▪ Brooklyn Eminent Domain Fight Goes to Second Circuit

A federal district court in Brooklyn, NY, first held that a landowner challenge to the public use of a taking was properly in federal court.  Goldstein v. Pataki, 488 F. Supp. 2d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).  At the same time, however, the court also found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead enough facts in their complaint to state a claim under federal law (in other words, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (see analysis beginning at page 43 of the opinion linked to above).

The plaintiffs claimed that the taking of their properties were not supported by a public use:

Plaintiffs argue that the uses offered to justify the Project, which are listed supra at 6-7, are chimerical because (1) the Project will generate no or minimal economic benefits, (2) the Project will not create jobs, (3) the area to be condemned is not blighted, and (4) the Project will not materially increase available affordable housing. (Am. Compl. ¶ 140.) Plaintiffs therefore would ask this court or a jury to conclude that “[t]he public does not benefit from the taking of Plaintiffs’ properties” at all. (Id. ¶ 135.)

Slip op. at 57.  The district court held that the claims in the plaintiffs' complaint were not "plausible," and dismissed under the standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007).  The NY Times covered the district court decision here (may require registration).

The landowners have now appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asserting that the district court applied too strict a standard (generally speaking, claims are not resolved by the pleadings), and foreclosed any plaintiff who claims unconstitutional motive from having their day in court.  Their brief is posted here.