T & T Unlimited, LLC v. City of LaBelle, Florida, 2:11-cv-00121

Plaintiffs T & T Unlimited, LLC and Leah Nees sue City of Labelle, Florida, in the Middle District of Florida seeking relief on a Third Amended Complaint.
Defendant moved to dismiss counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations and state-law claims for intentional interference with business relationships.
Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standard: accept factual allegations as true and assess plausibility of relief entitlement.
Plaintiffs allege the City issued numerous code violations and bids for hearings to harass and financially ruin them, prompting relocation.
Counts I–XIV assert procedural and substantive due process claims under § 1983; Counts XV–XXI assert intentional interference with advantageous business relationships.
Court grants in part and denies in part: substantive due process claims (Counts I–XIV) dismissed; procedural due process counts partially considered for plausibility; interference claims survive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts I–XIV state cognizable due process claims.	Nees alleges improper process and takings; procedural flaws and bias.	Plaintiffs failed to show a cognizable due process violation; state remedies exist.	Counts I–XIV dismissed as to substantive due process; procedural due process claims survive at least plausibly.
Whether procedural due process was sufficiently alleged given post-deprivation remedies.	Post-deprivation delay and biased tribunal violated due process.	Available state remedies could cure deprivation; delay must be assessed.	Procedural due process counts denied at this stage for plausibility; later written ruling issues may affect status.
Whether Counts XV–XXI state a plausible tort of interference with advantageous business relationships.	There were identifiable ongoing business relationships damaged by city actions.	Plaintiffs only had past customers, not protected relationships.	Counts XV–XXI survive the motion to dismiss.
Whether the complaint adequately pleads a causal link between City actions and damages.	City harassment caused loss of business relationships.	Causation not adequately alleged.	Plausible causation alleged; counts survive.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (courts must accept factual allegations as true)
McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (procedural due process includes post-deprivation remedies)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due process when government deprivation occurs)