Southpark Development, LLC v. Rieder, 2:25-cv-02029

Plaintiffs claim the City of Clarksville and its Mayor authorized Tyson Foods to install a sewer line under their property without providing just compensation or due process.
Plaintiffs allege this action constituted an unconstitutional taking of property rights.
The City and Mayor moved to dismiss the case, asserting several affirmative defenses, including laches, statute of limitations, immunity under state law, and a prescriptive easement.
The case is at the motion to dismiss stage under Rule 12(b)(6), requiring the court to accept plaintiffs’ facts as true.
The City argued its actions were within an existing 1984 easement, which the plaintiffs dispute.
The court held a hearing and issued this order denying the City and Mayor's motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unconstitutional Taking & Due Process	City authorized use without compensation	Sewer line lies in a pre-existing easement	Plaintiffs state a plausible claim
Statute of Limitations / Laches	Claims are timely & factual disputes exist	Claims are time-barred or barred by laches	Dismissal not appropriate; factual issues
City Immunity	Cities not covered by same immunity as State	Statutory immunity applies to City & Mayor	Immunity defense inapplicable at this stage
Prescriptive Easement	Plaintiffs deny existence of prescriptive right	City claims easement by prescription	Factual dispute precludes dismissal

Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2012) (sets forth standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss)
Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirmative defenses do not render complaint defective)
Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 789 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2015) (complaint may only be dismissed if time-barred on its face)
Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277 (1980) (state law immunity does not shield conduct violating federal constitutional rights)