Jane Huggins v. Prince George's County, MD
683 F.3d 525
4th Cir.2012Background
- SADISCOowned a 99.7-acre parcel in Prince George’s County for a salvage auto wholesaling business in an industrial zone.
- Foxley Road bisects the Property; Andrews Air Force Base (an active CERCLA site) abuts the fence line; the base contaminants may affect the Property.
- SADISCO’s purchase contract acknowledged the Property’s adjacency to the base and potential contamination and stated the Property was sold “as‑is.”
- SADISCO applied for a use and occupancy permit in Dec. 2001 and for a construction trailer permit; by Oct. 2002 the County revoked all outstanding permits due to multiple code violations.
- SADISCO entered into two 2003 consent orders (Grading and Zoning) obligating compliance within timeframes, while the County displayed a practice of working with violators and extending deadlines if diligent progress occurred.
- In 2004 the County, after determining to enforce the zoning orders, padlocked the Property; SADISCO later filed suit in 2007 in federal court against the County and five officials alleging damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment on several counts and dismissed others for LGTCA notice failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Count 3 for breach of two oral contracts. | SADISCO says there were two forbearance promises by the County in 2002 and 2003 supporting oral contracts. | County denies existence of the second oral contract and argues parol evidence bars prior agreements contradicting written consent orders. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed; parol evidence bars proof of the second oral contract and first contract lacked valid consideration. |
| Whether SADISCO stated a substantive due process claim (Count 1) against the County. | SADISCO asserts a protected property interest in permits and a County‑promised right to operate. | No cognizable property interest since permits were revoked; actions not conscience shocking. | Yes; district court properly granted summary judgment; no substantive due process violation. |
| Whether the Officials in their individual capacities were properly dismissed on qualified immunity for Count 1. | SADISCO contends personal involvement violated due process. | No established constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies. | Yes; officials granted qualified immunity; count as to individuals affirmed. |
| Whether Counts 2, 4, and 5 were properly dismissed for LGTCA notice noncompliance. | SADISCO argues substantial compliance or good cause excuses noncompliance. | Strict compliance or substantial compliance required; good cause not shown. | Yes; district court affirmed dismissal for lack of notice without waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kasten Constr. Co. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc., 301 A.2d 12 (Md. 1973) (parol evidence not used when contract clear and unambiguous (integration clause not required))
- A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2008) (vested right analysis depends on permit existence and use; distinguish case where permit remains in existence)
- Powell v. Calvert County, 795 A.2d 96 (Md. 2002) (requirements for vested property rights in zoning use)
- Richmond Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs for Prince George’s County, 255 A.2d 398 (Md. 1969) (principles for interpreting zoning contracts and rights)
- United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp., 899 F.2d 79 (1st Cir. 1990) (CERCLA related considerations and site contamination context)
- United States v. General Electric Co., 670 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2012) (discussion of Superfund site characteristics and remedial attention)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard related to contract and forbearance issues)
- Hansen v. City of Laurel, 996 A.2d 882 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010) (substantial compliance standard for LGTCA notice and requisite recipient)
- Wilbon v. Hunsicker, 913 A.2d 678 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) (good cause analysis for LGTCA waiver; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity outcome when no constitutional violation found)