Sharon Schellenberg v. Township of Bingham
436 F. App'x 587
6th Cir.2011Background
- Schellenberg and Riggle applied for a cluster-housing SLUP in Bingham Township for the Baywatch project on 3 acres.
- Township health concerns flagged potential sewage issues; staff required additional data and site details per §11.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
- Hearing was delayed; Commission denied the SLUP on Dec. 7, 2006 by 6–1.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court (appeal of denial) and then filed a federal §1983 action in 2008 alleging equal protection violations.
- District court granted summary judgment in 2009, finding no cognizable class-of-one claim; plaintiffs moved under Rule 59(e) and were denied in 2010.
- This appeal followed, challenging the district court’s equal protection analysis and Rule 59(e) ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a class-of-one claim requires similarly situated comparators | All SLUP applicants are similarly situated | No proven similarly situated comparators; rational basis supports action | No cognizable class-of-one claim; not shown similarly situated evidence |
| Whether defendants treated plaintiffs differently from other cluster-housing applicants | Foster involved Parker; land division requirement; health data requests were harsher | No evidence of irrational or unequal treatment; reasons were rational and context-specific | No evidence of irrational or discriminatory treatment; claims fail on record evidence |
| Whether district court properly construed facts in plaintiffs’ favor | Facts viewed in light most favorable to plaintiffs | Record shows plaintiffs offered legal conclusions, not admissible facts | District court did not err in not accepting conclusory allegations as true |
| Whether Rule 59(e) motion to amend was proper | Affidavit supplement raised new disparate-treatment instances to prevent injustice | Rule 59(e) cannot be used to re-argue merits or insert new arguments/facts | Rule 59(e) denial affirmed; no manifest injustice or legal error identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Radvansky v. City of Olmstead Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (establishes equal-protection framework for class-of-one claims)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (S. Ct. 2000) (non-arbitrary, rational-basis analysis for class-of-one)
- Taylor Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. City of Taylor, 313 F. App’x 826 (6th Cir. 2009) (class-of-one framework; need for similarly situated plaintiffs)
- Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment standard; lack of similarly situated evidence defeats claim)
- TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 430 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2005) (materiality and rational-basis review in class-of-one claims)
- Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2011) (discriminatory-animus inference requires similarly situated evidence; rational basis review)
- Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Shelby, 470 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2006) (rational-basis standard; no strict scrutiny for class-of-one)
- Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (rational-basis review defers to government’s stated purposes)
- Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment burden on nonmoving party; evidence required)