New Jersey Chinese Community Center v. Township of Warren, 712 F. App'x 196

Hwang obtained a zoning variance (2009) and built a dwelling on property; in 2014 he transferred the property to the New Jersey Chinese Community Center (the Center).
The Center sought tax-exempt status and intended to use the building as a student dormitory; Hwang applied for a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) as a single-family residence.
A zoning officer denied the CO because the proposed dormitory use conflicted with the single-family use granted by the Zoning Board and would require a use variance.
Instead of appealing the CO denial to the Zoning Board or applying for a use variance, appellants filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court and later in federal district court alleging federal and state constitutional violations.
New Jersey Superior Court granted summary judgment to the Township for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of intent to use the property in a conforming manner; the Appellate Division affirmed.
The federal district court dismissed the federal complaint without prejudice for lack of ripeness/finality; appellants’ motion to reopen was denied and that denial is on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness/finality of land-use claim	Plaintiffs asserted constitutional and other federal claims based on the Township’s denial of CO/use	Township argued plaintiffs failed to obtain a final administrative decision (no appeal to Zoning Board; no variance application) so federal claims are unripe	Court held claims unripe under finality rule; plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and Zoning Board never issued a final decision
Requirement to seek variance before constitutional review	Plaintiffs implied constitutional relief was available despite not applying for variance	Township argued a use variance application/appeal was prerequisite to judicial review	Court held plaintiffs must seek available administrative relief (variance/appeal) before constitutional adjudication
Whether case should be reopened after dismissal	Plaintiffs sought reopening to pursue the federal claims	Township opposed, citing finality/ripeness and other preclusion doctrines	Court affirmed denial to reopen based on finality/ripeness; did not reach other defenses
Applicability of other preclusion doctrines (Rooker–Feldman, res judicata)	Plaintiffs disputed that other doctrines barred review	Township raised those doctrines as alternative grounds for affirmance	Court affirmed on finality grounds and did not decide alternative doctrines

Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir.) (ripeness/finality requirement for land-use constitutional claims)
Taylor Inv., Ltd. v. Upper Darby Twp., 983 F.2d 1285 (3d Cir.) (administrative exhaustion in zoning disputes)
Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (final decision requirement for takings and related claims)
Acierno v. Mitchell, 6 F.3d 970 (3d Cir.) (unripe land-use claim where no appeal/variance sought)
Midnight Sessions, Ltd. v. City of Phila., 945 F.2d 667 (3d Cir.) (CO denial not ripe without appeal to review board)
Suburban Trails, Inc. v. N.J. Transit Corp., 800 F.2d 361 (3d Cir.) (ripeness is an issue courts must consider sua sponte)
Felmeister v. Office of Att'y Ethics, 856 F.2d 529 (3d Cir.) (ripeness generally a question of law)