Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141

Rockville Cars leased property owned by Robin Tang to convert an existing storefront building into an auto showroom.
Rockville Cars submitted a Minor Site Plan Application (stating renovation of the existing building; owner listed correctly) and later a Commercial Building Permit Application (stating demolition/rebuild and incorrectly listing Priority 1 as owner).
The City issued a building permit in Tang’s name; Rockville Cars demolished the building leaving the slab.
Tang later revoked his permission; the City suspended the permit by Stop Work Order, citing misalignment with the Minor Site Plan and a local "build-to" zoning provision triggered by demolition.
Rockville Cars sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of procedural due process; the District Court dismissed, holding no protected property interest vested because the permit was obtained by material misrepresentations and, alternatively, that Rockville Cars failed to pursue available administrative and state remedies.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: no property interest vested in a permit obtained by material misrepresentations; even if it had, Rockville Cars failed to seek available post-deprivation remedies (Board of Appeals, state courts).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the permit conferred a constitutionally protected property interest	Rockville Cars: permit created an entitlement to stay that triggers due process	City: permit void ab initio because it was obtained by material misrepresentations and violated zoning; no vested interest	Held: No protected property interest vested because permit was obtained via material misrepresentations and zoning violation
Whether Rockville Cars was deprived of any property interest without due process	Rockville Cars: suspension deprived it without adequate process	City: even if there was deprivation, available administrative and state remedies were sufficient and were not pursued	Held: Alternate ground for dismissal — Rockville Cars failed to pursue available post-deprivation remedies, so § 1983 claim fails
Whether the District Court improperly relied on extrinsic documents in dismissing	Rockville Cars: court relied on materials outside the complaint	City: documents were authentic and integral; dismissal proper	Held: Court found reliance unnecessary to decide merits; Fourth Circuit did not need to reach this issue
Whether remand to a different judge was required	Rockville Cars: procedural error warranted remand	City: no error requiring remand	Held: Not addressed as unnecessary once dismissal affirmed

Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests are created by state law)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (recognition that property interest can exist despite false application statements)
Marzullo v. Kahl, 783 A.2d 169 (Md. 2001) (permit improperly issued does not create vested rights)
Tri Cty. Paving, Inc. v. Ashe County, 281 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2002) (evaluate full panoply of state pre- and post-deprivation remedies)
Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2008) (state remedies relevant to § 1983 procedural due process claims)