White Oak Prop. Dev. LLC v. Wash. Twp.
Decision Date | 04 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-3527.,09-3527. |
Citation | 606 F.3d 842 |
Parties | WHITE OAK PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, OHIO; Washington Township, Ohio, Trustees; Janie Wills; and Alan Hanselman, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
ARGUED: Gregory B. O'Connor, McNamee & McNamee, PLL, Beavercreek, Ohio, for Appellant. Brendan D. Healy, Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., Miamisburg, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Gregory B. O'Connor, Michael P. McNamee, McNamee & McNamee, PLL, Beavercreek, Ohio, for Appellant. Brendan D. Healy, Robert J. Surdyk, Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., Miamisburg, Ohio, for Appellees.
Before: GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; DOWD, Senior District Judge.*
Plaintiff White Oak Property Development, LLC (“White Oak”) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Washington Township and its trustees (“Township”). White Oak claims that various zoning regulations are unconstitutionally vague, violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, run contrary to White Oak's alleged property interests protected by substantive due process, and were enacted as part of a conspiracy by Township officials to deprive White Oak of its procedural due process rights. We disagree and affirm.
The district court accurately set forth the relevant facts:
The Washington Township Zoning Resolution sets forth four districts: (1) Agricultural; (2) Residential; (3) Commercial; (4) Industrial. The Property is zoned Residential “R” District. The Zoning Resolution describes this type of property as follows:
(Internal citations omitted.)
On April 7, 2009, the district court granted the Township's motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, treating the motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment because the district court considered matters outside the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). In so doing, the district court dismissed all of White Oak's claims with prejudice, except for its state law claims alleging civil conspiracy and a violation of Ohio Revised Code § 519.02. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. White Oak timely appeals.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir.2009). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). The moving party has the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When determining whether the movant has met this burden, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir.2007).
White Oak argues that the Zoning Resolution is facially vague in both substance and procedure.
In Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir.2007), we set forth the applicable law governing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau
...motivated by discriminatory intent. Second, the Garden City Defendants rely on the case of White Oak Property Development, LLC v. Washington Township, Ohio, et al., 606 F.3d 842 (6th Cir.2010), for the proposition that mere inquiries about affordable or Section 8 housing do not amount to ev......
-
Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau
...motivated by discriminatory intent. Second, the Garden City Defendants rely on the case of White Oak Property Development, LLC v. Washington Township, Ohio, et al., 606 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that mere inquiries about affordable or Section 8 housing do not amount to e......
-
United States v. Brown
...Cir.1997) ; United States v. Reed, 167 F.3d 984, 993 (6th Cir.1999) ) (alterations omitted); see also White Oak Prop. Dev., LLC v. Washington Twp., Ohio, 606 F.3d 842, 850 (6th Cir.2010) ("[The appellant's] discussion is perfunctory, and we hold that the issue is forfeited." (citation omitt......
-
Ctr. for Powell Crossing, LLC v. City of Powell, Case No: 2:14-cv-2207
...board of trustees could “either adopt or deny, or adopt some modification” of the zoning commission's recommendation), aff'd , 606 F.3d 842, 853 (6th Cir.2010) ; State ex rel. Harpley Builders, Inc. v. Akron, 62 Ohio St.3d 533, 536, 584 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ohio 1992) (holding that a municipali......