Sunflower Spa LLC v. City of Appleton
1:14-cv-00861
| E.D. Wis. | Jul 14, 2015Background
- Sunflower Spa LLC and Lulu Enterprises LLC sued the City of Appleton after a May 23, 2013 water-main rupture released ~360,000 gallons onto their property, causing damage.
- Plaintiffs asserted a federal takings claim under the Fifth Amendment and related state-law claims (condemnation and nuisance).
- Plaintiffs alleged the city had a pattern of water-main failures (≈650 breaks over eight years) and contended the city’s deferred maintenance/allowance of breaks amounted to an authorized taking.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the break was an accident and not an intentional government action constituting a taking.
- The court treated the dispute as whether government inaction/neglect can constitute the requisite government-authorized action for a Fifth Amendment taking.
- Court granted summary judgment for the City: federal takings claim dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice to allow state-court resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the water-main rupture and resulting flooding constituted a Fifth Amendment taking | The City’s pattern of breaks and failure to maintain the system show it effectively authorized the damage; temporary damage can be a taking. | The rupture was an accidental, unauthorized event; mere negligence/inaction is not a taking. | The rupture was an accident/foreseeable negligence, not an authorized government action; no Fifth Amendment taking. |
| Whether government omission/failed maintenance can satisfy the authorization/intent element of a taking | City’s decision not to replace/repair pipes equates to action or authorization causing the taking. | Omission or failure to act is not government action for takings purposes; only affirmative authorized acts can take property. | Court held omissions/neglect do not equate to the required governmental action; failure to maintain is not a compensable taking. |
| Applicability of Arkansas Game & Fish (temporary flooding can be a taking) | Arkansas Game supports that temporary flooding can be a taking even if damage is not permanent. | Arkansas Game involved deliberate authorization of flooding; that distinguishes it from an accidental rupture. | Arkansas Game does not help plaintiffs because that case involved authorized flooding, unlike this accidental break. |
| Whether supplemental state-law claims should proceed in federal court after dismissal of federal claim | Plaintiffs implicitly sought federal resolution of state claims. | Court noted practice to dismiss state claims when federal claims are dismissed pre-trial. | Court dismissed state-law claims without prejudice, per Seventh Circuit practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucien v. Johnson, 61 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 1995) (accidental injuries are not takings)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (2012) (temporary flooding can constitute a taking when government authorized the flooding)
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872) (authorized government acts creating permanent inundation can effect takings)
- Nicholson v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 605 (2007) (government omissions or failure to perform duties do not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking)
- Fromm v. Vill. of Lake Delton, 354 Wis. 2d 30 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014) (inaction or a decision not to take steps is not the functional equivalent of government action for takings)
- Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1999) (federal practice: dismiss supplemental state claims when federal claims are dismissed before trial)