Ziss Bros. Construction Co. v. City of Independence, Ohio, 439 F. App'x 467

Ziss Brothers Construction appeals district court rulings dismissing due process claims and granting summary judgment on equal protection claims against the City and Planning Commission.
Plaintiff purchased a 7.05-acre parcel in Independence, Ohio, where a two-step local subdivision approval process exists (preliminary plan then final plat).
The Commission denied the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Plan after hearings addressing drainage, erosion, tree cutting, and variances; Army Corps of Engineers reviewed storm water plans and identified inadequacies.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging procedural and substantive due process and equal protection; district court dismissed due process claims and granted summary judgment on equal protection after discovery.
Plaintiff pursued state court administrative appeals which upheld the Commission’s denial; federal court treated state court outcomes for preclusion analysis and ultimately upheld dismissals and summary judgment.
The panel affirms the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff has a protected property interest in preliminary plan approval	Ziss asserts a property interest exists under City Code because approval should follow compliance.	City/Commission contended there is no guaranteed approval; discretion remains to deny.	No protected property interest; procedural/substantive due process claims fail.
Whether Plaintiff’s equal protection claim survives rational-basis review	Plaintiff claims class-of-one unequal treatment without rational basis.	Defendants offered several rational bases (environmental, infrastructure, code compliance).	Plaintiff failed to show lack of any rational basis; claim fails.
Whether Ohio court judgments on state-law zoning review preclude the federal equal protection claim	Equal protection re-litigation should be barred by collateral estoppel.	State court decision did not adjudicate the federal equal protection claim.	Not precluded because state court did not address the identical federal issue.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying pending discovery before ruling	Discovery should continue pending cross-motions.	Record already contained sufficient evidence; discovery moot.	No abuse; motions moot or waived; discovery adequate for decision.

Wojcik v. City of Romulus, 257 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2001) (two-step due process inquiry; protected property interests require entitlement)
Andreano v. City of Westlake, 136 F. App’x 865 (6th Cir. 2005) (entitlement test for property interests in zoning approvals)
Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Shelby, Mich., 470 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2006) (class-of-one equal protection; rational-basis scrutiny)
TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 430 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2005) (rational-basis review allows presumptive validity of government action)
Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood, 49 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 1995) (scope of rational-basis review in zoning decisions)
McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2005) (collateral estoppel requires identical issue previously litigated)
Hensley Mfg., Inc. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; plausibility standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards; not merely labels but plausible claims)
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis scrutiny deference; courts not to overrule unless irrational)
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (full faith and credit and preclusion principles)