Obsession Sports Bar & Grill v. City of Rochester
17-769-cv
| 2d Cir. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Obsession Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. and owner Joan C. Ortiz ("Obsession") sued the City of Rochester after the City enacted and enforced Rochester Municipal Code § 120‑34(O), a zoning regulation affecting Obsession's business.
- Obsession challenged the ordinance in state court; the ordinance was ultimately invalidated by New York State courts.
- Obsession filed a first amended complaint in federal court asserting substantive and procedural due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissed the FAC for failure to state a claim.
- Obsession appealed; the Second Circuit considered whether the City’s enactment and enforcement of the zoning ordinance violated substantive or procedural due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — whether enactment of § 120‑34(O) was constitutionally arbitrary | The ordinance (and its enforcement) was arbitrary, conscience‑shocking, and therefore violated substantive due process | Enactment of a zoning regulation, even if later invalidated under state law, is not unconstitutional absent conduct that is outrageously arbitrary, motivated by animus, or procedurally irregular | Dismissed — pleading that the ordinance was later invalidated is insufficient; no allegations of animus or fundamental procedural irregularity or conscience‑shocking conduct |
| Procedural due process — right to pre‑deprivation hearing before enforcement of zoning regulation | Obsession argued it was entitled to a pre‑deprivation hearing before the City enforced the ordinance against it | The City argued the ordinance was a generally applicable zoning regulation that does not require a pre‑deprivation hearing | Dismissed — no pre‑deprivation hearing required for enforcement of a generally applicable zoning regulation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferran v. Town of Nassau, 471 F.3d 363 (2d Cir.) (substantive due process requires conduct that is arbitrary or conscience‑shocking)
- Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258 (2d Cir.) (zoning enactments violate substantive due process only when they are outrageously arbitrary)
- Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778 (2d Cir.) (substantive due process violation may exist where government action is tainted by racial animus or fundamental procedural irregularity)
- Edelhertz v. City of Middletown, 714 F.3d 749 (2d Cir.) (generally applicable zoning regulations do not entitle affected parties to a pre‑deprivation hearing)
- Obsession Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 235 F. Supp. 3d 461 (W.D.N.Y.) (district court opinion dismissed the FAC on substantive and procedural due process grounds)