Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County
754 F.3d 1279
11th Cir.2014Background
- Pasco County enacted the Right-of-Way Preservation Ordinance on November 22, 2005 to require landowners to dedicate land for SR 52 as a condition for development permits.
- The Ordinance includes a waiver for dedication if the amount exceeds what is roughly proportional to transportation impacts.
- Hillcrest owned land encroaching on SR 52 since 2001 and sought development permitting; negotiations to settle failed.
- Hillcrest submitted a site plan in December 2006; Pasco County informed in February 2007 that Hillcrest would need to dedicate land.
- Hillcrest filed suit in April 2010; district court granted partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction on Hillcrest’s facial substantive due process claim and retained as-applied claim.
- This court vacated the injunction and summary judgment on the facial claim and remanded, holding accrual began at enactment in 2005.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does accrual begin for facial substantive due process claims? | Hillcrest contends accrual runs when injury occurs. | Pasco County contends accrual runs later after enforcement acts. | Accrual begins at enactment (2005). |
| Is the facial substantive due process claim time-barred by the statute of limitations? | Hillcrest argues timely under accrual rule. | Pasco County argues too late after 2005. | facial claim time-barred. |
| Did the district court properly grant summary judgment and a permanent injunction on the facial claim? | Hillcrest seeks injunction and summary judgment against ordinance. | Pasco County opposes vacatur of injunction. | No; statute of limitations and accrual compel vacatur. |
| Should the court retain jurisdiction over as-applied claim while vacating facial ruling? | As-applied claim remains pending. | Only facial claim addressed here; as-applied still pending. | Remand; vacate facial ruling but preserve as-applied claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc.), 471 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) (pendent appellate jurisdiction over interl. order intertwined with injunctive order)
- FEC v. Reform Party of the U.S., 479 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing injunction and related questions of law)
- Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of Longboat Key, 17 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1994) (how to review summary judgment decisions)
- Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) (forum state SOF for § 1983 claims; accrual principles)
- Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know injury)
- Mullinax v. McElhenny, 817 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1987) ( accrual rule for § 1983 claims)
- Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (facial takings accrual: injury upon enactment)
- Kuhnle Bros., Inc. v. Cnty. of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 1997) (facial takings accrual extended to facial due process claims)
- Action Apartment Ass’n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2007) (accrual rule for facial substantive due process claims)
- Ocean Acres Ltd. P’ship v. Dare Cnty. Bd. of Health, 707 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1983) (accrual in property deprivations context)
- Asociación de Suscripción Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Juarbe-Jiménez, 659 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2011) (knowledge at time act occurs interpretation)