Deniz Marquez v. Municipality of Guaynabo
| Decision Date | 17 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 01-1066 (JP).,CIV 01-1066 (JP). |
| Citation | 140 F.Supp.2d 135 |
| Parties | Calixto DENIZ MARQUEZ, Plaintiff v. MUNICIPALITY OF GUAYNABO, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Ana L. Toledo-Dávila, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Pablo Landrau-Pirazzi, Hato Rey, PR, for Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendants Municipality of Guaynabo, Héctor O'Neill, and Aurialis Lozada Centeno's Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law Filed in Support Thereof (docket No. 5) and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (docket No. 17), as well as Plaintiff Calixto Deniz Márquez's Opposition thereto (docket No. 9). This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff, a developer, who alleges that since May 1999 Defendants have deprived him of his rights in properties located in the Frailes Llanos ward of the Municipality of Guaynabo without just compensation or due process of law, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also invoke the Court's pendent jurisdiction to assert claims under Puerto Rico law. Defendants move for dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and/or that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Complaint states that Plaintiff owns two properties located on Road No. 169, Km. 4.5, in the Frailes Llanos ward of the Municipality of Guaynabo. One of the properties, the Los Frailes Building, is built on a 300 square meter parcel of land and has 16 office and commercial spaces. The second property is an adjacent 600 square meter parcel of land used as a parking lot. In or around February 1999, Plaintiff claims he received an offer for the purchase of both properties in the amount of $625,000.00. After signing the purchase contract, Plaintiff states that the purchaser went to the offices of the Municipality of Guaynabo and there was informed that he should not purchase the properties because the Municipality intended to expropriate them. The purchaser thereafter withdrew the offer. The Complaint further states that a second purchaser tendered an offer of $625,000.00, but also withdrew the offer after learning that the Municipality intended to expropriate the properties to construct its offices.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 31, 1999, he sent a letter to Defendants requesting an explanation as to why he had not been informed of their intention to expropriate his properties. He specifically requested that the Municipality inform him whether it indeed intended to proceed with the expropriation. On May 21, 1999, Plaintiff alleges that Co-defendant Lozada responded to Plaintiff's letter, informing him that Co-defendant O'Neill was interested in carrying out the expropriation. Lozada also specifically prohibited Plaintiff from renewing any of the leases with his commercial tenants. According to the Complaint, when the tenants learned of the Municipality's intent to expropriate the property, they all eventually vacated their rented spaces. Notwithstanding several meetings and conversations between Plaintiff and Co-defendant Lozada, to date the Municipality has not filed an expropriation case in court nor has it officially designated the land for public use. As a result, Plaintiff contends that he is precluded from exerting any state law remedies that would permit him to recover just compensation. Plaintiff claims to have suffered damages in the form of lost rents and alleges that the mortgage is now on the verge of being foreclosed.
In adjudicating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must accept as true "all well-pleaded factual averments and indulg[e] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996) (citations omitted). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see also Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F.2d 41 (1st Cir.1991). Although there is a low threshold for stating a claim, the pleading requirement is "not entirely a toothless tiger." Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996) (quoting The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1989)). A complaint must set forth "factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory." Romero-Barcelo v. Hernandez-Agosto, 75 F.3d 23, 28 n. 2 (1st Cir.1996) (quoting Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1988)). For the purposes of this motion, therefore, all factual allegations in the Complaint will be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Defendants raise two grounds for dismissal. First, Defendants argue that the facts asserted in the Complaint do not amount to a taking under the Fifth Amendment because there has been no physical occupation of the property or regulatory action designating the land for public use. The second basis advanced by Defendants in favor of dismissal is that because Plaintiff has not pursued an inverse condemnation remedy under Puerto Rico law, his claim is unripe for adjudication before this Court. Plaintiff opposes dismissal, contending that Defendants' actions and statements constitute a de facto taking of his property, but that because Defendants have not expropriated the property through traditional channels, the inverse condemnation proceeding is unavailable.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution proscribes the taking of private property without due process of law. See U .S. Const. amend. V (). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that most cases arising under the Takings Clause fall into one of two categories: where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property or actually takes title ("physical taking"), or where government regulation of the property's use unfairly singles out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole ("regulatory taking"). Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 522-23, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1526, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992); see also Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 426, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3171, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (physical taking); Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 123-125, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978) (regulatory taking).
"The government effects a physical taking only where it requires the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land." `This element of required acquiescence is at the heart of the concept of occupation.' Yee, 503 U.S. at 527, 112 S.Ct. at 1528 (quoting FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 252, 107 S.Ct. 1107, 1112, 94 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987)). A physical taking occurs, for example, when the government takes title to private property, floods a landowner's property, or installs a cable on that land. See id. The government must then provide compensation to the landowner who suffers the compelled physical invasion of his or her property. See id.
The government effects a regulatory taking, on the other hand, when it takes regulatory action that goes "too far." Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922)). The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a regulation that "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land" constitutes a regulatory taking. Id. at 1015, 112 S.Ct. at 2893. Such a scenario, however, represents the most extreme form of a regulatory taking; other, less extreme factual scenarios may give rise to a takings action against the government, but such a determination "entails complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government actions." Yee, 503 U.S. at 523, 112 S.Ct. at 1525.
Here, Plaintiff's claim does not fall neatly into either of these two categories. The facts alleged do not support an action for a physical taking. Nor does the Complaint suggest that a regulatory enactment rests at the heart of this claim. Rather, Plaintiff advances a claim for a de facto taking resulting from the statements and representations of government officials. This is not the first time such a claim is brought in this district. In Inmobiliaria Borinquen, Inc. v. Garcia Santiago, 295 F.Supp. 203 (D.Puerto Rico 1969), where the complaint alleged that Commonwealth officials effected a taking when they informed the plaintiff of their intent to acquire certain parcels of land, but took no action to acquire that land for three years, the court found that the complaint stated a claim under the Takings Clause. See Inmobiliaria, 295 F.Supp. at 205. The plaintiff had contended that the parcels of land — also located, oddly enough, in Los Frailes — had effectively remained "frozen" for that period of time, thereby causing severe losses. See id. at 206.
Similarly, the instant Complaint alleges that Defendants notified Plaintiff of their intent to condemn two parcels of land, and specifically prohibited Plaintiff from renewing the leases of its commercial tenants. Yet, Plaintiff asserts that for two years Defendants have taken no action to carry out the expropriation, resulting in serious financial losses to Plaintiff. Based on Inmobiliaria, the Court finds Defendants' first grounds for dismissal, that the Complaint fails to state a takings claim because it spells...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo
...The district court held that the plaintiff's takings claims were unripe and dismissed the action. Déniz Márquez v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 140 F.Supp.2d 135, 140 (D.P.R.2001). The plaintiff appeals. We Since the district court disposed of this matter on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, ......