National Amusements Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- NAI operated a 65.4-acre open-air flea market on Palmyra land since 1976; redevelopment plans prompted EPA/ERM/MMG inspections for unexploded munitions.
- ERM/MMG discovered munitions; access agreement allowed weekend market operation while inspections proceeded during the week.
- On March 12, 2008, Palmyra issued an emergency order restricting access due to surface-shell danger; MMG disposed of munitions.
- Market reopened on weekends under a Consent Order with safety controls; action lasted five months and became subject of multiple lawsuits.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Palmyra in 2012; NAI sought interim and then final attorney’s fees under §1988, which were denied.
- This appeal challenges the summary judgment ruling and the denial of attorney’s fees; the court affirms without addressing merits of constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process claim viability | NAI contends denial of pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. | Palmyra asserts post-deprivation process sufficed; immediate danger justified emergency action. | Procedural due process not violated; post-deprivation process adequate. |
| Takings clause applicability of emergency closure | Temporary closure was a taking requiring just compensation. | Closure is a police power measure to abate danger; not a compensable taking. | No taking; temporary closure under police power did not require compensation. |
| Action in lieu of prerogative writ review | Palmyra acted arbitrarily and capriciously; sought relief under New Jersey standards. | Palmyra acted rationally to protect public safety; deferential review applies. | Palmyra's actions were not arbitrary or capricious; state-law standard upheld. |
| Attorney's fees under § 1988 following interim relief | Consent Order interim relief should support § 1988 fees for prevailing party on federal claims. | Sole v. Wyner precludes fees when final merits defeat follows interim relief; no federalprevailing party. | No interim-fees; plaintiff did not prevail on federal claims on merits; affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor due process balancing test for pre-/post-deprivation process)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (where rapid action is required, pre-deprivation hearing not always required)
- N. Am. Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908) (pre-deprivation action not always required to preserve public safety)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (background principles of nuisance allowed without compensation)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (police power to abate dangerous conditions without compensation)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007) (preliminary relief does not guarantee prevailing party status after merits adjudication)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (test for awarding attorneys' fees under § 1988)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (settlement or consent decree can confer prevailing party status)
- People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226 (2008) (interim relief can support fees where a plaintiff secures relief linked to future rights)