Charles Wiper Inc v. City of Eugene
| Decision Date | 21 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08-6226-AA |
| Parties | CHARLES WIPER INC. , an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EUGENE, an Oregon municipality,- Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Rohn M. Roberts
Aaron J. Noteboom
Arnold, Gallagher, Percell, Roberts & Potter, P.C.
Attorneys for plaintiff
Peter F. Simons
Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C.
Attorneys for defendant
Plaintiff, Charles Wiper Inc., filed suit against the City of Eugene ("the City") alleging violations of its procedural andsubstantive due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's claims arise from the City's actions taken in response to a land use claim plaintiff filed pursuant to Measure 37. See former Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.352 (2005).
The City now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on all of plaintiff's claims. The City argues that plaintiff has no protected property interest in its Measure 37 claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and that plaintiff's "class of one" equal protection claim fails because plaintiff was treated like other similarly situated Measure 37 claimants. Plaintiff opposes the motion and moves for partial summary judgment on its procedural due process claim. The City's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied.
Measure 37 was an initiative measure adopted by Oregon voters in the 2004 general election and codified at former Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.352 (2005). Measure 37 created a mechanism by which qualifying landowners could receive "just compensation" from a public entity that enacted and enforced specified types of land use regulations after the landowner purchased the subject property. Id.§ 197.352(1); see also Corey v. Dept. of Land Conserv. & Dev. (Corey I), 210 Or. App. 542, 54.4 (2007). "Just compensation" was the amount by which the property's valuediminished as a result of land use regulations' enacted and enforced after the property was purchased. Id.§ 197.352(2).
Just compensation was due when and if applicable land use regulations were enforced 180 days after the landowner filed a Measure 37 claim. Id. § 197.352(4). Rather than pay just compensation, a public entity could elect to waive the relevant land use regulations within 180 days of the landowner's Measure 37 claim. Id. § 197.352(8). Subsequent to Measure 37's passage, the City amended its code to mirror Measure 37's procedures, including the requirement that the City act on Measure 37 claims within 180 days. IcL § 197. 352 (7) (2005); Eugene, Or., Code 2.090 (2)'(2004).
On November 6, 2007, Oregon voters passed Measure 49, which significantly amended Measure 37. Or. Laws 2007, ch. 424; see also Corey v. Dept. of Land Conserv. & Dev. (Corey II), 344 Or. 457, 460 (2008). Effective as of December 6, 2007, Measure 49 essentially extinguished the just compensation and land waiver benefits available under Measure 37. Corey II, 344 Or. at 463. Nonetheless, Measure 49 provided that a Measure 37 land use waiver issued before December 6, 2007 remained viable so long as the claimant had a common law vested right in the use allowed by the waiver as of December 6, 2007. Or. Laws 2007, ch. 424, §5 (3) 1 Whether a right has vested depends on actual improvements made on the property, among other factors. Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Bd. of 001™'rs of Yamhill County, 237 Or. App. 149, 161 (2010); Corey II, 344 Or. at 466.
Prior to Measure 49's enactment, House Bill (HB) 354'6 wasintroduced to the Oregon legislature in late April of 2007 and was signed into law by the governor on May 10, 2007. House Bill 3546 granted Oregon public entities an additional 360 days to review and act on certain Measure 37 claims before the property owner could file a civil action seeking just compensation. Pursuant to HB 3546, public entities had a total of 540 days to process Measure 37 claims. On July 23, 2007, the City amended its code to afford the City 540 days to review a Measure 37 claim before a suit for just compensation was actionable. Eugene Code 2.090(2007); Plf.'s Concise Stmt, of Mat. Facts at ¶ 26.
On December 1, 2006, plaintiff submitted a Measure 37 claim to the City, for property known as the Rest Haven Memorial Park. In its claim, plaintiff requested that the City either waive all restrictive land use regulations enacted since plaintiff acquired the property in 1929 or pay just compensation of $3,520,000 for the reduced value of the land resulting from the regulations.
On April 30, 2007, notice for public hearing was issued for plaintiff's Measure 37 claim and two other Measure 37 claims submitted by First Baptist Church and Asghar R. Sadri. The notice scheduled plaintiff's hearing for May 18, 2007 and indicated that the City Manager recommended waiver of land use regulations. However, on May 8, 2007, the City cancelled the public hearings for all three Measure 37 claims. Plf.'s Concise Stmt, of Mat.Facts at ¶20. On June 6, 2007, 187 days after plaintiff submitted its Measure 37 claim, plaintiff filed suit against the City. Shortly thereafter, the City amended its code to allow 540 days for review of Measure 37 claims, in accordance with HB 3546.
The Lane County Circuit Court granted plaintiff's. alternative writ of mandamus to compel the City to act on the Measure 37 claim or show cause why it was not required to do so. Plf.'s Concise Stmt, of Mat. Facts at ¶¶24, 25. The City elected to show cause. On November 30, 2007, the Lane County Circuit Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the mandamus action but did not enter final judgment. Days later, on December 6, 2007, Measure 49 took effect.
On December 26, 2007, the Circuit Court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, requiring the City to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution on plaintiff's claim under the provisions of Measure 37 as of May 30, 2007.
In complying with the writ, the City completed a draft Report and Recommendation for consideration by the City Manager pro tern and held a public hearing on January 28, 2008. The City denied plaintiff's Measure 37 claim on February 11, 2008, deciding that plaintiff's conditional use agreement and other land restrictions did not meet the statutory. definition of land use regulations under Measure 37. "To the extent that Claimant's claim is based on those provisions of the Eugene Code or otherregulations or provisions which did not constitute land use regulations under Measure 37, the claim lacks merit." Def.'s Ex. 1-1, Additional Findings, Attchmt. A, No. 1.
Plaintiff petitioned and was granted writ of review on the basis that the City Council erred in denying its Measure 37 claim on January 28, 2008. The City returned the writ and filed the necessary documents while also submitting a motion to quash the writ. On June 19, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the City's motion to quash the writ of review, determining that plaintiff's Measure 37 claim was mooted by enactment of Measure 49.
On July 22, 2008, plaintiff filed this action to obtain damages of $43,520,000 and costs and disbursements. Meanwhile, the City appealed the alternative writ of mandamus granted by the Circuit Court. On June 2, 2010, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that plaintiff's Measure 37 claim was rendered moot by Measure 49 as of December 6, 2007.
It is undisputed that, by the time the general judgment was entered in this case, Measure 49 had already gone into effect. Although the effect of Measure 49 on pending Measure 37 claims was subject to some debate at the time the circuit court ruled in this case, that debate has since been resolved.... In light of Corey and subsequent case law, it is clear that, at least as of December 6, 2007, there was no justiciable controversy between Wiper and the city regarding the processing of the Measure 37 claim. That is so because, regardless of how Wiper's claim was subsequently processed after 'the writ issued-i.e. whether the claim was granted or denied by the city-the city's decision would have had no viability under current law.
(2010) (citations omitted). See also Corey II, 344 Or. 457.
Summary judgment is appropriate if materials in the record show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) & (c). The materiality of a fact is determined by the substantive law on the issue. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The authenticity of a dispute is determined by whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Special rules of construction apply to evaluating summary judgment motions: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630.
Plaintiff asserts that its due process rights were violated when the City cancelled plaintiff's Measure 37 public hearing originally scheduled for May 18, 2007. Plaintiff argues that the City did not afford plaintiff adequate procedural due process when it failed to hold a public hearing within 180 days of plaintiff's Measure 37...
To continue reading
Request your trial