The latest in a case we've been following, and this one is a double nerd whammy. The cert petition in RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, No. 21-703 (Nov. 15, 2021), seeks review of a Sixth Circuit decision in a takings case where the issue on appeal is whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only to final decisions, or also covers interlocutory rulings by a district court.
Here's the story: Pigeon Forge wanted RLR's property. Next stop - condemnation. RLR objected to the taking, asserting the condemnation was not supported by a public use. The Tennessee trial court considering the condemnation suit disagreed, and concluded twice (once at the hearing on immediate possession, the other on a motion for summary judgment) that the taking was supported by a public use or purpose.
Instead of proceeding to a valuation trial, the owner pressed its argument the taking lacked a public use or purpose and filed a separate 1983 lawsuit in federal court, asserting that the city's taking lacked a public use or purpose under both the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions. The district court dismissed, relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal district courts from reviewing the final judgments of state supreme courts, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The cert petition points out that the Sixth Circuit diverges from ten other circuits by applying R-F to interlocutory rulings like the Tennessee trial court's rejection of the property owner's argument that the condemnation lacked a public use. That put the owner who still believed the taking was illegal into a pickle. In these situations, it does not make a whole lot of sense to plow forward with what might be an unnecessary valuation trial if the owner is correct that the taking lacks a public use or purpose. Yet in jurisdictions like Tennessee, the only time an owner can appeal that determination as a matter of right is after final judgment (which comes after the valuation trial). Some jurisdictions permit an immediate interlocutory appeal. But in others no -- you have to spent the effort, time, and money to adjudicate compensation before you can appeal the foundational ruling.
None of that is essential to the R-F issue, of course, but it does provide a background about why the owner would be pressing this issue so strongly, we think.
Here's the Question Presented:
After Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is it improper for a United States District Court to dismiss claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution for the unlawful taking of property due to an interlocutory state court order on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which this Court held in Exxon is applicable only to final state-court judgments?
Stay tuned here, or follow along on the Supreme Court's case docket.
