Panzella v. City of Newburgh
705 F. App'x 50
2d Cir.2017Background
- Panzella (owner of Joemark Enterprises) purchased the River Rose in 2000 to operate passenger cruises from a dock in the City of Newburgh.
- The City Council passed a resolution in 2004 authorizing a docking agreement; the parties entered an agreement on April 5, 2004.
- Local competitors allegedly pressured city officials, causing costs and delays; in 2010 the City revoked the 2004 resolution and proposed new, inconsistent terms.
- Panzella and Joemark continued to operate from the dock they built but never reached a new agreement allocating use or responsibility; they allege the City favored other waterfront businesses.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; the district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and entered judgment for the City, which the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded an equal protection violation by alleging disparate treatment | Panzella argued the City treated the River Rose worse than similarly situated vessels (e.g., Pride of the Hudson) and revoked earlier agreement terms to the plaintiffs’ detriment | City argued plaintiffs failed to identify a proper comparator or plead facts showing similarly situated entities received more favorable treatment | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to allege a similarly situated comparator or facts to support an equal protection claim |
| Whether complaint met Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards | Plaintiffs contended facts alleged were sufficient to show unequal treatment | City contended the complaint contained conclusions without the necessary factual allegations to make the claim plausible | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal standard and found allegations legally conclusory and factually deficient; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc., 711 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard and review scope)
- Church of Am. Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (requirement to show differential treatment compared to similarly situated parties for equal protection claims)
- Hampshire Recreation LLC v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, [citation="664 F. App'x 98"] (2d Cir. 2016) (unequal treatment standard under Equal Protection Clause)
- Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (dismissing equal protection claim where plaintiffs failed to allege sufficiently similar comparators)
- Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) (judicial notice of prior litigation filings and existence)
- Panzella v. City of Newburgh, 231 F. Supp. 3d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (district court opinion dismissing complaint)
- Joemark Enters., LLC v. City of Newburgh, 62 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (state-court contract dispute between parties referenced by the court)