Calverton Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Nugent Building Corp.
2:17-cv-03916
E.D.N.YDec 26, 2017Background
- In 1973 Nugent agreed with Suffolk County, the Town of Brookhaven, and DHS to build a sewage treatment plant for the Calverton Hills subdivision and to convey title to the agency when complete; Nugent built the plant but later was dissolved and title allegedly remained with Nugent.
- By 1980 the homeowners association (Association) was operating and maintaining the plant; DHS later cited the Association for regulatory noncompliance and in 2008 the Association entered a Consent Order requiring facility upgrade/replacement and imposing penalties for noncompliance.
- The County later asserted the Association breached the 2008 Consent Order and threatened enforcement and fines; the Association contends it was coerced into the 2008 Agreement and seeks declaratory/equitable relief forcing the County to accept ownership and operate or replace the plant.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 complaint (takings, equal protection, substantive due process, and a Fourth Amendment reference) plus state-law claims and moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement and require County ownership/operation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of federal jurisdiction, ripeness, statute-of-limitations, failure to exhaust/state notice requirements, and that plaintiffs failed to state federal claims.
- The Court denied the preliminary injunction, dismissed the § 1983 claims (with prejudice) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims (dismissed without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of Takings claim under Williamson | Plaintiffs claim regulatory/physical taking from enforcement of sanitary code and need federal relief now | Defendants: Williamson requires final agency decision and exhaustion of state compensation procedures; suit is premature | Court: Takings claim not ripe—no final agency decision and plaintiffs did not seek state compensation procedures; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Ripeness of Equal Protection claim | Plaintiffs: regulations applied discriminatorily compared to other County-owned plants | Defendants: same ripeness/finality problems as takings claim; claim arises from land-use dispute | Court: Equal protection claim not ripe under Williamson extension; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Ripeness of Substantive Due Process claim | Plaintiffs: County’s actions are arbitrary/oppressive in enforcing replacement costs contrary to 1973 Agreement | Defendants: ripeness requirements apply; plaintiffs failed to satisfy Williamson | Court: Substantive due process claim not ripe (Williamson applies); dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Fourth Amendment and failure-to-state-a-claim | Plaintiffs vaguely included Fourth Amendment reference in § 1983 counts | Defendants: complaint contains no plausible Fourth Amendment allegation | Court: No Fourth Amendment claim stated; remaining federal claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (two‑prong ripeness test for takings: final decision and state compensation procedures)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (application of Williamson finality requirement and rationale)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2001) (takings clause applies to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for preliminary injunction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not accepted as factual allegations)
- Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (Williamson ripeness principles applied in land-use challenges)
- Sherman v. Town of Chester, 752 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2014) (Williamson not jurisdictional in all circumstances; courts may decline to apply on common-sense grounds)