451 F. App'x 397
5th Cir.2011Background
- Jefferson Parish adopted Ordinance No. 23881 establishing Fat City zoning with three districts and use restrictions.
- The Ordinance regulates hours for standalone bars (close by midnight Sun–Thu; 1 a.m. Fri–Sat) and limits reopening until 11 a.m.
- Additional requirements include 24-hour surveillance cameras, litter/graffiti removal, vegetation maintenance, soundproofing, and reporting suspicious activity.
- Ordinance aims to enhance health, safety, welfare, morals, and, more broadly, property values and community identity under the Envision Jefferson 2020 plan.
- Lawsuits were consolidated challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law equivalents; the Parish moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the district court dismissed most claims.
- The district court dismissed the Parish from the case with Yur-Mar’s consent for others, declined leave to amend, and the Fifth Circuit affirms on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takings: is there a per se taking or a viable regulatory taking? | Yur-Mar alleges regulatory deprivation of economically beneficial use. | Parish contends no per se taking; regulation leaves substantial possessory rights and serves health/safety goals. | No per se taking; regulatory takings claim fails under Penn Central factors. |
| Rational basis for due process/equal protection challenge? | Appellants argue lack of rational basis for zoning. | Parish asserts rational relationship to legitimate goals of health, safety, welfare, and morals. | Ordinance has a rational basis; no substantive due process/equal protection violation. |
| Arbitrary and capricious/spot zoning claim validity? | Boundary lines are arbitrary; four-block Fat City area constitutes improper spot zoning. | Plan considered Fat City's character; extensive public process; no targeted benefit to specific owners. | No arbitrary/capricious action; zoning passed with rational basis; district court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (per se taking framework and regulatory takings standards)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (factors for regulatory takings balancing)
- Tex. Manufactured Hous. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Nederland, 101 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1996) (economic impact and government interests in land-use regulation)
- Dukes v. City of New Orleans, 427 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1976) (rational basis review for social/economic regulation)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1954) (rational basis standard for economic regulation)
- Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir. 1998) (rational basis in zoning contexts)
- Anderson v. Winter, 631 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1980) (quotations on rational basis review)
- Jackson Court Condos., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 874 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1989) (spot zoning and rational basis analysis)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for stating a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Shelton v. City of College Station, 780 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1986) (substantive due process review standard)