the restrictions imposed by the ordinance substantially advance legitimate state interests is still an open question. Thus, plaintiffs should not have been denied the opportunity to establish a regulatory taking by showing that these restrictions do not, in fact, advance legitimate state interests." (Id. at p. 663.)