Ross Scopellitti v. City of Tampa
677 F. App'x 503
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- GreenPark Residences, Inc., owned an 18‑unit mobile home park in Tampa; president Scopelliti managed code‑related hearings after the City cited multiple units for serious code violations in 2011–2012.
- The City issued repeated notices, Special Magistrate violation orders, and condemnation orders for nine units declared unfit for habitation; demolition orders followed when GreenPark did not comply or appeal timely.
- The City began demolition in February 2013 but halted after GreenPark served a cease‑and‑desist; a Special Magistrate later affirmed the demolition orders and Code enforcement procedures.
- The City also filed six criminal report affidavits against Scopelliti based on separate code violations; those criminal proceedings were stayed pending this civil suit.
- GreenPark sued the City in federal court asserting inverse condemnation, Fair Housing Act disparate‑impact, §1983 procedural‑due‑process (both corporate and individual), selective enforcement, abuse of process, and other claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and denied leave to amend.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: the inverse condemnation claim was unripe (no state compensation remedy pursued); the FHA disparate‑impact, selective‑enforcement, abuse‑of‑process, and §1983 procedural‑due‑process claims failed for lack of required proof or state‑remedy exhaustion; denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of inverse condemnation | GreenPark: final administrative action occurred so court may decide just compensation | City: state inverse‑condemnation remedy not pursued, so federal takings claim is unripe | Claim unripe—must seek state compensation first |
| FHA disparate‑impact | GreenPark: City enforcement disparately impacted African‑Americans; discriminatory statements and expert reports support impact | City: no comparative evidence showing enforcement disproportionately affected African‑Americans | Summary judgment for City—no prima facie disparate‑impact evidence |
| Selective enforcement | GreenPark: City singled out GreenPark; expert reports identify other similar parks not enforced against | City: no showing comparators "prima facie identical" or that identical violations went unenforced elsewhere | Summary judgment for City—comparators not shown similarly situated |
| Abuse of process | GreenPark: criminal affidavits were used to coerce abandonment of civil challenges | City: issuance of process not a perversion; no post‑issuance improper use shown | Summary judgment for City—claim legally insufficient and new appellate theory waived |
| Denial of leave to amend | GreenPark: should be allowed to amend to cure shotgun pleading | City: amendment at close of discovery would prejudice defense | Denial affirmed—undue delay and prejudice to City |
| §1983 procedural due process (Scopelliti) | Scopelliti: criminal affidavits deprived him of notice and opportunity to contest | City: state remedies remain; no showing he sought or was denied state procedural remedy | Summary judgment for City—no exhaustion or showing of inadequate state remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Reahard v. Lee Cnty., 30 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1994) (ripeness in takings claims requires final decision and state remedy for just compensation)
- Agripost, LLC v. Miami‑Dade Cnty., 525 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2008) (Williamson County rule that state courts get first shot at compensation)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (takings ripeness and exhaustion of state compensation remedies)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (disparate‑impact FHA claim requires comparative evidence)
- Campbell v. Rainbow City, Ala., 434 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (selective‑enforcement claim requires similarly situated comparators and discriminatory intent)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard where failure of proof on essential element is fatal)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts may affirm summary judgment on any record‑supported ground)