DEEJAIZ LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, 3:23-cv-03192

Background

Plaintiffs Deejaiz LLC (an African‑American/minority‑owned event business) obtained a use variance for premises classified A‑3 and operated events there in 2021–2022.
In Feb–Mar 2022 Township fire officials inspected the Premises after receipt of a flyer advertising a “Boogie Nights” event; on March 9, 2022 the Fire Prevention Department issued a "Notice of Imminent Hazard" ordering cessation of events.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Somerset County Construction Board of Appeals, were temporarily allowed to operate under conditions (fire watch and event review), but the Township shut down their business on May 22, 2022.
Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting federal claims (Fifth Amendment takings; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process; Title VI) and several state tort and contract claims; earlier complaints were dismissed and the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) was filed and then challenged by Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice for failure to plausibly plead them and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, dismissing those without prejudice so Plaintiffs may pursue them in state court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fifth Amendment takings (Count One)	Deejaiz says selective enforcement and shutdown effected a taking requiring compensation (alleges Penn Central factors).	Defendants argue SAC contains only conclusory legal recitations and no new facts showing a total or compensable partial taking.	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead factual allegations sufficient to state a takings claim.
Equal Protection (Count Two — EP)	Plaintiffs claim race‑based disparate treatment compared to similarly situated non‑minority businesses (e.g., Bonkerz).	Defendants say allegations are conclusory and speculative, lacking facts to show discriminatory intent.	Dismissed: plaintiffs did not plausibly allege race‑based discriminatory intent.
Substantive Due Process (Count Two)	Plaintiffs contend defendants' conduct was arbitrary and conscience‑shocking.	Defendants contend no new allegations show conduct rising to conscience‑shocking level.	Dismissed: no new facts to support a substantive due process violation.
Procedural Due Process (Count Two — PD)	Plaintiffs contend notice and process were insufficient (Notice signed by fire official, not construction official; hearings biased).	Defendants point to available administrative remedies and plaintiffs' participation in appeal process; statutory/technical violations do not automatically create federal due process violations.	Dismissed: plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate process and failed to allege deprivation without meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Title VI (Count Three)	Plaintiffs assert Title VI intentional discrimination based on race (same factual predicates as EP claim).	Defendants say the facts only permit speculative inferences, not intentional discrimination required by Title VI.	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead intentional discrimination; Title VI requires non‑speculative facts showing intent.
State claims & supplemental jurisdiction	Plaintiffs asserted multiple state law claims in SAC.	Defendants sought dismissal of federal claims and urged dismissal/decline of pendent state claims.	Federal claims dismissed with prejudice; Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must allege enough facts to raise claims above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court may disregard conclusory legal statements at motion to dismiss stage)
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (framework for regulatory takings analysis)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requirements)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (at motion to dismiss, court accepts well‑pleaded factual allegations as true)
Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995) (when federal claims are dismissed before trial, district court should generally decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims)