Andrews v. City of Mentor, Ohio, 1:20-cv-00058

Background

Plaintiff Charles M. Andrews, Trustee, owns three contiguous parcels (16.15 acres) in Mentor, Ohio, zoned R‑4; he sought rezoning to RVG to develop a 40‑lot subdivision (Echo Hill Manor).
City staff did not recommend denial; the City Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial on August 22, 2019; Mentor City Council adopted that recommendation (4–3) on November 6, 2019.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: declaratory relief, takings (Fifth Amendment), substantive and procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment), and equal protection; also sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The City argued the rezoning decision was discretionary and Plaintiff had no constitutionally protected interest in an RVG designation.
The court granted the City’s motion in full, holding Plaintiff failed to plead a protected property interest for takings and substantive due process claims; it dismissed equal protection but gave 14 days’ leave to amend that claim only.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest in rezoning to RVG (affecting substantive due process and takings)	City’s Comprehensive Plan, past approvals of RVG/PD rezoning, and city practices created a non‑rescindable benefit → entitlement to RVG	Rezoning is discretionary under the Mentor Code; no entitlement to a future rezoning, so no protected property interest	Court: No protected interest; rezoning decision discretionary; claims fail
Whether R‑4 zoning as applied is arbitrary/capricious and a due‑process taking (confiscatory)	R‑4 makes the property economically non‑viable; zoning destroys property value and amounts to a taking	No taking because Plaintiff never held an entitlement to RVG zoning; therefore nothing was taken	Court: Dismissed for failure to plead a protected interest or taking
Equal protection (class‑of‑one and/or fundamental‑right theory)	Denial was disparate treatment compared to other, similar RVG approvals (e.g., Woodlands); Fifth/Fourteenth protect property	No fundamental right implicated; if class‑of‑one, Plaintiff not shown similarly situated in all relevant respects and City actions satisfy rational basis	Court: Dismissed for failure to plead facts to rebut rational‑basis; granted 14 days to amend equal protection claim only
Damages (compensatory/punitive)	Sought damages for alleged confiscation and willful conduct	Damages depend on underlying constitutional claims; those claims fail	Court: Damages claims dismissed because the underlying claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, 961 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1992) (framework of zoning claim categories considered by the Sixth Circuit)
EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (no protected property interest in a discretionary rezoning)
Med Corp., Inc. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2002) (discretionary benefits do not create property interests)
Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008) (requiring a legitimate claim of entitlement to invoke due process protections)
Silver v. Franklin Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 966 F.2d 1031 (6th Cir. 1992) (no protectable entitlement to rezoning when decision is discretionary)
In re City of Detroit, 841 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2016) (pleading standard for equal protection claims under rational‑basis review)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (rational‑basis presumption and burden to negate conceivable legitimate bases)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaint must plead factual content permitting plausible inference of wrongdoing)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (state law defines property interests for due process purposes)