Silverwing at Sandpoint, LLC v. Bonner County
700 F. App'x 715
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In April 2006 SilverWing bought 18.1 acres adjacent to a Bonner County, Idaho municipal airport to build 45 residential hangars; the FAA placed the airport in noncompliance partly because of SilverWing’s planned development.
- FAA required the County to adopt a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that limited residential access and sought alternatives to the existing “through‑the‑fence” access from SilverWing’s property.
- SilverWing sued the County asserting: breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (state law), a taking without just compensation (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), an equal protection violation (§ 1983), and promissory estoppel.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all federal and state claims except promissory estoppel, which it remanded to state court; the court later denied SilverWing’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and awarded the County costs and attorney’s fees.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on all merits rulings, dismissed the appeal of the Rule 60(b)(6) denial for lack of jurisdiction, and upheld the costs and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state‑law breach of covenant claim is preempted by federal aviation law | SilverWing argued County frustrated its contract rights and delayed development, so state claim should stand | County argued FAA safety/operations preempt field; FAA noncompliance and CAP caused the restrictions | Claim preempted — FAA controls aviation safety and operations, FAA action (not County) frustrated plans |
| Whether County conduct supports § 1983 liability (takings/equal protection) | SilverWing contended County’s ALP submission and actions were official acts that deprived rights | County said actions were compelled by FAA requirements, not county policy or custom under Monell | § 1983 claims fail — challenged conduct lacked County policy/custom as moving force was FAA mandate |
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motion is appealable while appeal pending | SilverWing sought reconsideration and appealed denial | County argued district court properly denied and such denials are not appealable during pending appeal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Rule 62.1 allows denial when appeal pending; such denials are nonappealable under Scott v. Younger |
| Whether County was entitled to Rule 54(d)(1) costs and contractual attorney’s fees | SilverWing argued costs/fees were inappropriate given circumstances | County said it prevailed on all federal/state claims except remanded claim and contract provided fees for enforcement actions | Affirmed — County is prevailing party entitled to costs absent inequity; contractual provision permitted fees for claims enforcing through‑the‑fence agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007) (FAA preempts field of aviation safety)
- Burbank‑Glendale‑Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1992) (FAA preemption of aircraft operations)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires action pursuant to policy or custom)
- Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir. 1984) (denial of certain Rule 60(b) motions while appeal pending is not appealable)
- San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps. Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2009) (definition of prevailing party for cost awards)
- Ass’n of Mexican‑Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for denying costs as inappropriate or inequitable)