Petersen v. RIVERTON CITY
784 F. Supp. 2d 1234
D. Utah2011Background
- Petersens own a 20.84-acre property in Riverton, Utah, and sought rezoning to R-3 in conjunction with a DR Horton contract for $5.5M that later failed.
- Petersens alleged Riverton City's denial of rezoning destroyed economically viable use and violated takings, due process, equal protection, and state tort theories.
- Petersens filed state-court review under Utah law; Riverton City removed to federal court; amendments and discovery occurred over years.
- Utah Supreme Court later held there was no constitutionally protectable property interest in a favorable rezoning decision.
- Utah Supreme Court concluded there was a reasonable basis for the rezoning denial under the governing standard of review, and the state judgment addressed the issues central to the federal claims.
- The federal court granted summary judgment, concluding most claims were barred by issue preclusion and the economic-interference claim by governmental immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the takings claim barred by issue preclusion? | Petersen argues issues differ in federal action. | Riverton asserts Utah Supreme Court decision forecloses relevant takings issue. | Yes; identical issue decided in state case bars takings claim. |
| Are the due process claims barred by issue preclusion? | Petersen contends distinct due process theory. | Riverton contends Utah Supreme Court resolved the necessary due process issue. | Yes; identical issue decided in state case bars due process claims. |
| Is the equal protection class-of-one claim barred by issue preclusion? | Petersen asserts different standard; seeks federal relief. | Riverton argues Utah Supreme Court resolved rational-basis issue. | Yes; identical issue decided in state case bars equal protection claim. |
| Is the economic-interference claim barred by governmental immunity? | Petersen claims intentional interference with business relations. | Riverton City enjoys blanket governmental immunity; no waiver for contract interference. | Yes; governmental immunity bars the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (federal preclusion law applies state judgments' preclusive effect)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70 (Utah 2008) (elements of Utah collateral estoppel; final judgment on merits)
- Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (due process requires a protectable property interest)
- Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah 2010) (Utah Supreme Court held no protectable property interest and found reasonable basis for denial)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rio Arriba County, 440 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2006) (class-of-one requires no rational basis pretext defense)
- Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2007) (presumption of rationality in governmental actions)
- Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (reasonably debatable standard of review for zoning decisions)
- Highland Dev. Inc. v. Duchesne County, 505 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Utah 2007) (pretext not relevant to class-of-one claims when rational basis shown)