309 A.3d 543
D.C.2024Background
- Peter and John Gordon inherited a family home in Washington, D.C., and planned to sell it.
- Community members, motivated by preservation concerns, secretly sought historic landmark designation for the home, in part through unauthorized entry and photographing of the property involving Kim Williams, a city employee.
- The Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) ultimately designated the home a historic landmark, impacting the home's market value and a pending sale.
- The Gordons sued the District of Columbia and city officials, bringing a mix of constitutional and common law claims, including Fourth Amendment violations, common law trespass, and procedural due process failures.
- The Superior Court dismissed or granted summary judgment for the District on most claims (except trespass), leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment Violation by Williams | Williams' warrantless entry was an unconstitutional search | Williams had apparent authority; law was not clearly established; entry not for criminal investigation | Williams entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of clearly established law in 2015 |
| Municipal and Supervisory Liability (Failure to Train/Supervise) | District and supervisor liable for Williams’s conduct due to inadequate training re: site visits | No pattern of violations; insufficient facts of deliberate indifference | No liability; no facts showing pattern or obvious need for more training |
| Common Law Trespass by Williams | Williams’ entry without proper consent was trespass | Qualified immunity for constitutional claims also shields trespass | Summary judgment reversed; court must analyze absolute immunity, not qualified immunity |
| Takings (Fifth Amendment) | Historic designation was regulatory taking causing loss of $350,000 in value | No total deprivation; property still had economic use and reduced sale offer | No taking; diminished value alone insufficient under Penn Central/900 G Street standards |
| Denial of Procedural Due Process (Opportunity to be Heard) | HPRB procedures lacked evidentiary safeguards and were inadequate | Procedures met Mathews v. Eldridge standards; detailed local precedent supports sufficiency | Claim fails; procedures adequate under Donnelly and Mathews standards |
| Denial of Neutral Decision-Maker | HPRB process tainted by bias/appearance of bias due to personal connections/offers | No actual bias by decision-makers; alleged offers too remote; Williams not a decision-maker | No due process violation; no sufficient showing of bias or appearance thereof |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires official policy or custom inflicts injury)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal failure-to-train liability requires deliberate indifference)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (multi-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (total taking requires denial of all economic use)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (due process requires impartial decision-maker)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing test for administrative procedures)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (presumption of honesty and integrity of decision-makers)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
- Scales v. District of Columbia, 973 A.2d 722 (qualified immunity and district law distinction for common law claims)