Easton LLC v. Inc. Village of Muttontown , 505 F. App'x 66 ( 2012 )

12-2134-cv
Easton LLC v. Inc. Village of Muttontown
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 13th day of December, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 RALPH K. WINTER,
9 Circuit Judge,
10 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN,
11 District Judge.*
12
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
14 EASTON LLC, doing business in New
15 York as Shillelagh Holdings LLC,
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 -v.- 12-2134
19
20 INC. VILLAGE OF MUTTONTOWN,
21 Defendant-Appellee,
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
23
*
Judge Laura Taylor Swain, of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
sitting by designation.
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN P. CONLON, Law Office of
2 Stephen P. Conlon, Cold Spring
3 Harbor, New York.
4
5 FOR APPELLEE: STEVEN G. LEVENTHAL, Leventhal,
6 Cursio, Mullaney & Sliney, LLP,
7 Roslyn, New York.
8
9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
10 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Boyle, M.J.).
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
14 AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part.
15
16 Plaintiff Easton LLC (“Easton”) appeals from the
17 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
18 District of New York (Boyle, M.J.), dismissing the
19 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
21 presented for review.
22
23 1. Easton did not obtain a final determination regarding
24 its application for a hardship exemption from the
25 moratorium, therefore, its federal takings, substantive due
26 process, and equal protection claims are not ripe.
27 Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
28 U.S. 172, 194-95 (1985); see also Dougherty v. Town of N.
29 Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88-89 (2d Cir.
30 2002).
31
32 2. Because Easton cannot show that the moratorium bears no
33 rational relationship to any government purpose, Easton’s
34 facial challenges under federal law to the moratorium must
35 also fail. Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258, 263
36 (2d Cir. 1999); Orange Lake Assocs., Inc. v. Kirkpatrick, 21
37 F.3d 1214, 1225 (2d Cir. 1994).
38
39 3. The district court, however, did not explain why it was
40 dismissing Easton’s state law claims. We therefore vacate
41 the dismissal of Easton’s state law claims and remand to the
42 district court for further consideration. We express no
43 view as to the merits of Easton’s state law claims.
44
45 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
46 Easton’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
47 the district court to the extent it dismissed Easton’s
2
1 federal claims, VACATE the judgment to the extent it
2 dismissed Easton’s state law claims, and REMAND for further
3 consideration of the state law claims.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
7
8
3