135 F. Supp. 3d 10
D. Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (three LLCs that own student rental units and two individuals) were issued cease-and-desist orders and citations in 2009–2010 alleging violations of a Worcester zoning ordinance (limit of three unrelated adults) and the Massachusetts Lodging House Act; the City later filed enforcement actions in Housing Court.
- The Housing Court enjoined Plaintiffs from allowing more than three unrelated adults per unit and issued contempt orders after noncompliance; appeals followed through the Massachusetts courts.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2013 that the Lodging House Act did not apply to Plaintiffs’ renting arrangement.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting (a) a regulatory takings claim under the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments, (b) a substantive due process claim, (c) an equal protection/selective enforcement claim under § 1983, and (d) a state-law MCRA claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the federal and state claims are time‑barred, and that Plaintiffs failed to plead ripe takings and viable constitutional violations; individual defendants also raised qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 claims are time‑barred | Plaintiffs contend claims accrued only when SJC decided in 2013 | Defendants say accrual occurred earlier (when enforcement acts issued) and limitations bar suit | Court: most § 1983 claims (equal protection, substantive due process, MCRA) are time‑barred because plaintiffs had notice earlier; discovery/continuing‑violation doctrines do not save them |
| Ripeness of regulatory‑takings claim | Plaintiffs argue taking claim accrued and is viable after SJC decision | Defendants argue claim is time‑barred or unripe for lack of final decision/adequate state compensation procedures | Court: did not resolve accrual but dismissed taking claim for failure to plead lack of adequate post‑deprivation remedies (not ripe) |
| Substantive due process viability | Plaintiffs assert arbitrary, conscience‑shocking enforcement by city inspectors and police | Defendants contend alleged inspections, citations and entries are not conscience‑shocking or legally irrational | Court: incidents alleged do not meet the high standard for substantive due process; claim dismissed |
| Equal protection / selective enforcement | Plaintiffs allege disparate treatment versus similarly situated landlords (rescission of others’ orders; later enforcement against Plaintiffs) | Defendants say plaintiffs knew facts to bring claim by 2009–2010 and limitations have run | Court: claim accrued when enforcement began (by Jan 2010) and is time‑barred; continuing violation and discovery rule inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible allegations required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and two‑step plausibility review)
- Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (ripeness for regulatory takings requires final decision or state compensation procedure)
- Vistamar, Inc. v. Fagundo‑Fagundo, 430 F.3d 66 (takings accrual at date of wrongful appropriation)
- Gonzalez‑Alvarez v. Rivero‑Cubano, 426 F.3d 422 (takings ripeness and final decision rule)
- New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 985 F.2d 1488 (zoning takings accrue after state judicial final determination)
- Salcedo v. Town of Dudley, 629 F. Supp. 2d 86 (accrual and inquiry notice for selective enforcement/equal protection claims)