Roc Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15140
4th Cir.2013Background
- Six beachfront cottages on Seagull Drive in Nags Head eroded over decades and by 2009 sat seaward of the first line of stable vegetation; storm damage in Nov. 2009 exposed septic tanks and damaged the cottages.
- Town Manager declared the six cottages nuisances under the Town nuisance ordinance subsections (b) and (c); subsection (c) treated structures located in a public trust area as nuisances and, per the Town, required removal as the only abatement.
- The Town imposed daily civil fines after the cottages remained standing; it initially refused to issue repair permits for declared nuisance cottages and later changed policy and invited permit applications (Owners claim they were not informed).
- Owners sued in state court asserting federal claims (procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, § 1983, and a regulatory takings claim) and multiple state-law claims including inverse condemnation; the Town removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Town on Owners’ procedural due process and equal protection claims and dismissed the takings claim as unripe under Williamson County; state claims were remanded. Owners appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on due process and equal protection, but held the Town waived the Williamson County state-litigation ripeness requirement by removing the case and reversed dismissal of the takings claim, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — deprivation without predeprivation process | Owners: nuisance declaration and fines deprived them of money and use/enjoyment of cottages without predeprivation process | Town: no constitutional deprivation — fines were not yet collected and nuisance abatement/regulation did not take property; post-deprivation state remedies available | Court: Affirmed for Town — no deprivation of property interest occurred and regulatory abatement fell within police power |
| Equal protection — selective enforcement of nuisance ordinance | Owners: Town declared only their six cottages nuisances while other nearby cottages in the public-trust area were not | Town: distinction rationally related to public-safety objective (owners’ cottages closer to ocean impeded emergency vehicle access) | Court: Affirmed for Town — classification survives rational-basis review |
| Takings ripeness — must seek state compensation first (Williamson) | Owners: they filed takings and inverse-condemnation claims in state court (per San Remo); removal by Town should waive Williamson requirement | Town: Williamson requires state-litigation first; federal court claim unripe | Court: Reversed dismissal — by removing the case to federal court the Town waived the Williamson state-litigation prudential requirement and cannot invoke it to defeat ripeness |
| Remand / supplemental jurisdiction | N/A (procedural) | Town argued district court properly remanded state claims after dismissing federal takings claim as unripe | Court: District court must reconsider supplemental jurisdiction because the takings claim is ripe in federal court after waiver; remand decision vacated as to state claims pending reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (holding that a regulatory takings claim is generally not ripe in federal court until the plaintiff seeks compensation through available state procedures)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (state courts may hear state-law compensation claims and federal takings claims simultaneously)
- Lapides v. Board of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (removal to federal court by a state actor waives certain defenses that would defeat federal jurisdiction)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (physical occupation can constitute a taking)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (regulatory action that extinguishes all economically beneficial uses may be a taking)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (equal protection principles — like treatment of similarly situated persons)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (discussion of public trust and takings principles)