672 F. App'x 240
4th Cir.2016Background
- Clayland Farm is a 106-acre property in Talbot County, MD zoned "Village Center" but is restricted by three county ordinances: two indefinite development moratoriums (Bills 1214 and 1257) and a 2012 tiering ordinance (Bill 1229) that placed almost all of the property in Tier IV (no sewer access).
- The moratoriums bar subdivision beyond two lots and prohibit seeking variances or waivers; Clayland Farm alleges these ordinances eliminated previously allowed development rights.
- Maryland Department of Planning privately advised the county that Clayland Farm was improperly designated Tier IV; the county took no action in response.
- Clayland Farm sued in state court asserting federal and state claims: Count I (regulatory takings, facial), Count II (procedural due process), Count III (substantive due process), Count IV (§1983 conspiracy), Counts V–VII (state declaratory and injunctive relief). County removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of ripeness.
- The district court dismissed for lack of ripeness; the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding all counts ripe and remanding for further proceedings. A concurrence/dissent would have held just-compensation and procedural-due-process damages claims unripe for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of facial regulatory takings claim (Count I) | Ordinances cause immediate, concrete deprivation; facial takings ripe upon enactment | Claims premature until county reaches final zoning decisions or plaintiff pursues state remedies | Court: Facial takings challenge is ripe the moment ordinance is passed; Count I ripe |
| Ripeness of procedural due process claim (Count II) | Indefinite moratorium with no post-deprivation remedies denies meaningful process now | Premature; plaintiff must pursue state inverse-condemnation or other remedies first | Court: Count II is ripe because Clayland Farm alleges concrete injury and no available means to address it; concurrence would require exhaustion for damages |
| Ripeness of substantive due process claim (Count III) | Tiering and moratorium are arbitrary and lack relation to public welfare; claim ripe now | Not final; factual and administrative development could change outcome | Court: Count III ripe; regulation is final enough to be adjudicated |
| Ripeness of conspiracy and ancillary counts (Counts IV–VII) | Conspiracy and state-law declaratory/injunctive claims rest on enacted ordinances causing current injury | Challenges premature until administrative or legislative processes conclude | Court: Counts IV–VII are ripe because underlying ordinances already inflicted concrete injury |
Key Cases Cited
- National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Department of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (ripeness doctrine draws from Article III and prudential concerns)
- Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (facial regulatory takings generally ripe upon enactment)
- Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (state-proceeding exhaustion rule for just-compensation takings claims)
- Holliday Amusement Co. v. South Carolina, 493 F.3d 404 (state-litigation requirement does not apply to facial validity challenges)
- Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (removal may excuse exhaustion when state inverse-condemnation claim was pleaded in state court)
- National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (takings claim accrues when regulation interferes concretely with primary use)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Beacon Hill Farm Assoc. v. Loudoun County Bd. of Sup’rs, 875 F.2d 1081 (substantive due process bars regulations that are arbitrary and unrelated to welfare)
- Gasner v. Board of Supervisors, 103 F.3d 351 (ripeness: dismissal if injury is speculative)
- Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312 (case fit for decision when issues are purely legal and final)