821 F.3d 193
1st Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (College Hill Properties, three LLCs and two individuals) own rental properties near the College of the Holy Cross and leased units to students.
- Beginning in 2009, plaintiffs allege Worcester selectively enforced the municipal zoning ordinance and Massachusetts Lodging House Act to reduce student housing (forcing tenants-per-unit reductions) to pressure the college to make voluntary payments in lieu of taxes.
- Worcester obtained an injunction in Massachusetts Housing Court under the Lodging House Act; plaintiffs appealed through the state courts and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held the Lodging House Act did not apply to College Hill's properties.
- In 2014 College Hill sued Worcester and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regulatory takings, substantive due process, equal protection/selective enforcement) and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Defendants argued claims were time‑barred, insufficiently pleaded, and barred by qualified immunity; the district court granted dismissal on ripeness (takings) and dismissed the federal and state claims for the reasons explained in its opinion.
- The First Circuit affirmed the district court: it held the regulatory‑takings claim unripe and summarily affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 (due process and equal protection) and MCRA claims for the district court’s reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of regulatory‑takings claim | Takings occurred from the selective enforcement actions dating to 2009–2010; claim ripe | Claim unripe because plaintiffs failed to meet ripeness prerequisites for a regulatory takings suit | Court: Claim unripe; dismissal affirmed (plaintiff did not contest on appeal) |
| Substantive due process (§ 1983) | Selective enforcement and enforcement scheme violated substantive due process rights | Claims time‑barred, not plausibly pleaded, and defendants entitled to qualified immunity | Court: Dismissed for reasons in district court opinion; affirmed summary dismissal |
| Equal protection / selective enforcement (§ 1983) | Worcester selectively enforced laws to harm plaintiffs and pressure the college, amounting to discriminatory treatment | Same defenses: statute of limitations, failure to plead plausibly, qualified immunity | Court: Dismissed for reasons in district court opinion; affirmed summary dismissal |
| Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (state law) | Enforcement scheme violated state civil‑rights statute | State claim dismissed for same pleading/limitations reasons; supplemental jurisdiction issues remedied by dismissal | Court: Dismissed; affirmed for reasons stated by district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Maloy v. Ballori‑Lage, 744 F.3d 250 (1st Cir. 2014) (pleading facts and drawing inferences in plaintiff's favor on 12(b)(6))
- Negrón‑Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008) (failure to develop an appellate argument waives the issue)
- City of Worcester v. Coll. Hill Props., LLC, 987 N.E.2d 1236 (Mass. 2013) (SJC held Lodging House Act did not apply to College Hill's properties)