DC Circuit Peels The Onion On Eminent Domain Abuse Case

In the latest chapter is the Skyland Shopping Center saga, Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (per curiam), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit got rid of most of the 17 plaintiffs by determining they did not have standing to object to a condemnation, and then dismissed the claims of the remaining four plaintiffs on Younger abstention grounds.

The case arose from the attempt to condemn the Skyland Shopping Center, which is alleged to be a "blighting factor" to the surrounding area, and redevelop the property. The Washington Post reported on the situation here:

A powerful group of affluent Hillcrest residents has succeeded in getting the city to declare eminent domain at Skyland -- a controversial move seen in no other commercial land deal in the District except the new baseball stadium. Skyland will be demolished, under the plan, and a higher-quality shopping center built in its place. Target may be its anchor. There could even be a white-tablecloth restaurant.

The Hillcrest activists say they are sick and tired of Skyland's downtrodden look, its lack of what they call quality products, its old discount stores and liquor stores and sidewalk vendors and assorted illegal or undesirable activity. The folks of Hillcrest say both they and the broader community, prosperous and poor alike, deserve far better.

Several current and former owners of Skyland property, tenants, and employees filed suit in federal court seeing an injunction prohibiting the District from exercising eminent domain. The case has already resulted in one reported decision in which the court of appeal reversed the district court's holding that the plaintiffs' public use challenge was subject to Williamson County's ripeness requirements. See Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a case we discussed here.The facts also gave rise to Franco v. Nat'l Capital Revitalization Corp., 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007), a decision which established standards for how to plead and prove a claim for pretext. We detailed Franco here.

On remand, the district court dismissed the complaint and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment because the taking was for a valid public purpose. The district court based its conclusion on several factors. First, the city council issued "specific conclusions" about the shopping center and the surrounding area, noting the area has lagged behind other areas in economic development, and the shopping center is "poorly maintained." Second, the public testimony before the council was in support of the taking. See Rumber v. District of Columbia, 598 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009). The district court's opinion is available here.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. It first determined that a majority of the 17 plaintiffs have no interest in the case because they have "nothing to gain" from an injunction seeking to stop the District's exercise of eminent domain. They are former owners who sold their property to the District, or are lessees whose leases expired or were terminated, and were not condemned. Another group of plaintiffs are employees, and have no standing to object to a taking: "[t]he property-owning businesses, not their employees or stakeholders, are the proper parties to bring suit opposing condemnation." Slip op. at 4-5.

Having made short work of the bulk of the plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds, the court eliminated the claims of the remaining four plaintiffs by applying prudential abstention under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger abstention -- in which a federal court with jurisdiction declines to exercise it -- embodies "a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances." Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). Under Younger and its progeny, "abstention is appropriate...if (1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions."  Fresh Int'l Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353, 1357-58 (9th Cir.1986).

Here, the District instituted condemnation proceedings after the plaintiffs filed their federal action. The District then argued that the federal action should be dismissed in favor of the condemnation actions. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that Younger abstention was inapplicable because they did not have a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the condemnation action in D.C. court, and that the D.C. action was instituted in "bad faith." Slip op. at 5-6.

Here are the briefs of the parties:

• Property owners' Opening Brief

• District of Columbia's Answering Brief

• Property owners' Reply Brief

We linked to a report about the October 2009 oral arguments here.