Black Earth Meat Market, LLC v. Village of Black Earth
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15596
7th Cir.2016Background
- Black Earth Meats (BEM) operated a long-standing slaughterhouse at 1345 Mills St. as a legal nonconforming use; Durand bought the business in 2008 and increased slaughter activity after 2009.
- Neighbors complained of traffic, noise, odors, offal runoff, vermin, and livestock escapes (including multiple steers fleeing and being shot in the village).
- Village investigations and increased enforcement followed (reports, citations, public meetings). On Dec. 10, 2013 the Board gave BEM 120 days to present a relocation plan or face legal action to abate a nuisance; follow-up motions and letters reiterated intent to sue if BEM did not relocate.
- BEM sought a $1.3M loan from Bank of New Glarus conditioned on a USDA loan guarantee; USDA required certification of no pending or threatened litigation affecting collateral. The Village’s stated intent to litigate led USDA to refuse the guarantee, the bank withdrew the loan offer, BEM lost financing and ceased slaughter operations and ultimately closed.
- BEM sued the Village and trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting procedural due process and equal protection claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed takings claims as unripe. BEM appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / whether procedural due process claim is a disguised takings claim | BEM argued its due process claims (loss of financing and ability to slaughter) were independent and ripe | Village argued claims tied to property/nonconforming use are regulatory takings and unripe under Williamson County | Court: Takings rule bars claims that are essentially challenges to land-use regulation; some BEM claims (nonconforming-use interests) unripe, but financing and liberty claims could be non‑takings and were considered on merits |
| Whether Village’s threats to sue and motions constituted a deprivation without due process | BEM contended threats and motions deprived it of property/liberty (financing and occupation) without adequate process | Village said motions/letters were notice of enforcement and not an actual deprivation; BEM had notice and opportunities to be heard at public meetings | Court: Mere threat to litigate is not a deprivation; BEM received constitutionally sufficient notice and hearings, so no procedural due process violation |
| Causation / municipal liability for downstream loss of financing and business | BEM argued Village actions foreseeably caused USDA refusal and loss of bank loan and thus the shutdown | Village argued multiple intervening links (bank condition, USDA decision, financing chain) break direct causal chain required for municipal liability | Court: No direct causal link; downstream losses too attenuated from Village’s lawful threats/enforcement to sustain § 1983 liability |
| Equal protection (class-of-one / vindictive animus) | BEM claimed Village intentionally and arbitrarily singled it out and acted from malice, so comparator proof unnecessary | Village said actions were motivated by legitimate complaints and public‑safety/ nuisance concerns; BEM failed to show animus or a valid similarly situated comparator | Court: No evidence of malicious animus; rational basis existed and comparator offered was not similarly situated — equal protection claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg. Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (regulatory takings ripeness requires pursuit of available state compensation procedures)
- Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2000) (labeling a claim as procedural due process cannot evade Williamson)
- Hussein v. City of Perrysburg, 617 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2010) (threats of litigation constitute notice, not a deprivation for due process purposes)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2001) (procedural due process generally requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1983) (municipality can be liable where its campaign of harassment and baseless prosecutions directly destroys a business license/value)
- Baer v. City of Wauwatosa, 716 F.2d 1117 (7th Cir. 1983) (municipal actions can combine to directly deprive procedural rights; wrongful acts must be shown for each step)
- Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection framework for arbitrary, intentional discrimination)
- Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (public official may not use threats to coerce third parties to cut off a private party; distinguished from due process context here)