We've posted a lot of complaints lately (the lawsuit kind, not the "can I see the manager" kind), mostly coronavirus-related. All involving in one way or another a takings claim. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for a sampling.
This latest complaint does not challenge a government's response to COVID, but instead might be even more "ripped from the headlines." Read on!
As you may be aware, a neighborhood in Seattle, Washington has been blocked off and declared a no-go zone for certain folks. Most recently labeled "CHOP" (Capitol Hill Occupying Protest) after the first naming action went badly and someone realized that the acronym for "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" was CHAZ, "[p]eople can now freely walk in the area, which has been covered with signs, murals, memorials and different types of art. The day after police left, protesters put up a sign on the East Precinct, now boarded up, that reads: 'This space is now property of the Seattle people.'" [Barista's note: as long as it's not "C.H.U.D.," we're fine with whatever names or shortenings people want to use to refer to something.]
What about the people who, pre-CHOP, lived, worked, and ran their businesses in the zone? Well, the other shoe has now dropped. In a complaint filed in federal court yesterday, some of them (on behalf of others similarly-situated -- this is a class action) sued the City of Seattle for skedaddling out of the area. The complaint alleges that the City essentially abandoned the area, which "has enabled the widespread destruction and vandalism of private property." Complaint at 4.
There's a host of federal and state law claims, including a takings claim (of course, which is why we are posting the complaint here).
194. Plaintiffs and the Class have constitutionally protected property rights to use and enjoy their properties, to exclude others from their properties, and to access their properties via public rights-of-way.
195. The City has deprived Plaintiffs of those rights by affirmatively creating, assisting, endorsing, and encouraging an indefinite, unpermitted invasion, occupation, and blockade of the public rights-of-way that provide access to Plaintiffs’ private properties, as well as by affirmatively creating, assisting, endorsing, and encouraging the physical invasion of Plaintiffs’ private properties by CHOP participants.
196. The City has done so pursuant to City policy as created and ratified by City policymakers, including Mayor Durkan.
197. Plaintiffs have not received compensation for the deprivation of their property rights.
198. The City’s actions constitute an unlawful taking for private use and/or an unlawful taking for public use without just compensation, which has caused Plaintiffs economic harm, including through a loss of property value, loss of business revenue, and a loss of investment-backed expectations.
Complaint at 54-55.
We urge you to read the entire document. A couple of general thoughts:
We will continue to follow along with this case, for sure.
Class Action Complaint, Hunters Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle, No. 2:20-cv-00983 (W.D. Wa. June 24, 2020)
