Reybold Venture Group v. Delaware Department of Education
947 F. Supp. 2d 430
D. Del.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are Delaware LLCs holding title to Meridian Crossing, a planned subdivision with 738 units.
- The VSA, enacted July 30, 1999, requires a school-capacity certification or a per-unit VSA payment before recording major subdivisions; exemptions apply for 55+ and low-income housing.
- Plaintiffs agreed on June 9, 2003 to pay $3,261 per qualifying unit for five years; payments were adjusted for subsequent five-year periods based on construction costs.
- Plaintiffs paid VSA payments through September 23, 2011; as of November 21, 2011, the amount was recalculated to $6,088 per unit.
- Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the VSA is unenforceable, an injunction against collecting VSA payments, and refunds; defendant moves for summary judgment; plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment.
- The court analyzes jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, standing, and statute of limitations, ultimately dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tax Injunction Act bars the suit | Plaintiffs argue for federal review of VSA. | Department contends Act precludes federal review of state tax schemes. | Yes; Act bars federal jurisdiction and requires dismissal. |
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing | Plaintiffs claim injury from VSA burden and potential third-party impacts. | No injury shown to plaintiffs or to minorities/ purchasers; no third-party standing. | No Article III and prudential standing. |
| Whether the claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations | Injury occurred with increased VSA; tolling not shown. | Two-year Delaware personal injury limit applies; action timely or not depending on start. | Untimely; limitations began by first payment (Oct. 29, 2009). |
Key Cases Cited
- Moodie v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 58 F.3d 879 (2d Cir.1995) (jurisdiction objections must be addressed; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction raised.)
- Carpet Group Int’l v. Oriental Rug Importers Ass’n, Inc., 227 F.3d 62 (3d Cir.2000) (jurisdictional issues may be resolved on jurisdictional facts.)
- Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir.1977) (evaluates jurisdictional questions with affidavits and evidence.)
- Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406 (3d Cir.1991) (facial vs. factual challenges to jurisdiction.)
- Grubart, Jerome B. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (jurisdictional issues resolved on merits after jurisdiction.)
- Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899 (3d Cir.1991) (appropriate limitations period for § 1983 actions is state-law personal injury period.)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (determine limitations period for § 1983 claims.)
- Raskauskas v. Town of Bethany Beach, 555 F. Supp. 783 (D. Del. 1983) (Tax Injunction Act application and preclusion.)