Tomasi v. Twp. of Long Beach
364 F. Supp. 3d 376
D.N.J.2019Background
- Plaintiffs own three contiguous residential lots in the Loveladies section of Long Beach Township, NJ; Long Beach adopted an ordinance to acquire public-access easements across Plaintiffs’ lots as part of a shore-protection/nourishment project.
- Congress authorized federal participation in shore-protection projects (33 U.S.C. § 426e) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated a 1989 Engineer Regulation requiring public access points to be within one-half mile for federally funded shore projects.
- The Corps’ real estate/plan documents for the Long Beach Island project (2000–2014) identified the need for additional public access in Loveladies and at various times designated potential easement sites (including Plaintiffs’ tract) to meet the half-mile rule.
- After Superstorm Sandy (2012) and subsequent NJDE P/Corps actions, Long Beach revised maps and in August/September 2014 moved a proposed public access point onto Plaintiffs’ property and adopted Ordinance 14-32 authorizing acquisition by condemnation.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court challenging the Corps’ half-mile public-access requirement as (inter alia) beyond statutory purpose and procedurally invalid and sought to enjoin condemnation; the federal court denied abstention, found the Corps’ June 2014 real estate plan to be final agency action, but granted summary judgment to the Corps and denied Plaintiffs’ cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/Abstention (Rooker-Feldman, Younger, Colorado River, Thibodaux) | Tomasi: federal court may review Corps’ regulation; federal relief needed; state proceedings inadequate | Long Beach: federal court should abstain under various doctrines because of parallel state condemnation and state-law issues | Court: declined abstention under all doctrines; federal court may decide federal question about Corps’ requirement |
| Final agency action / ripeness | Tomasi: Corps plan/funding condition is reviewable final action that caused the taking | Corps: no final agency action; or challenge untimely | Court: June 2014 real estate plan is final agency action and Plaintiffs’ challenge was timely |
| Standing | Tomasi: Plaintiffs directly injured by condemnation driven by Corps’ requirement | Corps/Long Beach: Plaintiffs lack concrete traceable injury from federal action | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; condemnation traceable to Corps’ public-access requirement |
| APA challenge to Corps’ half-mile requirement (interpretive vs legislative; arbitrary/capricious) | Tomasi: requirement is ultra vires, arbitrary, not adopted via APA notice-and-comment, and not within statutory purpose | Corps: requirement is an interpretive rule consistent with statutory purpose; not subject to notice-and-comment; entitled to Skidmore respect | Court: Corps’ application of the half-mile public-access rule to the project was reasonable under Skidmore; grant Corps summary judgment; deny Plaintiffs’ cross-motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (federal courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction but abstention may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (federal abstention where parallel state proceedings and extraordinary circumstances exist)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman doctrine explained)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention to avoid federal interference with pending state proceedings)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Bennett test for final agency action)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (deference framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (persuasive weight accorded to agency interpretations when Chevron deference is inapplicable)