Edwards, CDS, LLC v. City of Delray Beach , 699 F. App'x 885 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 16-15693   Date Filed: 06/29/2017   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 16-15693
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-81405-DMM
    EDWARDS, CDS, LLC,
    CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT, LLC,
    EDWARDS ATLANTIC AVENUE, LLC,
    CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD.,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a municipal corporation,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 29, 2017)
    Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 16-15693      Date Filed: 06/29/2017     Page: 2 of 5
    Edwards, CDS, LLC; CDS Delray Development, LLC; Edwards Atlantic
    Avenue, LLC; and CDR Atlantic Plaza, LTD., seek to develop land in the City of
    Delray Beach. Confronted with delays in the City’s process for approving land-
    development projects, the Developers filed a complaint against the City raising,
    among other claims, an unconstitutional conditions claim under the Fifth
    Amendment and a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
    Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims at the pleadings stage, and
    this appeal followed. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
    briefs, we affirm.
    I
    We review de novo a dismissal at the pleadings stage, “accepting all
    allegations in the complaint as true and construing those allegations in the light
    most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lopez v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 
    129 F.3d 1186
    , 1189 (11th Cir. 1997). To survive the pleadings stage, “a complaint need
    only present sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
    plausible on its face.” Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 
    822 F.3d 1241
    , 1243
    (11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The complaint must raise a
    right to relief above the speculative level, but it need not contain detailed factual
    allegations.” 
    Id. at 1244
     (internal quotation marks omitted).
    2
    Case: 16-15693     Date Filed: 06/29/2017   Page: 3 of 5
    II
    The district court did not err in dismissing the Developers’ unconstitutional
    conditions claim. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine “prevent[s] the
    government from coercing people into giving” up their property rights. See Koontz
    v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. ___, ___, 
    133 S. Ct. 2586
    , 2594
    (2013). The doctrine is implicated when the government approves a land-
    development project “on the condition that the applicant turn over property” or
    denies the project “because the applicant refuses to do so.” See 
    id.
     at ___, 
    133 S. Ct. at 2595
    . The Developers assert that the City has conditioned approval of their
    land-development project on their compliance with two extortionate demands:
    (1) reconveyance of two alleyways to the City and (2) the creation of a two-way
    roadway on part of the land. However, the Developers’ complaint does not support
    a plausible inference that the City has actually imposed these conditions.
    First, the complaint does not support an inference that the City has
    demanded reconveyance of the alleyways as a condition of approval. The
    complaint, taken in the light most favorable to the Developers, establishes that the
    City conveyed the alleyways to the Developers; a contractual dispute about the
    conveyance has arisen between the Developers and the City; the City asserts that it
    is entitled to reconveyance because of the dispute; and the City has pointed to the
    dispute as a barrier to approval because the dispute has led to uncertainty
    3
    Case: 16-15693     Date Filed: 06/29/2017    Page: 4 of 5
    concerning the proper ownership of the Developers’ land. Although these facts
    establish that the City is seeking reconveyance, they do not support an inference
    that the City, attempting to coerce the Developers into reconveyance, has made
    reconveyance a condition of approval. Based on the complaint, the City is not
    using the approval process to “pressure [the Developers] into voluntarily giving”
    up the alleyways. See 
    id.
     at ___, 
    133 S. Ct. at 2594
    . Rather, the City has a legal
    claim to the alleyways that is affecting the approval process. And as the district
    court concluded, “the fact that the City is alleging an ownership interest in the
    alley[ways] does not turn an apparent contractual dispute into a constitutional
    violation.” Edwards, CDC, LLC v. City of Delray Beach, No. 15-81405, slip op. at
    18 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2016).
    Second, the complaint does not support an inference that the City has
    demanded creation of a two-way road as a condition of approval. Even taking the
    complaint’s allegations in the light most favorable to the Developers, the complaint
    at most establishes that the City has considered requiring the creation of a two-way
    road. The complaint does not establish that the City has actually decided to impose
    such a condition.
    III
    The district court also did not err in dismissing the Developers’ substantive
    due process claim. The Developers assert that the City’s delay in allowing their
    4
    Case: 16-15693       Date Filed: 06/29/2017        Page: 5 of 5
    land-development project is a substantive due process violation because they have
    state-created property rights in a permit allowing the project.1 But “there is
    generally no substantive due process protection for state-created property rights”
    unless “a person’s state-created rights are infringed by a legislative act,” and the
    Developers’ complaint fails to identify a legislative act by the City that has
    infringed their rights. See Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 
    750 F.3d 1274
    , 1279 (11th
    Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    For the first time on appeal, the Developers argue that the City has infringed not only
    their state-created property rights but also their federal property rights. Because the Developers
    did not argue before the district court that the City infringed their federal property rights, the
    Developers have waived such an argument. See Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
    
    325 F.3d 1274
    , 1284–85 (11th Cir. 2003).
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-15693

Citation Numbers: 699 F. App'x 885

Filed Date: 6/29/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023