Richard E. Warner v. City of Marathon
718 F. App'x 834
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Estate of Joseph Ardolino II owned a commercial property in Marathon, FL (liquor store/lounge) and its liquor license; after Ardolino’s death the Estate attempted to lease, improve, and sell the property.
- A 2006 City ordinance restricted package liquor sales within 1,500 feet of certain locations; the Estate alleges the City failed to disclose this to prospective buyers and misrepresented the property’s permitted uses.
- Offers to buy the property (including $1,000,000 and $750,000 offers) were withdrawn after appraisal or after the Estate learned of zoning limitations; the Estate pursued administrative appeals and obtained relief in Florida circuit court reversing the ordinance’s application to the property.
- Plaintiffs (Estate co-representatives and Ardolino’s son) sued the City, two city officials (Cinque and Lucignano), and private entities, asserting claims including an as-applied takings claim, multiple § 1983 claims, tortious interference, conspiracy, trespass, unjust enrichment, and negligence.
- The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 and on substantive grounds (ripeness, immunity, shotgun pleading, intracorporate-conspiracy issue); the plaintiffs appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of most claims, vacated the takings dismissal as unripe (instructing dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction), and remanded for entry of that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of federal takings claim | Estate had final decision via administrative/state-court process and should be allowed to pursue just compensation in federal court; variance futile | Ordinance application lacked ripeness because state inverse-condemnation remedies were available and not exhausted; no allegation that state remedy was denied | Vacated district court’s merits dismissal of takings; holding that final-decision hurdle satisfied but just-compensation hurdle not met—dismiss Count I without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (unripe) |
| Sufficiency of § 1983 claims (Counts II–IV) | Procedural framing was permissible; would replead if technical defects | Counts are shotgun pleadings that violate Rule 8/10 and fail to give fair notice | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to contest substantive defects; counts are impermissibly vague/shotgun and dismissal stands |
| Tortious interference with contract (Count V) and absolute immunity | Lucignano not a public official during rezoning/conspiracy period so absolute immunity inapplicable | Defendants immune for alleged acts that occurred while Lucignano served as a city official; plaintiffs failed to argue otherwise | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to sufficiently argue immunity inapplicability; absolute-immunity holding stands |
| Civil conspiracy (Count VIII) and intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine | Intracorporate-doctrine inapplicable because defendants were not city officials during all relevant periods | Conspiracy claim fails because underlying torts fail or are barred by intracorporate-doctrine | Affirmed dismissal: underlying claims (Counts II–IV, etc.) are not viable, so conspiracy claim cannot stand; no need to decide intracorporate doctrine applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Leib v. Hillsborough Cty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (pleading allegations accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible factual matter)
- Williamson Cty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (ripeness for takings claims requires final decision and lack of adequate state remedy)
- Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1994) (ripeness analysis and variance/finality discussion)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (shotgun-pleading taxonomy and rejection of certain drafting techniques)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellant must show all independent grounds for judgment are incorrect)
- Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996) (importance of clear, precise pleading)
- Ga. Advocacy Office, Inc. v. Camp, 172 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on ripeness grounds is not adjudication on the merits)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not briefed are abandoned)
- Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2007) (civil conspiracy requires an underlying actionable wrong)