Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc.
758 F.3d 506
2d Cir.2014Background
- New York law (N.Y. Transp. Corp. Law §27) permits telephone corporations to place equipment on private land and, if compensation cannot be agreed, to use state eminent-domain procedures (inverse condemnation) to obtain compensation.
- Plaintiffs allege Verizon installed multi-unit terminal boxes on their property without just compensation and assert §1983 claims for violation of the Takings Clause and procedural due process based on Verizon’s acquisition and communications practices.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for affected property owners; related state-court litigation (Corsello; Grillo) is pending or stayed, and the New York Court of Appeals has recognized an inverse condemnation claim but denied class certification in Corsello.
- Verizon moved to dismiss in federal court, arguing the claims are unripe under Williamson County, among other defenses; the district court dismissed for lack of ripeness and the plaintiffs appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed ripeness de novo and addressed (1) whether Williamson County applies to physical takings and (2) whether it applies to procedural due process claims arising from the same facts as a taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Williamson County to physical takings | Williamson County governs regulatory takings only; physical takings are immediately ripe | Williamson County’s finality and exhaustion rules apply generally to takings claims | Williamson County applies to physical takings; physical invasion satisfies finality but exhaustion still required |
| Whether exhaustion requirement can be avoided after a physical taking | Plaintiffs: unconstitutional to force owner to pursue state suit after physical taking; exhaustion unnecessary | Verizon: Fifth Amendment does not require pre- or contemporaneous compensation; state inverse-condemnation remedy must be used if adequate | Exhaustion is required when the state provides an adequate procedure for compensation; New York’s procedures are adequate on their face |
| Applicability of Williamson County to procedural due process claims arising from the same facts as a takings claim | Plaintiffs: Williamson County ripeness not applicable to due process claims | Verizon: Due process claims coextensive with takings claims must satisfy Williamson County’s ripeness | Williamson County (finality and exhaustion) applies to procedural due process claims based on the same nucleus of facts as a taking; plaintiffs’ due process claims are unripe for failure to exhaust state remedies |
| Ripe remedy in federal court before exhausting state inverse-condemnation | Plaintiffs seek federal adjudication now | Verizon asserts federal court lacks jurisdiction until state process exhausted | Federal courts may not adjudicate until plaintiffs pursue (and fail in) available state inverse-condemnation remedies; affirmed dismissal for ripeness |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (establishes finality and state-exhaustion ripeness test for takings claims)
- Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transp., 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (applies Williamson County; state inverse-condemnation must be pursued in New York)
- Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375 (2d Cir. 1995) (Williamson County ripeness principles apply across takings contexts)
- Juliano v. Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 983 F. Supp. 319 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (physical invasion satisfies finality; exhaustion depends on adequacy of state remedy)
- Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 777 (N.Y. 2012) (New York Court of Appeals recognizes inverse condemnation claim but denies class certification)