Jimmie's Incorporated v. City of West Haven
| Decision Date | 18 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 228,Docket 34900.,228 |
| Citation | 436 F.2d 1339 |
| Parties | JIMMIE'S INCORPORATED and Jimmie's Realty Corporation of West Haven, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF WEST HAVEN and the West Haven Redevelopment Agency, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Benson A. Snaider, Norwalk, Conn. (Abraham D. Slavitt of Slavitt & Connery, Norwalk, Conn., on the brief), for appellants.
James W. Marshall, New Haven, Conn. (William F. Gallagher, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellees.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Jimmie's Incorporated, owner of premises in West Haven, Connecticut, on which it conducts a restaurant devoted mostly to a drive-in, over-the-counter, short-order business, and Jimmie's Realty Corporation, which owns property across the street which is a sit-down restaurant, appeal from a judgment of the Connecticut District Court, of April 29, 1970, which dismissed their complaint in which they sought damages from the City of West Haven and the West Haven Development Agency for alleged interference with their business which they claim amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property, together with a prayer for a preliminary and a permanent injunction.
Prior to the hearing which resulted in dismissal of the complaint there was a hearing at which the parties stipulated that a preliminary injunction be granted. Accordingly, on December 12, 1969, Judge Blumenfeld signed an order enjoining defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' relationship with their tenants, committing acts which will discourage the occupancy of plaintiffs' property, from warning plaintiffs not to develop and taking other action prohibiting the use, benefit and development of plaintiffs' property, until such time as the defendants shall acquire the plaintiffs' property under the laws of Connecticut.
Although the judgment of April 29, 1970 dismissed the complaint, it expressly provided that "the injunction entered in this case December 12, 1969, remain in effect pursuant to the terms thereof," and it went on to provide that "the complaint, insofar as it sets forth a claim for damages resulting from the conduct of the defendants prior to December 12, 1969, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
It thus appears that the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that what the defendants had done amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property. With this we agree. But having found that there was no federal jurisdiction by reason of the failure of sufficient allegation and proof thereof, there remained no basis for continuing the injunction. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the judgment which dismissed the complaint and remand to the district court with directions to vacate the injunction of December 12, 1969.
The undisputed evidence shows that the controversy between Jimmie's and the City and its Redevelopment Agency goes back to 1960 when the Agency took measures for the redevelopment of part of West Haven which included plaintiffs' properties. Public hearings were held. The Agency purchased some properties in the redevelopment area, it demolished the structures on these properties, the occupants were advised to relocate and the defendants assisted them in doing so. The grade of a highway adjoining plaintiffs' property was raised and this resulted in some interference with access to one of the restaurants. On June 10, 1966, the City had adopted an urban renewal plan for the area, which is known as Savin Rock Urban Renewal Project No. 2.
At long last on October 31, 1966, West Haven authorized the acquisition of plaintiffs' property and negotiations ensued for the purchase of the plaintiffs' property until April 7, 1969 when the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the state court which were thereafter withdrawn in August, 1969.
The complaint alleged that from on or about June 1960 until the filing of the complaint the defendants injured plaintiffs' business; that the defendants notified tenants occupying plaintiffs' property that the City would acquire such property and encouraged them to relocate. Plaintiffs were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Century Arms, Inc. v. Kennedy
...Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 260-261, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964); and cf. Jimmie's Incorporated v. City of West Haven, 436 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 1971). In the Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 79 U.S. 457, 20 L.Ed. 287, decided in 1870, the Supreme Court observ......
-
Freeman & Bass, PA v. State of NJ Com'n of Invest.
...of "property" as opposed to "personal" constitutional rights. Tichon v. Harder, 438 F.2d 1396 (2d Cir. 1971); Jimmies Inc. v. City of West Haven, 436 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1971); Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 400 U.S. 841, 91 S.Ct. 82, 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1969); Carter v. C......
-
Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, Miss.
...v. City of Amarillo, Texas, 492 F.2d 1156, 1157 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1974). For a narrow reading of Foster, see Jimmie's Inc. v. City of West Haven, 436 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1971).5 The other exception to the rule of Bell v. Hood, supra, that the federal question be "immaterial" is not involved in ......
-
Simmons v. Wetherell
...else the state's actions here amounted to, they did not constitute a taking within the ambit of § 1983. See Jimmie's Inc. v. City of West Haven, 436 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 931, 91 S.Ct. 2254, 29 L.Ed.2d 710 Thus, as to the condemnation attempts, we affirm the judgment b......