360 F. Supp. 3d 714
M.D. Tenn.2019Background
- Deja Vu (adult entertainment club) contracted The Parking Guys (TPG) for valet services after relocating to 1418 Church Street; Metro initially approved Deja Vu's business license but neighborhood complaints followed.
- TPG applied for a valet permit; Metro Public Works denied the request and the Traffic & Parking Commission later heard an appeal. Collier Engineering studied traffic; the Commission ultimately denied TPG's appeal.
- Plaintiffs allege a coordinated campaign by Councilmember Freddie O’Connell and neighbors (including Schipani and Molette) to submit allegedly false complaints and influence the Commission to deny TPG’s permit, injuring Deja Vu and TPG. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (constitutional violations) and § 1985 (conspiracy).
- Schipani moved to dismiss (raising abstention, standing, witness/quasi‑judicial immunity, failure to plead class‑based animus under § 1985, and service defects). Metro and O’Connell moved to dismiss (arguing no protected property interest for § 1983, inadequate § 1985 pleading, and legislative immunity for O’Connell).
- The court exercised federal jurisdiction (declining Colorado River and Burford abstention), found Deja Vu had Article III standing, but dismissed all § 1985 claims for failure to plead class‑based, invidiously discriminatory animus and dismissed § 1983 claims because there was no constitutionally protectable property interest in the discretionary valet permit. Leave to amend was denied as a bare, unsupported request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstention (Colorado River / Burford) | Federal suit differs from state certiorari (different relief; conspiracy/damages claims); federal court should hear it | State chancery proceedings are parallel and federal intervention would interfere with local administrative processes | Court: No abstention. Cases are not sufficiently parallel; Burford inapplicable because claims challenge conspiratorial conduct, not the state administrative policy process |
| Standing (Deja Vu) | Deja Vu lost a government benefit (valet service tied to business operations) due to First Amendment‑related animus; this is a concrete injury | Schipani: Only TPG was denied the permit; Deja Vu suffered no cognizable injury and can contract with another valet provider | Court: Deja Vu pleaded a concrete, traceable injury (denial of a contracted service tied to its business) and has standing |
| § 1985 (requirement of class‑based, invidious animus) | Plaintiffs argue conspiracy to deprive First Amendment rights is actionable under § 1985 | Defendants: § 1985 requires race or other protected class‑based invidious discrimination; plaintiffs allege none | Court: Dismissed § 1985 claims. Plaintiffs failed to allege membership in a protected class or class‑based discriminatory animus, as required by Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent |
| § 1983 (substantive & procedural due process / First Amendment retaliation) | Plaintiffs claim denial of valet permit deprived them of property/liberty interest and was motivated by hostility to Deja Vu's expression | Metro: Valet permits are discretionary under Metro Code (public safety/health/welfare), so no protected property interest; state remedies adequate; no alleged First Amendment animus sufficient to support § 1983 | Court: Dismissed § 1983 claims. Metro Code vested broad discretion (public safety/health/welfare), so no constitutionally protected property interest; procedural due process and First Amendment claims fail without that interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (federal courts may narrowly abstain where state and federal proceedings are parallel and exceptional circumstances exist)
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (federal courts should abstain to avoid disrupting complex state administrative schemes in narrow circumstances)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Article III standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (§ 1985(3) requires class‑based, invidiously discriminatory animus for protection beyond race)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (limits on § 1985(3) scope and caution against converting § 1985 into a general federal tort law)
- EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845 (no property interest in discretionary municipal benefits; used to evaluate due process claims)