Constitutional Guided Walking Tours, LLC v. Independence Visitor Center Corp.
804 F. Supp. 2d 320
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiffs operated a commercial walking tour of Independence National Historical Park (INHP) and surrounding area from 2005 to 2010.
- NPS oversees INHP; individual NPS employees Reidenbach, MacLeod, and Sidles are named as defendants.
- IVCC, a private entity contracted by NPS since 1999 to manage INHP, is a named defendant; Moore was IVCC President/CEO (1999–2009).
- Plaintiffs allege NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, with selective restrictions not applied to competitors, and that IVCC management was unlawfully delegated and misrepresented.
- Federal Defendants move to dismiss Counts I, II and VIII for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA, and qualified immunity; IVCC and Moore are not parties to that motion.
- Court dispositions: personal jurisdiction denied; Count I (subject-matter jurisdiction) dismissed; Count II (Bivens with qualified immunity) dismissed; Count VIII moot; remaining state-law claims against IVCC and Moore dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over federal defendants | Plaintiffs served; jurisdiction exists over Reidenbach, MacLeod, Sidles. | Defendants challenged service; improper jurisdiction. | Personal jurisdiction over federal defendants denied? (Court: denied for lack of personal jurisdiction) or more precisely: Denied; defendants properly served. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA over NPS claims | APA provides federal question jurisdiction for non-discretionary agency actions. | NPS actions are discretionary by law; no non-discretionary action exists to review. | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; APA claims dismissed for discretionary decisions. |
| Whether the NPS actions are reviewable non-discretionary final agency actions | There were discrete agency actions denying relief to Plaintiffs. | Actions are discretionary and within Secretary's authority; no final non-discretionary action. | Actions are discretionary; no APA review; lack of jurisdiction. |
| Qualified immunity for individual federal defendants on Count II | Defendants violated procedural and substantive due process rights under Bivens. | _actions were discretionary; rights not clearly established; qualified immunity applies. | Count II dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. |
| Remain state-law claims against IVCC and Moore; court’s jurisdiction over them | State-law claims should proceed in federal court with supplemental jurisdiction. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction; dismiss state-law claims. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard for federal claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere recitals)
- Pro v. Donatucci, 81 F.3d 1283 (3d Cir. 1996) (qualified immunity framework for public officials)
- Church of the Universal Bhd. v. Farmington Twp. Supervisors, 296 F. App’x 285 (3d Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional pleading standards; facial challenge framework)
- Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged sua sponte)
- County Concrete Corp. v. Twn. of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006) (due process claims; distinguishable facts; zoning context)
- Blanche Rd. Corp. v. Bensalem Twp., 57 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 1995) (due process substantive standard; shocks the conscience)
- Cornell Cos. v. Borough of New Morgan, 512 F. Supp. 2d 238 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (due process and entitlement discussions in a municipal context)
- Grand Entertainment Group v. Star Media Sales, 988 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1993) (guidance on preliminary injunction considerations)