Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County

Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 1 of 10
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12383
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-00819-SDM-TBM
HILLCREST PROPERTY, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PASCO COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 18, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, FAY and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.
ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge:
*
Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 2 of 10
In this civil rights action, brought by Hillcrest Property, LLC (“Hillcrest”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Pasco County appeals from the District Court’s
decision granting a partial summary judgment on Hillcrest’s motion and issuing a
permanent injunction against enforcement of the Right-of-Way Preservation
Ordinance (“Ordinance”). The District Court held that the Ordinance facially
violates substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that this
claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. It also denied Pasco County’s
motion for summary judgment on Hillcrest’s as-applied substantive due process
claim. No final judgment has been entered in this matter because Hillcrest’s as-
applied claim is still pending before the District Court. We have jurisdiction over
the District Court’s interlocutory order granting a permanent injunction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We also have pendent jurisdiction over the District
Court’s order granting Hillcrest’s motion for partial summary judgment based on
its claim that the Ordinance is a facial substantive due process violation. See
Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Bayshore Ford Trucks
Sales, Inc.), 471 F.3d 1233, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that federal courts have
pendent appellate jurisdiction over an “otherwise nonappealable interlocutory
order” if it is “‘inextricably intertwined’ with or ‘necessary to ensure the
meaningful review’ of an injunctive order.” (quoting Hudson v. Hall, 231 F.3d
2Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 3 of 10
1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000))). We vacate the permanent injunction and summary
judgment on Hillcrest’s facial challenge because we are persuaded that the statute
of limitations began running on the date the Ordinance was enacted.
I
The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (“Commissioners”)
enacted the Right-of-Way Preservation Ordinance on November 22, 2005. It is
part of a comprehensive plan to expand public highways in the county by 2025.
(Doc. No. 36, Exh. E.) One of the highways set for expansion within this plan is
State Road 52 (“SR 52”). (Doc. No. 36, Exhs. B–D.) The Ordinance requires
landowners whose property encroaches on SR 52 to convey in fee simple a portion
of their property as a condition for receiving a development permit from the
County. (ER 125; Pasco County Land Development Code § 901.2(H).) The
Ordinance also contains a provision allowing developers to seek a dedication
waiver upon a showing that the “amount of land required to be dedicated to the
County . . . exceeds the amount of land that is roughly proportional to the
transportation impacts of the proposed development site.” (ER 126–30; Pasco
County Land Development Code § 901.2(I).)
Hillcrest, a property development company, has owned property
encroaching on SR 52 since April 2001. (Doc. No. 36, Exh. A.) On October 21,
3
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 4 of 10
2003, the Commissioners approved Hillcrest’s request to modify the property’s
zoning conditions to allow for its commercial development. (ER 28; Doc. No. 96
at 2; Doc. No. 77-2 at 1.) On December 18, 2006, Hillcrest submitted a
preliminary site plan seeking a development permit from Pasco County to build a
commercial retail shopping center. (ER 34; Doc. No. 96 at 4; Doc. 77-4 at 1.)
Pasco County informed Hillcrest on February 3, 2007, that it would be required to
dedicate a portion of its property fronting SR 52 as a condition for approval of the
permit. (ER 35; Doc. No. 77-1 at 3; Doc. 77-4 at 1–2.) Negotiations between the
parties to reach a settlement agreement failed. (Doc. No. 36 at 12–16.) Hillcrest
filed suit in the District Court on April 7, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.)
II
Pasco County contends that the District Court erred in holding that
Hillcrest’s facial due process claim did not accrue on November 22, 2005, the date
the Ordinance was enacted. Instead, the District Court held that Hillcrest’s facial
claim was timely filed within the four-year statute of limitations because it did not
begin to run until Pasco County subjected Hillcrest to the Ordinance, either on
December 18, 2006, when Hillcrest applied for site plan approval, or on February
3, 2007, when Pasco County denied the site plan. (ER 186.)
4
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 5 of 10
“The decision to grant or deny an injunction is reviewed for clear abuse of
discretion, but underlying questions of law are reviewed de novo.” FEC v. Reform
Party of the U.S., 479 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2007). This Court reviews de
novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of
Longboat Key, 17 F.3d 1374, 1377 (11th Cir. 1994).
Section 1983 claims are subject to a forum state’s statute of limitations for
personal injury claims. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1188 (11th
Cir. 1999). In Florida, a personal injury claim must be filed within four years. Id.This Court has held that a cause of action under § 1983 does not accrue until “the
plaintiffs know or should know . . . that they have suffered [an] injury that forms
the basis of their complaint.” Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir.
2003) (citing Mullinax v. McElhenny, 817 F.2d 711, 716 (11th Cir. 1987)). This
Court has yet to determine whether this “know or should know of an injury”
accrual rule applies to a facial constitutional challenge to an ordinance or a statute
pursuant to § 1983.
Some of our sister circuits, however, have applied this rule to facial
substantive due process claims alleging property deprivations. See Action
Apartment Ass’n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020, 1027 (9th Cir.
2007) (applying this accrual rule to a facial substantive due process claim
5
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 6 of 10
challenging a rent control ordinance); Kuhnle Bros., Inc. v. Cnty. of Geauga, 103
F.3d 516, 520–21 (6th Cir. 1997) (applying rule to a facial substantive due process
claim challenging a county ordinance that barred through-truck traffic on certain
roads). In doing so, both the Sixth and the Ninth Circuit relied heavily upon prior
precedent holding that a facial takings claim accrues upon enactment of the statute.
We also find this to be an appropriate starting point in our analysis.
The Ninth Circuit distinguished between facial takings claims and other
types of facial challenges in Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688
(9th Cir. 1993). The owner of a mobile-home park filed a facial takings claim long
after the challenged city ordinance was enacted. Id. He argued that he “should be
allowed to bring an action challenging the enactment of a statute as a taking
without just compensation at any point.” Id. In rejecting his contention, the Ninth
Circuit explained:
This argument misapprehends the differences between a statute that
effects a taking and a statute that inflicts some other kind of harm. In
other contexts, the harm inflicted by the statute is continuing, or does
not occur until the statute is enforced—in other words, until it is
applied. In the takings context, the basis of a facial challenge is that
the very enactment of the statute has reduced the value of the property
or has effected a transfer of a property interest. This is a single harm,
measurable and compensable when the statute is passed. Thus, it is
not inconsistent to say that different rules adhere in the facial takings
context and other contexts.
6
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 7 of 10
Id. The Ninth Circuit reasoned in Levald that in the context of a facial takings
claim, the harm occurs immediately upon, and because of, the statute’s enactment:
the property value depreciates and a taking occurs as soon as the statute goes into
effect. Id. Thus, the injury necessarily occurs upon the statute’s enactment. Id.The Sixth Circuit subsequently relied upon Levald in determining when the
appellant’s facial takings and facial substantive due process claims accrued.
Kuhnle Bros., Inc., 103 F.3d at 521. In holding that the appellant’s facial takings
claim was time-barred, it adopted Levald’s reasoning that the injury in a facial
takings claim occurs upon the statute’s enactment because the enactment of the
statute either “‘has reduced the value of the property or has effected a transfer of a
property interest.’” Id. (quoting Levald, Inc., 103 F.3d at 688). The Sixth Circuit
concluded that the appellant’s “substantive Due Process claim for deprivation of
property is time-barred for the same reason.” Id. It reasoned that “[a]ny
deprivation of property that [the appellant] suffered was fully effectuated when
[the county ordinance] was enacted, and the statute of limitations began to run at
that time.” Id. (citing Ocean Acres Ltd. P’ship v. Dare Cnty. Bd. of Health, 707
F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1983)).
The Ninth Circuit has also applied the accrual rule it developed in the facial
takings context to substantive due process claims alleging property deprivations.
7
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 8 of 10
In Action Apartment Association, an association of landlords filed suit in 2004
against the city of Santa Monica, alleging that a rent control ordinance, which was
first enacted in 1979, was a facial violation of substantive due process. 509 F.3d at
1022. In holding that the facial substantive due process claim was time-barred, the
Ninth Circuit applied the accrual rule it adopted for facial takings claims:
[T]he logic for the accrual rules in the takings context applies with
equal force in the substantive due process context. Given the general
rule that “the statute of limitations begins to run when a potential
plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the asserted injury,” it stands
to reason that any facial injury to any right should be apparent upon
passage and enactment of a statute.
Id. at 1027 (quoting De Anza Props. X, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 936 F.2d 1084,
1086 (9th Cir. 1981)).
Extending the accrual rules for facial takings claims to facial substantive due
process claims was logical under the facts of Action Apartment Association, where,
as in Levald, the value of the property at issue depreciated when it became subject
to the rent control ordinance. The injury occurred at the time the ordinance was
enacted and would have been apparent to the current landowner upon the
ordinance’s passage and enactment. Any future owners could not arguably have
suffered an injury because the “price they paid for the [property] doubtless
reflected the burden of rent control they would have to suffer.” Guggenheim v.
City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
8
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 9 of 10
We are persuaded by the reasoning expressed by our sister circuits in Kuhnle
and Action Apartment Association. Hillcrest’s land became encumbered
immediately upon the Ordinance’s enactment in 2005. Its property would have
decreased in value at that time because any current or future development plans
would have been subject to the Ordinance’s requirement that, in exchange for
granting a commercial development permit, Hillcrest would have to deed part of
the land to the county without payment for the acquisition. This injury should have
been apparent to Hillcrest upon the Ordinance’s passage and enactment because it
had been the owner of the property since 2001 and had been actively engaged in
developing the property since at least 2003. See Asociación de Suscripción
Conjunta del Seguro de Responsibilidad Obligatorio v. Juarbe-Jiménez, 659 F.3d
42, 50 (1st Cir. 2011) (“[A] plaintiff is deemed to know or have reason to know at
the time of the act itself and not at the point that the harmful consequences are
felt.”).
Conclusion
We are persuaded that Hillcrest’s facial substantive due process claim
accrued when the Ordinance was enacted on November 22, 2005, and was time-
barred when Hillcrest filed this action more than five years later on April 7, 2010.
9
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 10 of 10
Accordingly, we vacate the District Court’s order to the extent that it granted
summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of Hillcrest on its facial
substantive due process claim. We express no view as to the merits of Hillcrest’s
pending as-applied substantive due process claim.
VACATED; and REMANDED.
10