Currituck Cnty. v. Letendre
| Decision Date | 12 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-CV-27-BO,2:19-CV-27-BO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | CURRITUCK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH E. LETENDRE, Defendant. |
This cause comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion to remand and defendant's motion for an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). The appropriate responses and replies have been filed and a hearing on the matters was held before the undersigned on February 5, 2020, at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. In the posture, the motions are ripe for ruling and, for the reasons that follow, both motions are denied.
This case arises out of a dispute over a building project constructed on a 3.67-acre lot at 1441 Ocean Pearl Road in Currituck County, North Carolina. Defendant, Elizabeth LeTendre, is a resident of Massachusetts and owns the property and the dwelling. The parcel is within Currituck County's zoning jurisdiction and is subject to its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The North Carolina Court of Appeals has described the building project as comprising 15,000 square feet and consisting of: "a three-story main building that includes cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities" and two Long v. Currituck Cty., 248 N.C. App. 55, 56 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). This building project has resulted in a series of cases litigated before the Currituck County Board of Adjustment and in the state courts of North Carolina. The primary litigated issue has been whether LeTendre's plans satisfied the Currituck County UDO's definition of a single family dwelling. LeTendre's lot is located in the Single Family Residential Outer Banks Remote zone, in which the UDO permits single family detached dwellings. Single family detached dwellings are defined by the UDO as "a residential building containing not more than one dwelling unit to be occupied by one family, not physically attached to any other principal structure." [DE 1-3] Compl. ¶ 6.
In November 2013, the Currituck County Planning Director issued a letter of determination finding that LeTendre's revised project plans constituted a single family detached dwelling and complied with the county's UDO. LeTendre's neighbors, Marie and Michael Long, appealed the letter of determination to the Currituck County Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment held that LeTendre's plans depicted a home that satisfied the UDO's definition of a single family dwelling. The Longs then appealed that decision to the Currituck County Superior Court. In December 2014, the superior court also ruled the plans reflected a single family dwelling in compliance with the UDO. Long v. Currituck County and LeTendre, 14-CVS-228.
The Longs again appealed, and on June 21, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that LeTendre's project included multiple buildings, none of which were accessory structures, and that the project did not satisfy the UDO's definition of a single family dwelling. Long v. Currituck Cty., 248 N.C. App. 55, 64 (2016). The court of appeals reversed the superior court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. On September 24, 2016, the superior court ordered that the Board of Adjustment's decision and the letter of determination were reversed.
In March 2015, during the appeals process, LeTendre received a building permit for the building project from the County. Construction was allegedly 95% complete when the court of appeals filed its opinion and by the end of 2016 the construction of the project was complete. On February 1, 2017, the County sent LeTendre a notice of violation, instructing her to bring the building project into compliance. LeTendre appealed the notice of violation to the Board of Adjustment, but no hearing has taken place. LeTendre submitted another set of construction plans to the County, and on March 27, 2017, the County sent LeTendre a letter of determination finding that the 2017 plans, which depicted the same buildings as the 2013 plans, was not in compliance with the UDO. Also on March 27, 2017, LeTendre filed a complaint and request for preliminary injunction in Currituck County Superior Court. LeTendre v. Currituck County, 17-CVS-146.
On June 9, 2017, the superior court entered a preliminary injunction against the County's February 2017 notice of violation and 2018 letter of determination. The superior court ordered the County to "deem the home approved by the County Building permit issued in March 2015 to be a single-family detached dwelling for purposes of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance; to rescind the Stop Work Order issued in September 2016 and the Notice of Violation issued in February 2017; and to permit Plaintiff to complete construction of her project and then allow occupancy." Letendre v. Currituck Cty., 817 S.E.2d 73, 78 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). The superior court also denied the Longs' motion to intervene.
The County appealed the preliminary injunction. On August 15, 2017, presumably while the County's appeal was pending, the County issued LeTendre a certificate of compliance for the project, describing it as a single family dwelling. The court of appeals ultimately reversed the superior court's entry of a preliminary injunction by opinion filed May 15, 2018. Letendre, 817S.E.2d at 107. On February 15, 2019, the County notified LeTendre that it had revoked her certificate of compliance.
On August 5, 2019, Currituck County filed a complaint against LeTendre in the Currituck County Superior Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration and prohibitory injunction under state law as well as an order of abatement and/or mandatory injunction compelling LeTendre to conform the building project to comply with section 10.51 of the Currituck County UDO and prior decisions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. LeTendre removed Currituck County's complaint to this Court on the basis of its diversity jurisdiction and asserted counterclaims against the County.
Following LeTendre's removal of Currituck County's case to this Court, Currituck County and Michael P. and Marie C. Long filed a motion for injunctive relief in the closed Currituck County Superior Court proceeding, 14 CVS 228, styled Long v. Currituck County, North Carolina and Elizabeth LeTendre. [DE 23-1]. In their joint motion, the Longs and Currituck County sought ancillary injunctive relief under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393(m) seeking an order enforcing the court of appeals' decision in Long v. Currituck County, 285 N.C. App. 55 (2016), and ordering LeTendre to either move or remove her allegedly unlawful buildings from the 1441 Ocean Pearl Road lot. The Superior Court granted the Longs' and Currituck County's request for injunctive relief and declined to stay its order to allow the litigation in this Court to proceed. [DE 23-3; 23-4]. LeTendre's motion for injunction under the All Writs Act was filed in this Court following the superior court's denial of her motion to stay the state proceeding.
A few days after Currituck County and the Longs filed their joint motion in Currituck County Superior Court, Currituck County filed a motion to remand this case to Currituck County. Currituck County argues that the doctrines of Burford and Younger abstention apply and counselagainst this Court adjudicating the County's complaint and LeTendre's counterclaims. LeTendre opposes remand.
The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts "may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principals of law." 28 U.S.V. § 1651(a). It authorizes federal courts to "issue such commands . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977).
The Anti-Injunction Act, however, provides that a federal court "may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by an Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Anti-Injunction Act is an "absolute prohibition against any injunction of any state-court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of the three specifically defined exceptions in the Act." Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977).
LeTendre's counterclaims against Currituck County include, among others, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inverse condemnation and unconstitutional taking as well as violation of her equal protection rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1983 is an act of Congress which falls within the expressly authorized exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 243 (1972). However, merely because an injunction may issue does not mean that it should or must. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 151 (1988). Rather, a federal court must be restrained by principles of equity, comity, and federalism, and should onlystay a state court proceeding where the moving party's § 1983 claims could not be given their intended scope in the absence of an injunction. Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 238, 243. Here, it is plain that LeTendre will be able to prosecute her § 1983 claims even in the face of a state court order to enforce the decisions of the state court of appeals. See also Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2176 (2019) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial