Oden, LLC v. City of Rome, Georgia, 707 F. App'x 584

Oden, LLC owned a vacant building in Rome, GA; the city sued in rem to repair or demolish it and recorded lis pendens.
The City mailed the complaint and subsequent notices to the property and to a Salt Lake City address that was no longer in service; it did not post notice on the property or send notice to Oden’s Georgia registered agent.
The Municipal Court held a hearing and entered a final condemnation order without Oden receiving notice or appearing; Oden learned of the action about three months later.
The City began demolishing portions of the building, causing structural damage; it later agreed to pause further demolition if Oden boarded up and cleaned the site.
Oden sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) a procedural due process violation for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard and (2) a Fifth Amendment taking for demolition without just compensation; the district court dismissed both claims without prejudice.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it found Oden failed to plead a municipal policy, practice, or custom for the due process claim, and held Oden failed to exhaust available state inverse-condemnation remedies for the Takings claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City is liable under § 1983 for procedural due process violation when demolition occurred without notice	Oden: City itself conducted demolition, so Monell policy/practice requirement should not bar municipal liability	City: Municipal liability requires showing a policy, practice, or custom (or final policymaker) that caused the violation	Court: Dismissed without prejudice — Oden failed to plausibly allege a policy/practice/custom or final policymaker causing the lack of notice (single-ad hoc failure insufficient)
Whether Oden’s Takings Clause claim may proceed in federal court without exhausting state inverse-condemnation remedies	Oden: Georgia law limits on police power make inverse-condemnation available; thus the state remedy exists but arguably inadequate	City: Oden must exhaust Georgia inverse-condemnation remedy; demolition was an exercise of police power, not a compensable taking	Court: Dismissed without prejudice — Oden failed to exhaust adequate state remedies (inverse condemnation is available to challenge excesses of police power)

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy, practice, or custom or actions by a final policymaker)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (single official’s decision can be municipal policy if made by a final policymaker)
Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2016) (reiterating Monell standards and pleading requirements for municipal liability)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (physical invasions and total deprivation of economic use require compensation under the Takings Clause)
Bickerstaff Clay Prods. Co. v. Harris Cty., 89 F.3d 1481 (11th Cir. 1996) (Takings Clause claim requires exhaustion of state remedies such as inverse condemnation)
Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cty., ex rel. Manager, 195 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1999) (ripeness exception when state remedial process is inadequate under state-court interpretation)
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (single-incident allegations generally insufficient to show municipal policy)
Pope v. City of Atlanta, 249 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 1978) (distinguishing eminent domain from police power; police-power seizures require balancing and may be compensable if excessive)
Shealy v. Unified Gov’t of Athens-Clarke Cty., 537 S.E.2d 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (inverse-condemnation cognizable when government creates a condition on private property amounting to a taking)