910 F. Supp. 2d 861
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Clear Sky Car Wash LLC and Clear Sky Car Wash Operating LLC operated a car wash at 920 Great Bridge Blvd., Chesapeake, VA since 2008; Jacknin and Einsmann are principals, with Jacknin managing both Plaintiffs.
- Defendants include the City of Chesapeake, Gillespie (Right of Way Manager), Greenhorne with Copeland, Evelyn Jones, and Daniel Jones (employees), VDOT, USDOT, and the City’s alleged project to widen US Route 17/Dominion Blvd and replace the Steel Bridge.
- The City, funded by City, Virginia, and federal sources, engaged Greenhorne to perform right-of-way acquisition for the project; funding shortfalls allegedly led to loans and potential tolls.
- Appraisals for the land (Dundon Report at $13/ft²; Sanford Report at $17/ft²) were used to determine just compensation, with questions raised by Plaintiffs about replacement site valuation and depreciation methods.
- On March 22, 2012, the City filed a Certificate of Take to gain a defeasible fee in the Land; Plaintiffs removed the action to federal court and sought relief under URA and related constitutional and civil-rights claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| URA rights under Subchapter II or III | URA creates private rights or review rights | URA creates no private rights under Subchapter II/III | URA does not create private rights; APA review only where final agency action exists |
| Due process rights to pre-deprivation relocation benefits | UR A benefits entitle pre-deprivation rights under due process | No private right to pre-deprivation URA benefits | No federal entitlement; due process claim fails |
| Equal protection claim against city actions | Disparate treatment of Plaintiffs vis-à-vis others | Rational basis review applies; actions rationally related to legitimate interests | Count III dismissed; no plausible discriminatory intent or adequate allegations |
| §1983/§1985 civil-rights claims | UR A violations yield §1983/§1985 remedies | UR A rights not established; APA exclusive for Subchapter II violations | Counts II–IV dismissed; no viable §1983/§1985 claims; §1988 fees dismissed |
| Supplemental jurisdiction for state-law claims | Counts V–VI relate to contract/equitable estoppel under state law | No independent federal basis for supplemental claims after federal-district-dismissal | Counts V–VI dismissed as ancillary after dismissal of federal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) scrutiny)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (heightens plausibility requirement after Twombly)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court 2002) (statutory rights require clear congressional intent for private action)
- Delancey v. City of City, 570 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2009) (no private right of action under Subchapter II URA after Gonzaga)
- Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F. Supp. 464 (W.D. Mo. 1973) (URA judicial-review framework guiding exclusive-APA approach)
- American Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, 722 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983) (URA relocation-relief procedures; pre-Gonzaga authority cited)
- Pietroniro v. Borough of Oceanport, 764 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1985) (private right under URA discussed pre-Gonzaga)
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1993) (exhaustion and final agency action standards under APA)
- Volvo Construction Equipment Nicaragua v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 118 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1997) (exhaustion requirement under administrative-review framework)