South Commons Condominium Ass'n v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc.
775 F.3d 82
1st Cir.2014Background
- Tornado severely damaged downtown Springfield, MA, including South Commons Condominiums.
- City quickly determined damage level and ordered demolition the next day, with private contractor carrying out most demolitions.
- Residents evacuated; they were not given notice or opportunity to challenge the demolition before it occurred.
- Demolition occurred under Massachusetts emergency demolition provisions, later followed by post-demolition orders and notices.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process and asserted state-law claims; district court dismissed federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emergency demolition statute permits summary demolition without pre-deprivation notice | Owners argue due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard | City/defendant argues Massachusetts statute authorizes immediate demolition to protect public safety | Yes; statute permits emergency, summary demolition without pre-deprivation notice; no due process violation established |
| Whether Massachusetts provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for wrongful demolition | Owners contend no adequate post-demolition remedy exists | City cites Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 139, §2 and ch. 143, §10 as adequate remedy | Yes; §2 provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, satisfying due process |
| Whether the substantive due process claim survives given the alleged misjudgment of damage | Demolition was incorrect or ill-advised and shocks the conscience | City acted to protect public safety; no conscience-shocking conduct shown | The substantive due process claim fails; action did not shock the conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981) (emergency action may be justified when public health/safety requires quick action)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (due process not violated by post-deprivation remedy when emergency requires swift action)
- San Gerónimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vilá, 687 F.3d 465 (1st Cir. 2012) (emergency safeguards may be required; post-deprivation remedies can suffice)
- Herwins v. City of Revere, 163 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1998) (emergency summary procedure permitted for dangerous conditions; pre-deprivation notice not required in emergencies)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (state can require safeguards at the appropriate stage; avoid open-ended schemes)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (due process not satisfied by unanticipated governmental missteps if adequate state remedies exist)
- Catanzaro v. Weiden, 188 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (summary demolition to remove imminent danger can be permissible)