We are on the road today, so were not going to post. But when the case title is Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence, No.15-1553 (Dec. 8, 2015), who could resist?
Reading through the court of appeals’ passive-aggressive sniping at the plaintiff — a pet shop challenging the City’s ban on pet shops — it boils down to this: plaintiffs did the right thing and filed their due process and equal protection claims in state court, after which the complaint was removed to federal court by the City. In federal court, Perfect Puppy amended its complaint to allege a facial and as-applied regulatory takings claim. After which the District Court dismissed the facial takings claim and all of the other constitutional claims, except the as-applied takings challenge, which it remanded to state court under — you guessed it — Williamson County.
The First Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of the facial takings challenge, concluding that the plaintiff had not properly raised the claim in District Court, and the Williamson County remand, an action over which the court of appeals asserted it had no jurisdiction. By virtue of a federal statute, you can’t appeal a remand order.
This made for “an unhappy Perfect Puppy.” Slip op. a 2.
No doubt, Your Honors, no doubt.
Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence, No. 15-1553 (1st Cir. Dec. 8, 2015)