Partners v. State Of R.I.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2010
• Docket Number: CA. No. 09-387 S.
• Citation: 698 F.Supp.2d 278
• Parties: DOWNING/SALT POND PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiffv.State of RHODE ISLAND, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

698 F.Supp.2d 278

DOWNING/SALT POND PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiffv.State of RHODE ISLAND, et al., Defendants.

CA. No. 09-387 S.

United States District Court D. Rhode Island.

March 26, 2010.

William R. Landry, Esq., Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

Michael Rubin, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Brian A. Goldman, Esq., Goldman Law Offices, Providence, RI, for Defendants.

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.

In 1992, Plaintiff Downing/Salt Pond Partners, L.P. (“Downing”) obtained a permit to develop some land it owns along the coast of Rhode Island for residential purposes. In this action, it accuses various State agencies and officials of blockading development of the site. Through formal and informal measures, including the issuance of a stop-work order and refusal to clarify the status of the permit, Defendants have accomplished a de-facto “taking” of the property without just compensation, according to Downing's Complaint. Downing also raises a handful of other constitutional and state law claims. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In spite of all the bureaucratic hijinx enwrapping the controversy, the current motion raises a classic procedural feint that, at its core, turns on whether a recent First Circuit case expanded federal jurisdiction over takings claims sufficiently to encompass this action. Because this Court concludes that the case in question Asociacion De Subscripcion Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza, 484 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2007), did not reconfigure the law in this Circuit in the way that Downing suggests, the Complaint must be dismissed.

I. Background

Downing owns a 67-acre residential subdivision in the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island called Salt Pond Residences. In 1992, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (“CRMC”) issued a land use permit, known as an “Assent,” for the property allowing the development of 79 single family houses. Downing has built 26 homes and started work on infrastructure for the remaining lots. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

Recently, the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission (“HPHC”) became interested in Downing's property as the possible historical site of a settlement of the Narragansett Tribe. Apparently at the behest of HPHC, CRMC informally asked Downing to cease construction. It sent a letter in August 2007 stating that the Assent “remains valid pending a determination” on the historical and cultural issues raised by HPHC. (Compl.¶ 25(a).) After negotiations about how to resolve the problem failed, Downing made numerous formal requests for a decision about the status of the Assent. Yet, for over a year, CRMC stonewalled these inquiries, refusing to provide any response at all, let alone make a final “determination.”

In June 2009, Downing attempted to start construction again, prompting CRMC to issue a “Cease and Desist” order on June 27. ( See id. ¶ 25(e).) The order itself was not appealable, and did not attach any “notice of violation” that would carry the right to a hearing. ( See id. ¶ 25(f).) On July 15, 2009, Downing formally requested a hearing on the order; and on August 6, it asked again for a final decision about the land. ( See id. ¶¶ 25(f)-(g).) CRMC did not respond before August 24, when Downing filed this action against the state, CRMC, HPHC, and various officials.¹

The Complaint raises the following constitutional and state law causes of action: (i) a “taking” of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (ii) violations of substantive and procedural due process; (iii) denial of the right to equal protection; (iv) a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (v) violations of state constitutional provisions assuring due process and equal protection; and (vi) intentional interference with business relations.

Defendants move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They contend that all the claims boil down to the first one: the accusation that Defendants have “taken” Downing's property without just compensation. This claim, they argue, should have been brought in state court under prudential principles articulated in Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Because Downing failed to bring the claim in the proper forum, Defendants assert, this lawsuit is not ripe for resolution in federal court. Downing responds to this deflection by claiming that Rhode Island law does not provide a “reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation,” Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108, and, therefore, that it is entitled to skip the state forum and proceed directly to federal court with its constitutional takings claim.

II. The Takings Claim

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants are correct that Downing's takings claim is unripe and must be dismissed. To explain why, and to properly frame the dispute, the Court must first summarize the Supreme Court's holding in Williamson County, First Circuit law interpreting that case, and Rhode Island takings law.

A. The Williamson County ripeness doctrine

Williamson County erected two hurdles to bringing a takings claim in federal court. First, the government must have “arrived at a final, definitive position” about how the allegedly taken land will be treated. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 190-91, 105 S.Ct. 3108. If any steps remain before it is clear that a “taking” has occurred, such as the ability to apply for a variance see id., the property owner may not bring a federal lawsuit.

Second, assuming a final decision has been reached, a plaintiff still may not sue in federal court if he has failed to avail himself of a “reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation” from the state. Id. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108. This is because “the Constitution does not require pretaking compensation, and is instead satisfied by a reasonable and adequate provision for obtaining compensation after the taking.” Id. at 195, 105 S.Ct. 3108. In Williamson County, the plaintiff alleged that a county in Tennessee passed zoning measures that resulted in a taking of its property. The Supreme Court observed that, under Tennessee law, “a property owner may bring an inverse condemnation action to obtain just compensation for an alleged taking of property under certain circumstances.” Id. at 196, 105 S.Ct. 3108. “[I]nverse condemnation” refers to a property owner's action for compensation when “a governmental entity ... takes ... property in fact without formally exercising the power of eminent domain.” Annicelli v. South Kingstown, 463 A.2d 133, 139 (R.I.1983). The plaintiff in Williamson County had “not shown that the inverse condemnation procedure” provided by state law was “unavailable or inadequate.” Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 196-97, 105 S.Ct. 3108. The Supreme Court therefore held that “until [the plaintiff] has utilized that procedure, its taking claim is premature.” Id.

For convenience, the Court will refer to the first prerequisite as the “finality” requirement, and the second as the “state action” requirement. Because both requirements must be met, the Court may address them in any order. See id. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108 (discussing the state action requirement as “[a] second reason the taking claim is not yet ripe”). In this case, because Downing fails to establish the state action requirement, and it is dispositive of the dispute, the Court turns there first.

In enforcing the state action requirement, the First Circuit has placed a “heavy burden” on plaintiffs asserting takings claims to prove the “unavailability or inadequacy” of state remedies. Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142, 146 (1st Cir.2002); see also Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 65 (1st Cir.1991) (stating that a property owner who brings a takings claim in federal court “has the burden of proving the inadequacy” of state remedies). “[I]f it is unclear whether a particular state-law remedy pertains, the claimant must attempt to exploit it-and his federal takings claim will not be deemed ripe unless and until he has pursued, and exhausted, that course.” Deniz, 285 F.3d at 146. Thus, in Deniz, the First Circuit was not troubled by ambiguity about whether the plaintiff could obtain compensation under Puerto Rico law:

If the plaintiff were to pursue the inverse condemnation remedy, the local courts would be presented with an issue of first impression under Puerto Rico law. Until he travels that road, the availability vel non of the inverse condemnation remedy remains open to question.... Consequently, his ... takings claims are unripe.

Id. at 147; see

Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F.2d 506, 514-15 (1st Cir.1987) (finding that despite a “[l]ack of clarity” in Puerto Rico case law, the plaintiffs had “certainly not proven the inadequacy of [Puerto Rico's] inverse condemnation remedy,” and their claim was not ripe); Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria, 815 F.2d 812, 816-17 (1st Cir.1987) (affirming dismissal of taking claim because, as Culebras found, Puerto Rico was “prepared to recognize the general availability” of an inverse condemnation remedy).

B. Adequacy of inverse condemnation under Rhode Island law

There is no dispute that the Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes a cause of action for inverse condemnation. “Governmental action short of actual acquisition of property may be a constructive taking or an inverse condemnation within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” E & J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1979). The cause of action is rooted in both the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions. See Annicelli, 463 A.2d at 139; L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202, 218-19...