Embassy Realty Investments, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 976 F. Supp. 2d 931

City demolished Embassy's building on its property as a nuisance after housing violations were found (August 7, 2009).
An original condemnation notice from 1998 was not recorded, and the City had taken no further action for years, leaving Barnes unaware when he purchased the property in December 2008.
Barnes pursued multiple building-permit applications and zoning-variance appeals between 2007 and 2009, with several denials and appeals that were largely unresolved.
Embassy appealed the condemnation decision to the local board, which upheld the notices and remanded for further proceedings; demolition proceeded in the interim.
Plaintiffs filed a §1983 action in 2011 alleging constitutional violations and Monell liability; the City moved for summary judgment on all claims and the court granted it, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law counterclaim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process violation	Embassy argues the 1998 condemnation notice was defective and deprived due process.	City asserts plaintiffs had actual notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard; defects were waived by not appealing.	Summary judgment for City; no due process violation.
Substantive due process	City’s demolition was arbitrary and shockingly indifferent to plaintiffs’ rights.	Demolition complied with local ordinances and state law; no conscience-shocking conduct.	No substantive due process violation; actions upheld.
Fifth Amendment taking	Demolition without compensation amounted to a taking.	Police power to abate a nuisance does not require compensation; demolition was lawful.	No taking violation; lawful abatement of nuisance.
Fourth Amendment warrantless entry	Warrants were required for demolition entry.	Warrantless entry to abate a nuisance is constitutional when owner had notice and opportunity to be heard.	No Fourth Amendment violation; warrant not required given the circumstances.
Monell claim against City	City policy or custom caused constitutional deprivations.	No underlying constitutional violation established; Monell fails.	Monell claim dismissed.

Harris v. City of Akron, 20 F.3d 1396 (6th Cir.1994) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation)
Davet v. City of Cleveland, 456 F.3d 549 (6th Cir.2006) (condemnation actions taken under valid procedures do not shock the conscience)
Hroch v. City of Omaha, 4 F.3d 693 (8th Cir.1993) (waiver when owner failed to pursue administrative challenge to notice)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprize interested parties)
Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (takings clause; compensation not required when abating a nuisance under police power)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom as moving force)