Robert Bruning v. City of Omaha
6f4th821
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Robert and Sharon Bruning bought an agriculturally zoned Omaha property in 1979; after selling their ag business in 2004 they leased the property for commercial uses.
- A 2015 noise complaint prompted Omaha to investigate and find zoning violations and that the property’s ten buildings did not comply with building code.
- Omaha and the Brunings negotiated for months; on Nov. 1, 2016 Omaha warned it would issue a notice to vacate within five days but agreed to postpone enforcement while the Brunings sought a variance from the City Zoning Board of Appeals.
- The Brunings identified multiple comparator properties they claimed were not enforced against; Omaha sent cease-and-desist letters to most but inspected others and found no violations; the Zoning Board denied the Brunings’ variance and state courts affirmed.
- The Brunings sued in federal court asserting (inter alia) a class-of-one equal-protection claim, equitable estoppel, and a takings claim; the district court granted summary judgment to Omaha on estoppel and takings, held an evidentiary hearing, then granted summary judgment to Omaha on equal protection; the Brunings appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirms, ruling Omaha’s enforcement decisions had a rational basis and the Brunings failed to show affirmative misconduct for estoppel; the takings claim was waived on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class-of-one equal-protection: disparate enforcement | Bruning: Omaha treated them worse than ten identified comparators (ordered building-code remediation, shorter notice to vacate, swifter enforcement). | Omaha: comparators were not identical or directly comparable on material points (different violations, no similar complaints, different enforcement histories), so treatment was rational. | Court: Brunings failed to prove comparators identical in material respects; rational basis exists; summary judgment for Omaha affirmed. |
| Equitable estoppel against government | Bruning: Omaha officials made false assurances (compliance, willingness to compromise, scheduling misstatement) that estop enforcement. | Omaha: estoppel against government requires affirmative misconduct; statements, at most, show negligence or speculation of bad faith. | Court: Plaintiff failed to show affirmative misconduct or intent to mislead; summary judgment for Omaha affirmed. |
| District-court procedural rulings (evidentiary hearing; local-rule formatting) | Bruning: District court erred by allowing Omaha to present evidence after initial filing and by refusing to enforce local-format rules, warranting denial of Omaha’s motion. | Omaha: Rule 56 permits court to let parties supplement evidence; court has discretion on enforcing local rules. | Court: No abuse of discretion; court properly held evidentiary hearing and could decline strict enforcement of formatting. |
| Takings claim | Bruning: (raised below) alleged taking by enforcement. | Omaha: summary judgment; procedural response. | Held: Bruning’s opening brief did not address takings claim on appeal, so it is waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (class-of-one theory limited where officials exercise broad discretion)
- Robbins v. Becker, 794 F.3d 988 (8th Cir.) (elements of class-of-one claim)
- Higgins Elec., Inc. v. O’Fallon Fire Prot. Dist., 813 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir.) (material differences between plaintiff and comparators defeat class-of-one claims)
- Bartlett v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir.) (equitable estoppel against government requires affirmative misconduct)
- Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (courts reluctant to apply estoppel against government)
- Clason v. Johanns, 438 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (false assurances by government official do not necessarily constitute affirmative misconduct)
- Morgan v. Commissioner, 345 F.3d 563 (8th Cir.) (negligence or possible bad faith insufficient for estoppel absent intent to mislead)
- Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc., 989 F.3d 625 (8th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review)
- Mead v. Intermec Techs. Corp., 271 F.3d 715 (8th Cir.) (appellate affirmation on any record-supported basis)
- Smith v. Insley’s Inc., 499 F.3d 875 (8th Cir.) (district courts’ discretion to enforce or not enforce local rules)