Valles v. Pima County
776 F. Supp. 2d 995
D. Ariz.2011Background
- November 18, 2003 final plat for The Enclave at Gates Pass (21 lots + common area).
- Original developer West Speedway Partners (WSP) entered the Initial Assurance Agreement guaranteeing subdivision improvements; a bond with Capitol Indemnity Corporation secured performance.
- December 2, 2004 Substitute Assurance Agreement terminated the Initial Assurance Agreement and required a $696,813 bond; title transfer to lots was allowed based on substitute assurances; release recorded December 14, 2004 referenced substitute assurances.
- April 20, 2004 WSP and ML Parkhurst Construction contract for earthwork, paving, utilities totaling $544,915; bond secured by Capitol Indemnity Corporation.
- Plaintiffs purchased 16 Enclave lots; improvements were incomplete; County failed to record Substitute Assurance and allegedly failed to timely ensure completion; WSP later went into bankruptcy and WSP II planned to complete improvements; bond settlement in 2010 allowed Capitol to fund completion.
- Plaintiffs filed third amended complaint asserting takings, substantive due process, gross negligence, and promissory estoppel; defendants moved for summary judgment; Magistrate Judge Guerin recommended denial of plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment and grant of Pima County’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takings claim viability | Plaintiffs allege County’s involvement reduced property value via assurances. | No direct taking; no regulatory taking under Penn Central; inaction cannot constitute a taking. | Pima County entitled to summary judgment on takings claim. |
| Substantive due process claim viability | County failed to supervise and enforce improvements, causing harm. | Failure-to-protect claims do not state substantive due process violation. | County entitled to summary judgment on substantive due process claim. |
| Gross negligence claim viability | County’s actions or inaction caused unreasonable risk of harm to property. | Statutory qualified immunity; claim framed as simple negligence. | County entitled to summary judgment on gross negligence claim. |
| Promissory estoppel viability | Initial Assurance Agreement promised complete improvements. | Agreement was between County and WSP; reliance not reasonable once substitute assurances were issued. | County entitled to summary judgment on promissory estoppel claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (takings analysis; regulatory action must be tied to public purpose)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (regulatory taking; complete loss of economically beneficial use)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (Penn Central test for regulatory takings)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir.2000) (requires causation and economic impact analysis in takings context)
- Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir.2008) (failure-to-enforce/protect claims do not state substantive due process claims)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Constitution does not require state to protect citizens from private harms)