Emmert v. Clackamas County
3:13-cv-01317
D. Or.May 12, 2015Background
- Emmert, a landowner/developer, alleges Clackamas County promised to buy or condemn multiple parcels for planned transportation projects but instead discouraged buyers and blocked development, depressing property values.
- Properties at issue span multiple sites near the Sunrise Corridor, East Side Light Rail, and Sunnyside Road widening projects; alleged misconduct includes verbal promises to purchase, misinformation to prospective buyers, denial of permits, and loss of access.
- Emmert filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (takings and equal protection), Oregon constitutional takings, and state torts for fraud and intentional interference with economic relations; County moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The magistrate judge considered statute-of-limitations, standing, immunity, Monell municipal liability, inverse-condemnation (including the condemnation-cloud theory), class-of-one equal protection, OTCA notice and timeliness, fraud pleading under Rule 9(b), and relation-back for the interference claim.
- Court ruled: dismiss First (federal takings), Second (Oregon takings), and Third (equal protection) claims without prejudice with leave to amend; denied dismissal of fraud and interference claims; dismissed punitive damages with prejudice; granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Emmert alleges discovery of County’s scheme around June 2009; limitations not clearly expired on face of complaint | County suggests claims may be time-barred | Dismissal on statute grounds denied as premature; tolling agreement and discovery rule make timeliness a factual question |
| Standing | Emmert alleges concrete injuries (lost sales, lost access, frustrated development) for all 13 properties | County contends no injury for certain properties | Emmert has standing for all properties alleged |
| §1983 Monell and inverse-condemnation (takings) | County followed a custom/strategy to depress values and discourage buyers; alleges condemnation-cloud theory | County says no municipal policy/intent to take for public use | Monell liability sufficiently pleaded as a custom; inverse-condemnation claims FAIL for lack of pleading that County intended public use — may be repleaded; Penn Central regulatory-taking theory also requires public-use intent |
| OTCA notice & tort timeliness | Emmert gave OTCA notice (Oct 8, 2011); discovery rule applies; interference claim relates back to original complaint | County contends notice untimely and interference claim untimely/doesn’t relate back | OTCA notice sufficiency and timeliness not adjudicated on motion to dismiss; relation-back and discovery timing are factual issues — dismissal denied at this stage |
| Fraud and intentional interference (Rule 9(b)) | Emmert alleges who, approximate when, what was said (promises to buy), reliance and damages | County argues fraud lacks particularity and reliance implausible given statute of frauds; interference claim added late | Fraud pleadings meet Rule 9(b) specificity as to speakers, approximate times, and allegations of intent; interference claim plausibly pleaded and relates back; punitive damages barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading-standards and plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy/custom)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (public-use requirement in takings context)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (regulatory-takings multi-factor test)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual rule for § 1983 claims)