Mountaineer Pest Services, LLC v. North Augusta, City of
1:20-cv-02235
D.S.C.Jan 25, 2022Background
- Mountaineer Pest Services (MPS) sought a text amendment to lift a historic-overlay zoning restriction so its parcels could be zoned general commercial and MPS could expand its office.
- MPS’s initial request was denied by the zoning board and City Council in August 2018; a renewed request in April 2019 received a favorable zoning-board recommendation but was again denied by City Council.
- MPS alleged the City granted similar amendments to other nearby property owners and removed overlays for city-owned property, and sued asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims (Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities) and related state-law claims in state court; the City removed the case to federal court.
- North Augusta moved for summary judgment on the federal claims; MPS opposed but failed to present evidence showing disparate treatment or intentional discrimination and did not respond to the City’s Privileges and Immunities argument.
- The district court granted summary judgment for North Augusta on MPS’s federal claims (dismissed with prejudice) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, remanding them to Aiken County Court of Common Pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection (14th Amend.) | City acted arbitrarily/capriciously and treated MPS differently than similarly situated owners | MPS offered no evidence of differential treatment or purposeful discrimination | Summary judgment for City; MPS failed to show similarly situated comparators or intent; claim dismissed |
| Privileges and Immunities (14th Amend.) | Alleges violation (barely developed) | Claim insufficiently pleaded/argued; City seeks dismissal | Summary judgment for City; MPS failed to respond and effectively abandoned the claim |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | If federal claims dismissed, state claims should be remanded to state court | No opposition to remand | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands state claims to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (Equal Protection claim requires disparate treatment, intent, and lack of rational basis)
- United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (presumption in favor of legislative judgments)
- Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (zoning classifications entitled to deference when fairly debatable)
- Sunrise Corp. of Myrtle Beach v. City of Myrtle Beach, 420 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2005) (disparate treatment alone insufficient; purposeful discrimination required)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting and nonmovant’s obligation to present specific evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)