31 Alanson Lane, LLC, and Matthew Vastola, on behalf of themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Town of Southampton, the Town Board of Southampton, comprised of: Jay Schneiderman – Supervisor, and Councilpersons John Bouvier, Rick Martel, Cyndi McNamara, and Tommy John Schiavoni, each in their official capacities, Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, comprised of: Scott M. Horowitz, William Pell IV, Edward J. Warner, Jr., Ann Welker, and William Parash, each in their official capacities

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) based on Burford abstention. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged federal and state constitutional takings and due process claims concerning Southampton Trustees’ permitting authority and a $35,280 dimensional fee imposed for marina refurbishment. The court dismissed the federal due process claim based on the fee’s allegedly excessive amount and the state common-law claims, while allowing other claims, including a Municipal Home Rule Law claim, to proceed.

Holdings

1. Burford abstention did not apply because the case did not involve a detailed or complex state regulatory scheme, did not require a debatable discretionary construction of a state statute, and principally involved federal constitutional claims.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged a takings claim because the $35,280 dimensional fee was imposed as a condition of a land-use permit and was alleged to lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to the effects of the proposed marina refurbishment.
3. The complaint plausibly alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process claims based on defendants' alleged lack of regulatory jurisdiction over the marina.
4. The federal substantive due process claim challenging the alleged excessiveness of the dimensional fee was dismissed because the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause provided the explicit constitutional source of protection for the alleged injury.
5. The New York constitutional claims alleging regulatory taking, due process violations, and an unauthorized municipal tax survived dismissal, as did the Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10 claim because defendants did not address it.
6. The malicious prosecution, abuse of process, unjust enrichment, and money-had-and-received claims were dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Burford abstention required dismissal or nonadjudication of plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(1).
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a Fifth Amendment takings claim, applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment, based on the dimensional fee imposed as a condition of a marina permit.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process violations based on defendants' alleged lack of regulatory jurisdiction over the marina.
4. Whether the federal substantive due process claim challenging the alleged excessiveness of the dimensional fee was duplicative of the takings claim.
5. Whether the New York constitutional, Municipal Home Rule Law, and common-law claims survived the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Disposition

other