KLEINKNECHT v. RITTER (2021)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

Despite a Dickensian litigation history, the facts underlying this case are simple: plaintiffs thrice sought a permit to construct a dock at their home in Lloyd Harbor: first in 2011, then in 2016 and finally in 2019. The first two applications were denied – improperly according to several state court decisions – while the third was granted. In between, the parties went to court with alarming frequency. Now, having obtained the permission they have so long sought, plaintiffs seek various damages based on a Fifth Amendment Takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the principal driver of which is a whopping $250,000 spent by plaintiffs in attorneys’ fees. Docket Entry (“DE”) 49 at 8. Hopefully, plaintiffs will not be required to spend any more.

Factual simplicity notwithstanding, counsel seems determined to render this matter more complicated. The complaint, running 35 pages, includes lengthy, superfluous sections entitled “Legal Background” and “Summary of the State Court Proceedings,” and conjurers seeming heft though the inclusion of long passages from deeds and state court orders, transcript excerpts from planning board meetings and, most bewilderingly, the entire text of published public notices. DE 15. All of this material culminates in a single claim under § 1983. Id.

The parties filed briefs totaling more than 100 pages regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss. DE 50-59. The Court, which did not have a page limit in its individual rules at that time,¹ rejected the filing, noting that counsel had failed in their “understanding of the word ‘brief.’ ” Electronic Order dated September 2, 2020. Counsel soldiered on, jointly requesting that the Court accept oversized briefs, which request was granted.² Indeed, while urging that “Plaintiff [sic] could not adequately respond to the arguments raised by Defendants’ motion in 20 pages,” DE 63, plaintiff's oversized brief contains a full page devoted to the property law of California, which has absolutely no bearing on these proceedings. DE 70 at 4. The instant motion to dismiss, then, consists of sixty pages of briefing and – oddly for a motion for failure to state a claim – declarations containing hundreds of additional pages of material. DE 65-71.

Plaintiffs filed an application to the defendant Planning Board in 2011, seeking a permit for a floating dock. DE 15 ¶¶ 96 ff. In early 2012, the Planning Board denied the application, finding that the application would violate an open space easement. Id. ¶ 137. This determination was reversed by a state court. Id. ¶ 144. Then, in 2014, plaintiffs applied for the construction of a fixed pier which would connect via a ramp to a floating dock, which was summarily denied. Id. ¶¶ 155-57. In 2016, the plaintiffs filed a revised application for the construction of a 75-foot floating dock, which allegedly the defendants refused to consider. Id. ¶¶ 177, 184.

Critical facts do not appear in the complaint, but are established via uncontested documents and are not disputed by the plaintiffs. See DE 43, DE 49 at 7, DE 70 at 25. Plaintiffs filed an updated application for the construction of a dock, which the defendants approved in March 2020. DE 58-1 at 2. In fact, the pendency of this application led the Court to stay this action through April 2020. See Minute Entry Order dated February 28, 2020. The dock has been constructed.

Notwithstanding all of the folderol, then, the matter is readily dispatched. The case was simply unripe when filed thus subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as there was no final decision regarding the dock at that time. Sagaponack Realty, LLC v. Vill. of Sagaponack, 778 F. App'x 63, 64 (2d Cir. 2019). Even though the application may have evolved, “requiring a meaningful variance application as a prerequisite to federal litigation enforces the longstanding principle that disputes should be decided on nonconstitutional grounds whenever possible.” Calverton Hills Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Nugent Bldg. Corp., No. 2:17-cv-03916 (ADS) (GRB), 2017 WL 6598520, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2017) (quoting Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Commission, 402 F.3d 342, 348-49 (2d Cir. 2005)), aff'd sub nom. Calverton Hills Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cty. of Suffolk, 739 F. App'x 69 (2d Cir. 2018) (dismissing Takings claim related to decades-old land use dispute as unripe). These authorities are dispositive of plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Takings claim, which must be dismissed as unripe.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion, DE 65, is granted and the case dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Inspired by this case, the Court has since implemented such a rule. See Individual Practice Rules of Judge Gary R. Brown, Rule II(b) (imposing 20-page limit on memoranda of law).

2.   Even while arguing for larger submissions, plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged the overwrought nature of the proceedings: “This case has already spanned ten years, three Supreme Court decisions, two Appellate Division decisions, a motion for leave to reargue, and two motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. All this has cost our client hundreds of thousands in legal fees.” DE 63.

GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge: