Edwards, CDS, LLC v. City of Delray Beach
699 F. App'x 885
11th Cir.2017Background
- Developers (Edwards, CDS, CDS Delray Development, Edwards Atlantic Avenue, CDR Atlantic Plaza) seek to develop property in Delray Beach and encounter delays in the City’s approval process.
- Developers filed suit alleging (a) an unconstitutional conditions claim under the Fifth Amendment and (b) a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Developers allege the City conditioned approval on two demands: reconveyance of two alleyways and creation of a two-way roadway.
- The complaint shows a contractual dispute over the alleyways and the City’s assertion of an ownership claim affecting approval, but does not allege the City expressly conditioned approval on reconveyance.
- The complaint indicates the City considered requiring a two-way road but does not allege the City actually imposed that condition.
- The Developers also claim delay infringes their state-created permit/property rights; they raised a federal-property-rights theory only for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City imposed unconstitutional conditions by coercing reconveyance of alleyways | The City conditioned approval on reconveying alleyways to the City | The City has a contractual/ownership dispute and did not coerce reconveyance as a condition of approval | Dismissal affirmed — complaint does not plausibly allege a coercive condition | |
| Whether the City imposed an unconstitutional condition by requiring a two-way roadway | The City demanded creation of a two-way road as condition of approval | The City only considered the requirement; it did not impose it | Dismissal affirmed — complaint fails to allege the condition was imposed | |
| Whether delay in approval violated substantive due process by infringing state-created property rights | Developers claim state-created permit rights were infringed by the City’s delay | The City’s actions are not the kind of legislative infringement that triggers substantive due process protection for state-created rights | Dismissal affirmed — no legislative act identified to support a substantive due process claim | |
| Whether Developers may raise a federal-property-rights theory on appeal | Developers now argue federal property rights were infringed | City notes the theory was not raised below | Court finds the federal-rights argument waived for failure to raise in district court | Argument waived; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 129 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for dismissal at pleadings stage)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (U.S. 2013) (unconstitutional conditions doctrine in land-development context)
- Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014) (limits on substantive due process protection for state-created property rights)
- Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (waiver for arguments not raised in district court)