Hodgson v. Farmington City, 675 F. App'x 838

The Fadels, trustees of the Rock Manor Trust, owned a deteriorating 1959 structure that functioned as a barn with an advertising-facing wall in Farmington, Utah.
After a 2011 windstorm and inspections, city engineers and the fire marshal found the structure dangerous and an attractive nuisance; Farmington City issued a "Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish." Rock Manor refused to comply.
The City’s Building Board of Appeals and subsequent Utah state courts upheld the City’s determination; the state courts authorized demolition at the trust’s expense, which occurred on April 1, 2015, and Rock Manor was invoiced for demolition costs under the UCADB.
The Fadels sued in federal court seeking at least $400,000 in compensation (or rebuilding/relocation), asserting § 1983, constitutional, and state/municipal eminent-domain claims; the district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with prejudice.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, treating the complaint as a collateral attack on the prior administrative and state-court proceedings and finding the federal claims implausible and inadequately briefed where relevant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether demolition violated rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 / Constitution	Demolition deprived Rock Manor of property and constitutional rights; seeks compensation/remedy	Demolition followed statutory procedure, administrative and judicial review; claims are collateral attacks on prior determinations	Dismissed: claims implausible and foreclosed by prior administrative/judicial process
Eminent-domain/state-law takings claim	City’s demolition amounted to a taking requiring compensation	City acted under UCADB and obtained court authorization; statutes justify action	Not considered on appeal (appellate briefing deficient; forfeited)
Timeliness of the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Motion filed after responsive pleading, so untimely	Motion was timely/permissible and dismissal proper	Not considered (argument inadequately briefed)
Use of judicially noticed records vs. conversion to summary judgment	Judicial notice of public administrative and court records improperly converted motion to summary judgment	Court may judicially notice public records without converting the motion	Held for City: judicial notice proper; no conversion required

Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (context for pleading standard; plausible claims required)
Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must nudge claims from conceivable to plausible)
Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006) (courts may consider facts subject to judicial notice on Rule 12(b)(6))
United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts may notice other courts’ publicly filed records when directly related)
St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 605 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir. 1979) (appropriate circumstances for taking notice of proceedings in other courts)
Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (appellate forfeiture doctrine for inadequately briefed issues)