Infinium Builders LLC v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 3:23-cv-00924

Plaintiffs (developers and builders) sued Metropolitan Government of Nashville, claiming constitutional violations from the enforcement of Nashville’s Sidewalk Ordinance, which required new developers to build sidewalks, pay a fee in-lieu, or apply for a waiver to obtain building permits.
Enforcement of the Sidewalk Ordinance ceased in May 2023 after the Sixth Circuit ruled in Knight v. Metro Gov’t that the ordinance failed the "unconstitutional conditions" test under Nollan and Dolan.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance constituted an unconstitutional taking and that use of their in-lieu payments violated their due process rights.
Defendant Metro moved for summary judgment, arguing claims are unripe, time-barred, some plaintiffs lack standing, and procedural due process was not violated.
The case involves disputed questions around the statute of limitations, standing, finality/ripeness of takings claims, and whether plaintiffs have a protected property interest under the ordinance for due process purposes.
The Court held a mixed ruling: some takings claims may proceed, but dismissed time-barred takings claims and all due process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of Infinium for Takings	Infinium should have standing as fee payor	Infinium lacks standing; wasn’t the property owner	Infinium lacks standing for takings claim
Ripeness of Takings Claims	Claims ripe once fees paid, not subject to further process	Claims unripe; plaintiffs didn’t exhaust/admin remedies	Claims are ripe; no further admin review necessary
Statute of Limitations	Claims tolled by estoppel or certification; accrual at U&O	Time-barred: all claims accrued when fees paid/request denied	Most claims time-barred unless tolled by class action
Due Process Property Interest	Ordinance entitles refund if funds not used in 10 years	No present entitlement; refunds only if unused in 10 yrs	No present property interest; due process claim fails

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (regulatory takings balancing test)
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (unconstitutional conditions doctrine for land-use exactions)
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (nexus/proportionality test for exactions)
Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (ripeness/finality in takings claims)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (American Pipe tolling applies to class members filing individual actions)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (due process and property interests)
Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 588 U.S. 180 (takings accrual and federal court access)
Pakdel v. City of San Francisco, 594 U.S. 474 (ripeness/finality for takings claims)