988 F.3d 1274
11th Cir.2021Background
- Town of Palm Beach adopted a neighborhood-by-neighborhood plan (2017) to underground utilities and fund the project by special assessments apportioned via "Equivalent Benefit Units" (EBUs).
- Palm Beach Towers (PBT) had previously undergrounded its utilities via a privately funded project and was nonetheless included in the Town’s assessment roll; other parcels undergrounded earlier had been excluded where they had already paid town assessments.
- PBT (on behalf of unit owners) sued in Florida state court seeking injunctions; amended to add federal constitutional claims (substantive due process and equal protection) and removed to federal court.
- The District Court dismissed/found summary judgment for the Town on federal claims and dismissed PBT’s state-law claims; PBT moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), which was denied.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal/summary judgment on the federal claims and denial of reconsideration, reversed dismissal of one state-law claim (alleged "unconstitutional tax" under Florida law) and remanded that state-law claim (noting district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process (challenge to Resolution as legislative act) | Resolution was arbitrary/irrational on its face because PBT’s utilities were already undergrounded, so no special benefit justified assessment | Resolution was a legislative act rationally related to legitimate government purposes (safety, reliability, aesthetics) | Affirmed: challenge treated as facial legislative challenge; rational-basis review; PBT failed to show Resolution lacked any rational basis |
| Equal protection (class-of-one) | Town intentionally treated PBT differently than similarly situated comparators (both had pre-existing underground utilities) with no rational basis | Comparators are not similarly situated: those parcels had been undergrounded via assessments paid to Town (avoids duplicative assessments); different treatment was rational | Affirmed: PBT failed to show prima facie identical comparators or lack of rational basis |
| Florida law special-assessment / "unconstitutional tax" claim | Assessment conferred no special benefit on PBT or was not fairly apportioned, rendering it an unconstitutional tax under Florida law | Complaint did not sufficiently plead a state-law basis (per District Court) | Reversed in part: Elec. Cir. held complaint incorporated antecedent citations (Florida Const. art. VII, Fla. Stat. §170.* and City of Boca Raton precedent) so dismissal was improper; remanded (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction) |
| Motion for reconsideration (Rule 59(e)) | Newly discovered evidence raised genuine issues of material fact on federal claims | Evidence was duplicative or available earlier; no basis to alter summary judgment | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014) (legislative-substantive-due-process claims: rational-basis review for infringement of state-created rights by legislative acts)
- Schwarz v. Kogan, 132 F.3d 1387 (11th Cir. 1998) (statutory/legislative acts survive minimal scrutiny if rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose)
- Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, 345 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (as-applied executive action cannot support substantive-due-process claim against legislative act)
- Hillcrest Prop., LLP v. Pasco County, 915 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2019) (as-applied challenges are executive in nature)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (recognition of "class of one" equal protection claim framework)
- Campbell v. Rainbow City, Ala., 434 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (class-of-one requires intentional differential treatment and no rational basis)
- Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2007) ("similarly situated" applied with rigor; prima facie identical in all relevant respects)
- Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (similarity judged by factors relevant to an objectively reasonable governmental decisionmaker)
- Swisher Int’l, Inc. v. Schafer, 550 F.3d 1046 (11th Cir. 2008) (Takings Clause does not apply to mere obligation to pay an assessment)
- City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992) (two requirements for valid special assessment: special benefit and fair apportionment)
- Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1951) (distinguishing tax vs. special assessment under Florida Constitution)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard) * Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain factual matter to state plausible claim)