Restigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter

• Decision Date: 02 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-4049,94-4049
• Citation: 59 F.3d 1208
• Parties: RESTIGOUCHE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1208

59 F.3d 1208

32 Fed.R.Serv.3d 25

RESTIGOUCHE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-4049.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1995.

Charles L. Siemon, Boca Raton, FL, for appellant.

Nancy E. Stroud, Boca Raton, FL, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

I. BACKGROUND

Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") owns property the parties refer to as "Maplewood," located along Indiantown Road in the town of Jupiter, Florida (the "Town"). In 1988, the Town began a study of land use along the Indiantown Road Corridor, including the Maplewood property. At that time, Maplewood was zoned to permit automobile sales by special exception. In November 1989, Restigouche applied to the Town for special exception in order to build an automobile campus on the property. While approval was pending, the Town completed its study of the Indiantown Road Corridor, and adopted a comprehensive plan for land use along the corridor (the "Comprehensive Plan") and specific zoning regulations applicable to the subdistrict in which the Maplewood property is located (the "IOZ Regulations"). The IOZ Regulations prohibited automobile sales in the subdistrict. Subsequently, pursuant to the IOZ Regulations, the Town denied Restigouche's application to build an automobile campus on Maplewood.

Restigouche appealed the denial of its application to the Town Council. After the Town Council denied its appeal, Restigouche sought state administrative review pursuant to Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 163.3213(7) (West 1990). This administrative challenge was also unsuccessful. Restigouche then filed suit in state court asserting a number of constitutional and statutory claims. The state court suit is currently pending. Restigouche has not, however, sought rezoning, nor has Restigouche requested approval for the twenty-seven other uses the parties agree are permitted on Maplewood under the IOZ Regulations.

Restigouche filed the instant action on February 8, 1991, claiming that the IOZ Regulations, as applied to Maplewood, are unconstitutional. The Town filed a motion for summary judgment on April 28, 1993, and the motion was fully briefed by June 14, 1993. In the meantime, the case had been assigned by consent of the parties to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c). No hearing was immediately set on the summary judgment motion, and the parties proceeded with discovery. On November 29, 1993, the magistrate court telephonically informed the parties that it would hear argument on the Town's motion for summary judgment at the pretrial status conference on December 1. Oral argument was heard on the motion at the status conference on December 1, and the magistrate court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Town on December 15.

In its order granting summary judgment, the magistrate court determined that Restigouche's challenge to the IOZ Regulations raised only two claims: (1) that the Town's action in passing and applying the IOZ Regulations to Maplewood is arbitrary and capricious as applied (substantive due process); and (2) that the Town's action prohibiting automobile sales on Maplewood constitutes a taking. ¹ The court found Restigouche's takings claim premature, and granted summary judgment on Restigouche's substantive due process claim as a matter of law.

In this appeal, Restigouche asserts that its just compensation takings claim is ripe. The Town, on the other hand, asserts that both substantive due process and takings claims should have been dismissed as premature. Restigouche further argues that the district court granted summary judgment without first giving Restigouche the 10-day notice required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Finally, Restigouche asserts the district court erred as a matter of law in granting judgment to the Town because genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to its substantive due process claim. We affirm.

II. RIPENESS

Whether Restigouche's claims are ripe is a jurisdictional issue, which we review de novo. Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1414 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1693, 131 L.Ed.2d 557 (1995). The purpose of the ripeness doctrine is "to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Therefore, assuming that there is sufficient injury to meet Article III's requirement of a case or controversy, the ripeness inquiry focuses on whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court. Johnson v. Sikes, 730 F.2d 644, 648 (11th Cir.1984).

Because substantive due process and takings challenges to the zoning process scrutinize that process in slightly different ways, substantive due process and takings claims mature at different points in the process. Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720-26 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1120, 111 S.Ct. 1073, 112 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1991). An as applied substantive due process challenge focuses on whether the actual decision to apply the zoning to the property was "arbitrary and capricious." Thus, such a claim presents a sufficiently concrete question for review when the zoning decision has been finally made and applied to the property. Id. at 724-26. It is undisputed that the IOZ Regulations have been finally made, and that the Town denied Restigouche's application to zone Maplewood for automobile sales pursuant to those regulations. Therefore, Restigouche's substantive due process claim is ripe. Id. at 725 n. 16.

However, a just compensation takings claim matures later in the zoning process. One focus of such a takings challenge is whether a zoning regulation has "gone too far," i.e., has deprived the owner of all uses that would enable him to derive economic benefit from the property. Id. at 720-21. Thus, Restigouche's just compensation takings claim is not ripe before the "local authority has determined the nature and extent of the development that will be permitted." Id. at 720. Unlike in the substantive due process context, this requires more than a final decision to apply the zoning regulation to the property. Such a takings claim is not ripe until the property owner has also sought rezoning and/or variances sufficient to determine the extent of economically beneficial use which remains under the zoning regime. Id. Restigouche has not sought rezoning, nor applied for one of the twenty-seven remaining uses permitted on the property under the IOZ Regulations. Therefore we cannot yet determine whether the IOZ Regulations have "gone too far" with respect to Restigouche's property, and Restigouche's takings claim is premature. ²

Because Restigouche's just compensation takings claim is not ripe, the court below properly dismissed it. Because the arbitrary and capricious due process claim is ripe, we turn now to discuss it. However, we must first address Restigouche's argument that the court below violated the 10-day notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). ³

III. 10-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the non-moving party must be given 10-day advance notice that a summary judgment motion will be taken under advisement. Milburn v. United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir.1984). After giving the parties only two days' notice, the magistrate court entertained argument on the Town's motion for summary judgment at the December 1, 1993, pretrial status conference. On December 2, Restigouche filed a motion to supplement the summary judgment record. On December 15, the magistrate court denied Restigouche's motion to supplement the record and granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. Restigouche argues that this sequence of events violated the 10-day notice rule.

Even if notice was insufficient under Rule 56(c), ⁴ we find this error harmless. Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1555 n. 3 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc) (violation of 10-day notice rule harmless error in limited circumstances). The purpose of the 10-day notice rule is to give the non-moving party notice and a 10-day window of opportunity to marshal its resources and present any additional materials and arguments in opposition to the motion. Id. at 1555. We are convinced that we have before us, on de novo review of the summary judgment motion, all of the facts and arguments that Restigouche would have or could have presented had Restigouche been given the required notice. The magistrate court denied Restigouche's December 2 motion to supplement because Restigouche failed to identify the specific portions of the supplemental materials which would create material issues of fact. ⁵ Moreover, our independent review of the proffered supplemental materials discloses no genuine issues which would prevent summary judgment. Finally, Restigouche has now had ample opportunity to marshal facts and arguments, and does not assert on appeal that there exists additional evidence, beyond the record and the proffered supplemental material, which would create material issues of fact. Because Restigouche has not been deprived of the opportunity to present facts or arguments which would have precluded summary judgment in this case, any violation of the 10-day notice rule is harmless. See Denis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 850 (11th Cir.1986) (finding if the parties made all the arguments and submitted all documents that they would have presented had they received proper notice, failure to give required notice is not reversible error).

IV. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

We review the...