West Chelsea Buildings, LLC, and West 13th Street LLC, and Tenth Avenue Associates, Lp v. the United States 11-333l, 11-374l &
109 Fed. Cl. 5
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- High Line was established as a public trail under the Rails-to-Trails Trails Act after a June 2005 CITU.
- CSX transferred the High Line to the City in November 2005 via a Trail Use Agreement.
- Six Chelsea property owners signed Covenant Not to Sue Agreements with the City in 2005, waiving claims related to the CITU.
- Plaintiffs allege a Fifth Amendment takings taking; United States argues it is a third party beneficiary under New York law.
- One plaintiff, 437-51 West 13th Street LLC, lacks standing because it did not own the property at the time of the taking.
- Court grants partial summary judgment dismissing or limiting claims based on the Covenant Not to Sue Agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the United States an intended third party beneficiary of the Covenant Not to Sue Agreements? | United States not intended beneficiary; waiver not enforceable against it. | Agreement language explicitly benefits the United States; surrounding context shows intent to benefit U.S. | Yes; United States is an intended third party beneficiary and can enforce the waiver. |
| Does 437-51 West 13th Street LLC have standing to pursue its takings claim? | Constitutional claim accrues regardless of ownership status at taking. | Plaintiff lacked ownership at time of taking, so no standing. | Lacks standing; claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does the Covenant Not to Sue waiver bar takings claims for both trail use and railbanking? | Waiver only covers trail use, not potential railbanking. | Waiver covers both trail use and railbanking as part of the High Line CITU. | Waiver bars takings claims for both trail use and railbanking. |
| Is the covenant's waiver an unconstitutional condition under Nollan/Dolan? | Waiver is an unconstitutional condition against rights to just compensation. | Waiver arises from voluntary, negotiated, consideration-supported agreements; Nollan/Dolan do not apply. | Not an unconstitutional condition; Nollan/Dolan do not apply here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nollan v. Coastal Conservation Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1987) (essential nexus and rough proportionality framework for land use exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1994) (essential nexus and proportionality test for exactions)
- McClung v. City of Sumner, 548 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008) (Nollan/Dolan not controlling when waiver is voluntary and supported by consideration)
- Noveck v. PV Holdings Corp., 742 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (explicit third party beneficiary analysis supports enforceability of releases in settlement-like agreements)