Snyder v. Collura, 812 F.3d 46

Background

Snyder, a Waltham property owner, was targeted by city zoning enforcement after he fired City Councilor Serafina Collura, who then pushed the city to pursue an apparent zoning violation.
Snyder sued Waltham and officials in 2009 asserting § 1983 claims (substantive due process, equal protection), state torts (abuse of process, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy), and an MCRA claim.
The district court set a December 31, 2010 deadline for amended pleadings; defendants moved to dismiss and later for summary judgment.
On interlocutory appeal, this court held Snyder failed to preserve an Eighth Amendment excessive-fines theory and that his equal protection claim lacked similarly situated comparators, barring liability for two officials (Snyder I).
After discovery, Snyder abandoned his original federal theories and belatedly tried to assert First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive-fines theories (and sought leave to amend to add them); the district court denied leave as futile and granted summary judgment on remaining claims.
This appeal affirms summary judgment, holding Snyder waived or untimely raised the new federal theories and failed to establish required elements of his remaining state-law claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint fairly raised First Amendment retaliation claim	Snyder contended facts implied retaliation for statements to a state tribunal and for suing Collura's brother	Defendants argued complaint did not allege facts showing retaliatory motive tied to protected speech and Snyder failed to develop the claim	Denied — complaint contained only vague hints and Snyder waived/failed to preserve the theory by not timely developing it
Whether complaint fairly raised Eighth Amendment excessive fines claim	Snyder argued zoning fines were excessive and unconstitutional	Defendants argued complaint lacked facts showing fines were excessive or even imposed/paid; claim was not preserved	Denied — insufficient factual pleading and too late to introduce after discovery; Snyder had not preserved the theory
Whether Snyder could amend complaint after deadline to add new federal theories	Snyder sought leave to amend to expressly plead First and Eighth Amendment claims	Defendants argued amendment was futile and untimely under Rule 16(b) (good cause required)	Denied — amendment futile and Snyder offered no new facts; delay was strategic and not good cause
Whether state-law conspiracy and MCRA claims survive summary judgment	Snyder argued civil conspiracy and MCRA claims based on retaliatory zoning enforcement and interference with property rights	Defendants said civil conspiracy lacked an underlying tort; MCRA and other state claims were not pleaded or developed and mirrored the failed federal theories	Denied — conspiracy fails absent an underlying tort (and Snyder eschewed the alternate coercive-conspiracy theory); MCRA and related state claims waived or inadequately briefed

Key Cases Cited

Snyder v. Gaudet, 756 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014) (interlocutory opinion addressing preservation and equal protection issue)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 339 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (complaint need not plead specific legal theories but must give fair notice)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (Eighth Amendment excessive-fines disproportionality inquiry)
Martinez v. Petrenko, 792 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2015) (Rule 16(b) good-cause standard for amending scheduling order)
Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 2008) (litigation strategy and denial of leave to amend after delay)
Bell v. Mazza, 474 N.E.2d 1111 (Mass. 1985) (MCRA claim where group’s coercive conduct unlawfully interfered with plaintiffs’ property rights)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (perfunctory briefing waives appellate issues)