SOUTHERSBY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BOROUGH OF JEFFERSON HILLS
2:09-cv-00208
W.D. Pa.Feb 14, 2012Background
- Southersby developed Patriot Pointe in Jefferson Hills; Phase III delayed by Borough actions and alleged unlawful terms in the Phase III Agreement.
- Southersby alleges equal protection and First Amendment retaliation/ restraint claims arising from conduct toward Patriot Pointe and other developments.
- Borough delayed in executing the Phase III Agreement, imposed burdensome and allegedly discriminatory development requirements, and treated Southersby differently from other developers.
- McVicker allegedly interfered with permits and filed frivolous ACCD complaints; there are asserted personal relationships with other developers opposing Patriot Pointe.
- Litigation originally filed in state court; removed to federal court; motions for summary judgment рendant before the court; issues include statute of limitations, discovery rule, continuing violation doctrine, and speech restraint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations on pre-2006 claims | Southersby argues discovery tolls apply; claims timely. | Claims pre-9/12/2006 are time-barred. | Pre-2006 claims are time-barred; discovery rule does not toll accrual. |
| Discovery rule application | Discovery of injury and discriminatory effects tolled the period. | Tolling not available since injury was known or should have been known earlier. | Discovery rule does not toll accrual here. |
| Continuing violation doctrine applicability | Discriminatory acts form a continuing pattern; timely under doctrine. | Discrete acts; cannot aggregate untimely acts. | Continuing violation doctrine does not revive pre-2006 discrete acts. |
| Class-of-one equal protection sufficiency | Developments are sufficiently alike; Southersby treated differently. | Comparators insufficiently similar; no rational basis shown. | Jury could find Patriot Pointe sufficiently similar; dispute on differential treatment survives. |
| First Amendment restraint of speech viability | Speech at a public meeting was improperly restricted. | Forum is limited public; regulation content-neutral and reasonable. | Issues of enforceability remain; material facts exist regarding enforcement and consistency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection requires rational basis for difference when similarly situated)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limited public forum requires reasonable, neutral regulation; not viewpoint-based)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts trigger separate accrual clocks; continuing violation not to revive time-barred acts)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (2008) (plaintiff need not prove identical comparators; show similarly situated)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual generally when the injury occurs; discovery not to delay accrual)