CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin, Ohio, 984 F.3d 483

CHKRS leased a Dublin, Ohio residential property (July 2015) with a 3‑year lease and a paid purchase option; lease said city‑disbursed eminent‑domain funds were payable to owner Friedman until CHKRS had “procured on the purchase option.”
Dublin sought quick‑take easements for a bike path; city deposited funds and the state trial court (and Ohio appellate court) held CHKRS was not entitled to disbursed funds because it had not yet closed the purchase. Friedman received settlement funds.
CHKRS alleges Dublin removed an initial replacement driveway in Nov 2015 and in Nov 2016 installed a new, defective driveway (without separate appropriation or notice), impairing safe use of the property.
CHKRS completed purchase of the property in July 2018 and then sued in federal court asserting a Fifth Amendment takings claim (seeking compensation for the 2016 driveway work) and two due‑process claims.
District court granted judgment on the pleadings: dismissed the takings claim for lack of Article III standing (relying on Ohio issue preclusion) and dismissed due‑process claims as abandoned. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to standing, affirmed on due‑process forfeiture, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Article III standing for takings claim	CHKRS alleges a colorable property interest (lessee then owner) and concrete injury from driveway removal/replacement	Dublin: state rulings show CHKRS lacked a protectable interest, so no standing	Court: CHKRS pleaded an arguable (nonfrivolous) protectable interest; standing satisfied
2. Issue preclusion under Ohio law	CHKRS: prior state decision concerned funds already disbursed before CHKRS owned property and did not decide rights as post‑purchase owner	Dublin: state ruling bars relitigation of CHKRS’s right to compensation	Court: issue preclusion does not apply—the prior issue was not identical given changed facts (post‑purchase claim)
3. Timing of compensable interest in direct takings	CHKRS: lease + purchase option and subsequent ownership plausibly give a right to payment for later disbursements; lease may alter timing rules	Dublin: only party owning interest at time of taking can recover; CHKRS owned only a leasehold in 2016 so cannot recover	Court: merits question; may be resolved against CHKRS later, but it does not defeat Article III standing now (claim is nonfrivolous)
4. Due‑process claims	CHKRS raised deprivation and procedural claims in complaint	Dublin argued and district court found CHKRS abandoned these claims by failing to respond	Court: affirmed dismissal—CHKRS forfeited appellate challenge by ignoring district court's forfeiture ruling

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and injury‑in‑fact standard)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from merits; frivolous claims and jurisdiction)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (jurisdiction exists where claim, if well pleaded, demands resolution of federal right)
Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claim may be litigated in federal court)
Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 424 U.S. 295 (1976) (lessee may have right to compensation for eminent‑domain taking)
United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17 (1958) (compensation generally vests in party with property interest at time of taking)
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (property‑interest rules in takings jurisprudence)
Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004) (takings‑claim requirements)
Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, 853 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (arguable/cognizable interest suffices for standing in takings context)
Booker‑El v. Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, 668 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2012) (nonfrivolous claim satisfies standing for constitutional claims)
Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) (merits failures do not equate to lack of standing)