131503cv

Shermanv.TownofChester
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit

AugustTerm,2013
No.131503cv
NANCYJ.SHERMAN,
PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
TOWNOFCHESTER,
DefendantAppellee.
*

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork.
No.12cv647EdgardoRamos,Judge.

ARGUED:MARCH18,2014
DECIDED:MAY16,2014

Before:STRAUB,SACK,andLOHIER,CircuitJudges.

*
TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptionofthiscaseto
conformtothelistingofthepartiesshownabove.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 1 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
2

AppealfromanorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor
theSouthernDistrictofNewYork(EdgardoRamos,Judge)granting
defendantTownofChestersmotiontodismissplaintiffStevenM.
Shermanscomplaint.
WeholdthatShermanstakingsclaimwasripeunder
WilliamsonCountyRegionalPlanningCommissionv.HamiltonBankof
JohnsonCity,473U.S.172(1985).Seekingafinaldecisionfromthe
TownwouldbefutilebecausetheTownusedunfairandrepetitive
procedurestoavoidafinaldecision.Additionally,thestate
proceduresprongofWilliamsonCountyissatisfiedbecausethe
Townremovedthecasefromstatecourt.Shermanalsoadequately
allegedataking.Accordingly,weREVERSEthatpartoftheDistrict
CourtsdecisionthatdismissedShermanstakingsclaim.
WeVACATEtheDistrictCourtsdecisiontodismiss
Shermansfederalnontakingsclaimssolelyonripenessgrounds
andtodeclinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverShermans
stateclawclaims.Finally,weAFFIRMtheDistrictCourtsdecision
todismisscertainclaimsonthemerits.

MICHAELD.DIEDERICH,JR.StonyPoint,NY,for
NancyJ.Sherman.
ANTHONYCARDOSO(StevenC.Sternonbrief),
SokoloffSternLLP,CarlePlace,NY,forTownof
Chester
J.DavidBreemer,PacificLegalFoundation,
Sacramento,CA,foramicuscuriaePacificLegal
Foundationinsupportofappellant.

Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 2 05/16/2014 1226083 45

SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
3
STRAUB,CircuitJudge:
HungryJoepackeduphisbagsandwrotehappylettershome.
Hehadflownthe25missionsrequiredtocompleteatourofduty.
ButthingswerenotsosimpleonCatch22sPianosaisland.Hesoon
discoveredthatColonelCathcarthadjustraisedthenumberof
missionsto30,forcingHungryJoetounpackhisbagsandrewrite
hishappyletters.Atthetime,Yossarianhadflown23missions.
TheColonellaterincreasedthenumberto35.When
Yossarianwasjustthreeawayfromthatmark,thenumberwas
increasedto40,andthento45.WhenYossarianhad44missions
underhisbelt,theColonelmadethenumber50.Andlater55.
WhenYossarianreached51missions,heknewitwasnocause
tocelebrate:Hellraisethem,Yossarianunderstood.Heappealed
tosquadroncommanderMajorMajortobeexemptedfromflying
hisfourremainingmissions.EverytimeIgetcloseheraisesthem,
Yossariancomplained.MajorMajorresponded,Perhapshewont
thistime.ButofcourseYossarianwasright.ColonelCathcart
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 3 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
4
raisedthenumberto60,then65,then70,then80,withnoendin
sight.
PlaintiffStevenM.ShermanmusthavefeltalotlikeYossarian
inhisdecadeofdealingwithdefendantTownofChester.In2000,
Shermanappliedforsubdivisionapprovalwhilehewasinthe
processofbuyinganearly400acrepieceoflandfor$2.7million.
Thatapplicationmarkedthebeginningofhisjourneythroughthe
Townseverchanginglabyrinthofredtape.In2003,theTown
enactedanewzoningordinance,requiringShermantoredrafthis
proposeddevelopmentplan.Whenhecreatedarevisedproposalin
2004,theTownagainenactednewzoningregulations.Whenhe
createdanotherrevisedplanin2005,theTownchangeditszoning
lawsoncemore.Andagainin2006.Andagainin2007.
Ontopoftheshiftingsandsofzoningregulations,theTown
erectedevenmorehurdles.Amongothertactics,theTown
announcedamoratoriumondevelopment,replaceditsofficials,and
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 4 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
5
requiredShermantoresubmitstudiesthathehadalready
completed.WhentheTowninsistedthatShermanpay$25,000in
consultantsfeesbeforehecouldobtainahearing,hemighthave
thought,TheColonelwilljustraiseitagain.Andhewouldhave
beenright.Afterpayingthe$25,000,hewastoldheowedan
additional$40,000,andthathewouldalsohavetorespondtoa
lengthyquestionnaire.
Bythetimethislawsuitwasfiled,overtenyearshadpassed.
Inthattime,Shermanbecamefinanciallyexhaustedforcedto
spend$5.5millionontopoftheoriginal$2.7millionpurchase.The
DistrictCourt(EdgardoRamos,Judge)ruledthatShermansclaim
undertheTakingsClausewasnotripeunderWilliamsonCounty
RegionalPlanningCommissionv.HamiltonBankofJohnsonCity,473
U.S.172(1985),becauseShermanhadnotreceivedafinaldecision
onhispropertyandseekingafinaldecisionwouldnotbefutile.The
courtreasonedthatwhileShermanmayhavetojumpthroughmore
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 5 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
6
hoopsinthefuture,hehadnotestablishedthathisapplication
woulddefinitelybedeniedintheend.ToSherman,thismusthave
soundedalotlike:Perhapshewontraisethenumberthistime.
Weconcludethatunderthesecircumstances,Shermanwas
notrequiredtoobtainafinaldecisionfromtheTown.Shermans
takingsclaimwasripeandadequatelyalleged.Accordingly,we
REVERSEthatpartoftheDistrictCourtsdecisionthatdismissed
thetakingsclaim,andweREMANDforfurtherproceedings
consistentwiththisopinion.
BACKGROUND
Theallegationsrecitedbelowaretakenfromthecomplaint,
andweassumetheyaretrueforthepurposesofthisappeal.
Thiscaseconcernsthedecadesworthofredtapeputinplace
bytheTownofChester,itsTownBoard,anditsPlanningBoard.
TheTownBoardisthegoverningbodyoftheTown,andthe
PlanningBoardappearstogiveatleastpreliminaryapprovalto
developmentproposals.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 6 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
7
InMarchof2000,ShermanappliedtothePlanningBoardfor
subdivisionapprovalsothathecoulduseanddevelopMareBrook.
Theproposedprojectwouldinclude385unitsofhousingaswellas
anequestrianfacility,baseballfield,tenniscourts,clubhouse,on
siterestaurantandagolfcoursethatwovethroughtheproperty.
WhenShermancompletedhispurchaseofthepropertyin2001,it
wasalreadyzonedforresidentialuse.Butsoonthereafter,
Shermanstroublesbegan.
I. TheMoratorium
InJuly2001,theTownBoardannouncedthatitwasimposing
asixmonthmoratoriumonmajorsubdivisionapprovalsretroactive
toMay1,2001.AtleasttwomembersoftheTownBoardexpressed
theviewthattheMoratoriumwasspecificallyaimedatPlaintiffs
MareBrookproject.Shermanwastheonlydeveloperaffectedeven
thoughotherprojectsweresimilarlysituated.
Whenthesixmonthperiodexpired,themoratoriumwas
extended,whichsingularlyaffectedSherman.Duringthe
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 7 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
8
extension,Shermanappliedforaminorsubdivisionapprovalthat
waspermittedunderthemoratorium.However,theTownstill
refusedtoallowShermantopursuetheapplication.
ShermanbroughtsuitagainsttheTowninstatecourt,andasa
resultofthelawsuit,theTownendedthemoratorium,butnotuntil
January2003.Inotherwords,thesixmonthmoratoriumlastedover
ayearandahalf.
II. DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementandtheFirstZoning
Change
InOctober2003,thePlanningBoarddeemedcomplete
ShermansDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(DEIS).That
determinationestablishedthatShermansapplicationtotheTown
wassatisfactoryinformandcontent.
In2003,theTownBoardapprovedthefirstinaseriesof
changestoitszoningregulations.WhenShermanlearnedofthe
newrequirementsearlythenextyear,hewasassuredbytheTown
Planner,GarlingAssociates,thathecouldmeetallitsrequirements
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 8 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
9
withonlyamodestamountofadditionalworkandthathewould
soonobtainpreliminaryapproval.
III. MoreChangestotheZoningRegulations
Approximatelyfivemonthslater,sometimeinlateMayto
earlyJune2004,Shermanfinishedrevisinghisplan.ButtheTown
hadalreadyamendeditszoningregulations.GarlingAssociates,
whichhelpedwritethenewregulations,didnottellShermanabout
thechangeseventhoughitwasadvisingShermanaboutcomplying
withthe2003regulations.Theseamendmentscreatedseveralnew
requirements,furtherdelayingSherman.
Ittookhimapproximatelyelevenmonthstoonceagainrevise
hisapplication.InMay2005fiveyearsafterhefirstsought
subdivisionapprovalhefinallymetwithsomesuccess.The
PlanningBoardapprovedtheMareBrookproposal.Butthissuccess
wasnottolast.TheTownBoardrefusedtoentertainShermans
application,despiteholdingmeetingsconcerninganother
development.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 9 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
10
Onemonthlater,theTownamendeditszoninglawforathird
timewithoutinformingShermaninadvance.Shermanrevisedhis
applicationagain,andinFebruary2006,theTownforthefourth
timechangeditszoninglawwithoutwarningSherman.Sherman
respondedbysubmittingyetanotherrevisedplan,thisoneinMarch
2007.Thatsamemonth,theTownchangeditszoningforthefifth
time,anditonceagaindidnotletShermanknowthesechanges
werecoming.
Fedup,ShermanfiledsuitinfederalcourtinMay2008,a
precursortothecasebeforeusnow.
IV. FurtherObstruction
InNovemberandDecemberof2008,Shermanresubmittedhis
MareBrookapplicationandSupplementalDEIS.Bythispoint,over
eightyearshadpassedsinceShermanfirstappliedforsubdivision
approval.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 10 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
11
A. TheTownEngineer
InJanuary2009,theTownEngineergaveShermanalistof
correctionstothe2008SupplementalDEIS.Aspartofthatlist,the
TownEngineerdemandedfinaldesignsforwaterandsewerplants.
ButShermancouldnotsubmitthefinalwaterandsewerdesigns
untilotheraspectsoftheplanlikethenumberandlocationofthe
homeswerefinalized.That,inturn,requiredpreliminary
approval,whichistheverythinghewastryingtoobtainfromthe
TownEngineer.
Afewmonthslater,theTownappointedanewTown
Engineer.Thenewappointeeneededtimetogetuptospeedon
MareBrook.TheTownbilledShermanfortheexpenseofhavingthe
newTownEngineerreviewtheentireMareBrookproject,even
thoughShermanalreadypaidforthefirstengineertoconductthat
samereview.ThenewTownEngineerhadanentirelynewsetof
questions,concerns,anditemsforShermantoaddress.Despitethat,
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 11 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
12
fortwoyearsthenewTownEngineermaintainedhispredecessors
requirementregardingsewerandwaterplantdesigns.
B. TheChairman
InSeptember2009,Shermansubmittedtwodifferentversions
ofhissubdivisionproposal.Bynow,theproposalshadbecome
muchmoreconventionalthanhisfirstapplication,andtheydidnot
includetherecreationalfacilitiesinitiallyenvisioned.
Soonaftersubmittingtheproposals,Shermandiscoveredthat
thePlanningBoardChairmanhadbeenreplaced.Thenew
Chairman,DonSerotta,wasopenlyhostiletowardsthe
MareBrookapplicationandhadwrittenletterstotheTownin2001
againsttheproject.
Forthreemonths,thePlanningBoardrefusedwithout
explanationtoputShermansproposalsontheagenda.Thenin
December2009,SerottaexplainedthatShermanneededtopay
$25,000inconsultantsfees.YetShermandidnotreceiveaninvoice
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 12 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
13
forthosefeesasrequiredbytheTownCodeforapproximatelytwo
months.
Serottahadotherdemandsaswell.Herequiredanadditional
clusterplan,whichwouldleadtoanotherreworkingofShermans
DEIS.Serottaalsoinsistedthatallroadsmustbetwentyfourfeet
wideinsteadofthirtyfeet.ThisrequiredShermantoredrawhis
planstorelocatecurbs,drainage,waterandsewermains,and
grading.
Later,SerottacanceledShermansappearanceatthePlanning
Boardsmonthlymeetinganddemanded$40,000morein
consultantsfees.ThePlanningBoardalsoinsistedthatSherman
respondtoaquestionnaire,whichrequiredShermantoprovide,
amongotherthings,anevaluationofatrafficintersectioninthe
TownofMonroe(locatedmilesaway)andthedetailsofawetlands
walkingtrailcrossingthatdidnotcrossanywetlands.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 13 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
14
Shermanwasalsorequiredtoanswerallinquiriesbylocal
residents.Someanswerstothesequestionsneededtoberepeated
twentytofortytimesbecausethePlanningBoarddidnotpermit
himtoquoteapreviousanswer.
C. TheTownPlanner
InSeptember2010,thePlanningBoardvotedtoaccept
ShermansDEISascomplete,sevenyearsafterhisoriginalDEISwas
deemedcompleteinOctober2003.Afewmonthslater,TedFink
replacedGarlingAssociatesastheTownPlanner.Finkrequestedan
additionalstudyregardingtrafficontheothersideoftown,even
thoughShermanhadlongbeforecompletedthatstudy.Finkalso
sentmonthlylistsofdemandstoSherman,whichincludeda
wetlandstudy,aconcertedspeciesstudy,andaconstraints
study.Thenewstudiesconcludedthattherewerenochangessince
thosesamestudieswerecompletedin2003.Finkalsorequired
ShermantoredotheDEISthathadjustbeendeemedcomplete.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 14 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
15
V. FinancialLossesandSubsequentDeath
TheTownsmachinationstopreventthedevelopmentof
MareBrookwerenotwithouttheircost.Betweentaxes,interest
charges,carryingcosts,andexpenses,Shermanspentapproximately
$5.5millionontopoftheoriginal$2.7purchaseprice.Asaresult,
Shermanbecamefinanciallyexhaustedtothepointoffacing
foreclosureandpossiblepersonalbankruptcy.Andwhilethecase
waspendingonappeal,Shermandied.NancyJ.Sherman,his
widow,wassubstitutedforhimonappealashispersonal
representative.
2

VI. ProceduralHistory
Asalreadymentioned,in2008Shermanfiledsuitagainstthe
Townandotherdefendantsinfederalcourt.Hebroughtmanyof
thesameclaimsthatheraisestoday.TheTownmovedtodismiss,
arguingamongotherthingsthatShermanstakingsclaimwasnot

2
NancyShermanwassubstitutedafterthebriefswerefiled.Forthisreason,and
forthesakeofsimplicity,wewillreferonlytoStevenShermanthroughoutthis
opinion.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 15 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
16
ripebecausehehadnotsoughtcompensationfromthestate.
Shermanvoluntarilydismissedthecaseandthenfiledthecasenow
beforeusinstatecourt.TheTownremovedtofederalcourt,where
itonceagainmovedtodismissinpartonripenessgrounds.
TheDistrictCourtdismissedsomeofShermansfederal
claimsonthemerits,andmostbecausetheywereunripe.While
acknowledgingitwasaclosecase,theDistrictCourtconcludedthat
Shermanhadfailedtoshowthatseekingafinaldecisionfromthe
Townwouldbefutile.
Shermantimelyappealed.
DISCUSSION
Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourtsordergrantingamotion
todismissunderRule12(b)(6),acceptingastrueallallegationsinthe
complaintanddrawingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe
nonmovingparty.TosurviveaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,the
complaintmustincludeenoughfactstostateaclaimtoreliefthatis
plausibleonitsface.Aclaimwillhavefacialplausibilitywhenthe
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 16 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
17
plaintiffpleadsfactualcontentthatallowsthecourttodrawthe
reasonableinferencethatthedefendantisliableforthemisconduct
alleged.Wilsonv.Dantas,F.3d,2014WL866507,at*2(2dCir.
Mar.6,2014)(internalcitationsandquotationmarksomitted).
AlthoughShermanbroughtnumerousfederalandstate
claims,themaindisputeonappealconcernsShermanstakings
claim,whichwasdismissedasunripeunderthefirstprongof
WilliamsonCountyRegionalPlanningCommissionv.HamiltonBankof
JohnsonCity,473U.S.172(1985).TheDistrictCourtdismissedmost
oftheotherfederalclaimsforthesamereason,andsomeofthem,in
thealternative,forfailuretostateaclaim.Finally,theDistrictCourt
declinedtoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverShermansstate
lawclaims.
3

3
TheDistrictCourtalsodismissedShermansfreedomofreligionandrightto
associationclaimsasfrivolous.Shermanhasnotchallengedthatrulingon
appeal.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 17 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
18
I. TakingsClaimandWilliamsonCountyRipeness
Weevaluatetheripenessofatakingsclaimunderthetwo
prongtestestablishedbytheSupremeCourtinWilliamsonCounty.
Fortheclaimtoberipe,theplaintiffmustshowthat(1)thestate
regulatoryentityhasrenderedafinaldecisiononthematter,and
(2)theplaintiffhassoughtjustcompensationbymeansofan
availablestateprocedure.Doughertyv.TownofN.HempsteadBd.of
ZoningAppeals,282F.3d83,88(2dCir.2002).
BecauseWilliamsonCountyisaprudentialratherthana
jurisdictionalrule,wemaydeterminethatinsomeinstances,the
ruleshouldnotapplyandwestillhavethepowertodecidethe
case.Sansottav.TownofNagsHead,724F.3d533,545(4thCir.
2013);seealsoHornev.DeptofAgric.,133S.Ct.2053,2062(2013)
(recognizingthatWilliamsonCountyisnot,strictlyspeaking,
jurisdictional);Suitumv.TahoeReglPlanningAgency,520U.S.725,
73334(1997)(describingtheWilliamsonCountyprongsastwo
independentprudentialhurdles).
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 18 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
19
A. TheFinalDecisionProng
ShermanconcedesthattheTownhasnotreachedanofficial
finaldecision.Hearguesinsteadthathedoesnotneedtomeetthis
requirementbecauseseekingafinaldecisionwouldbefutile.
[T]hefinalityrequirementisnotmechanicallyapplied.A
propertyowner,forexample,willbeexcusedfromobtainingafinal
decisionifpursuinganappealtoazoningboardofappealsor
seekingavariancewouldbefutile.Thatis,apropertyownerneed
notpursuesuchapplicationswhenazoningagencylacksdiscretion
tograntvariancesorhasduginitsheelsandmadeclearthatallsuch
applicationswillbedenied.Murphyv.NewMilfordZoningCommn,
402F.3d342,349(2dCir.2005).
Additionally,[g]overnmentauthorities,ofcourse,maynot
burdenpropertybyimpositionofrepetitiveorunfairlanduse
proceduresinordertoavoidafinaldecision.Palazzolov.Rhode
Island,533U.S.606,621(2001);seealsoMacDonald,Sommer&Fratesv.
YoloCnty.,477U.S.340,350n.7(1986)(Apropertyownerisof
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 19 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
20
coursenotrequiredtoresorttopiecemeallitigationorotherwise
unfairproceduresinordertoobtainthisdetermination.).
Whilethesetwoexceptionstothefinalityrequirement
futilityandunfair/repetitiveproceduresaredistinctconcepts,in
thiscase,theanalysesforthetwoarethesame.Shermanarguesthat
seekingafinaldecisionwouldbefutilebecausetheTownused
andinalllikelihoodwillcontinuetouserepetitiveandunfair
proceduresinordertoavoidafinaldecision.
Thefinaldecisionrequirementfollowsfromtheprinciple
thatonlyaregulationthatgoestoofar,resultsinatakingunderthe
FifthAmendment.Suitum,520U.S.at734(internalcitations
omitted).Normally,[a]courtcannotdeterminewhethera
regulationhasgonetoofarunlessitknowshowfartheregulation
goes.MacDonald,477U.S.at348.However,inthiscase,Sherman
isnotchallenginganyoneregulation.Rather,hearguesthatthe
repeatedzoningchangesandotherroadblockstheprocedurehe
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 20 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
21
hadtoendureconstitutedataking.SeeAppellantsBriefat27.A
finaldecisionisnotnecessarytoevaluatewhetherthatobstruction
itselfconstitutedataking.
InDelMonteDunesatMonterey,Ltd.v.CityofMonterey,the
NinthCircuitruledthatseekingafinaldecisionwouldbefutile
undersimilarcircumstances.920F.2d1496,1506(9thCir.1990).In
thatcase,thepropertyownerssubmittedaproposaltodeveloptheir
propertywith344residentialunits.Id.at1502.Theplanwasdenied
bytheplanningcommission,andthecityplannersstatedthata
proposalwith264unitswouldbereceivedfavorably.Id.Whenthe
ownerssubmittedanew264unitplan,itwasdenied,andthecity
plannersthistimestatedthataproposalwith224unitswouldbe
receivedfavorably.Id.Whentheownerssubmittedanew224unit
plan,itwasdeniedaswell.Id.Thatdecisionwasappealedtothe
citycouncil,whichreferredtheprojectbacktotheplanning
commissionwitharequestthatitconsidera190unitplan.Id.The
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 21 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
22
ownerssubmittedanew190unitplan,whichwasalsodenied.Id.
Theownersonceagainappealedtothecitycouncil,whichapproved
theplansolongasfifteenconditionsweremet.Id.at1503.The
ownerssubmittedanewplanwhichsubstantiallymetthose
conditions.Thattoowasdeniedbyboththeplanningcommission
andthecitycouncil.Id.at1504,1506.Yetnoneofthisconstituteda
finaldecision.
TheNinthCircuitruledthatthepropertyownersdidnotneed
tomeetthefinaldecisionprongofWilliamsonCounty.Id.at1506.
Thecourtreasonedthat[r]equiring[theowners]topersistwiththis
protractedapplicationprocesstomeetthefinaldecision
requirementwouldimplicatetheconcernsaboutdisjointed,
repetitive,andunfairproceduresexpressedinMacDonald....Id.
(internalcitationsomitted).
RequiringShermantopersistwithasimilarprotracted
applicationprocesswouldimplicatethesesameconcerns.Foryears,
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 22 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
23
everytimeShermansubmittedorwasabouttosubmitaproposal
forMareBrook,theTownchangeditszoningregulations,sending
Shermanbacktothedrawingboard.Itretroactivelyissuedasix
monthmoratoriumondevelopmentthatappearstohaveapplied
onlytoShermansproperty.Thatsixmonthmoratoriumwas
extendedforanotheryearuntilafterShermansuedtheTown.Town
officialsalsorepeatedlyaskedShermantoresubmitstudiesand
plansthathadalreadybeenapproved.
TheDistrictCourtadoptedanarrowerviewoffutilitythan
theNinthCircuits:thatwhiletheripenessdoctrinedoesnot
requirelitigantstoengageinfutilegesturessuchastojumpthrough
aseriesofhoops,thelastofwhichiscertaintobeobstructedbya
brickwall,thepresenceofthatbrickwallmustbeallbutcertainfor
thefutilityexceptiontoapply.Shermanv.TownofChester,No.12
Civ.647,2013WL1148922,at*9(S.D.N.Y.Mar.20,2013)(internal
alterationomitted).Applyingthatstandardtoourcase,thecourt
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 23 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
24
belowconcluded,Here,allthatisknownisthatPlaintiffhas
jumpedthroughmanyhoopsmore,perhaps,thansoundpolicy
shouldrequireandthereareoneormorehoopsinthefuture.The
inferencethatthereisabrickwallattheendishardtoestablish,and
itisnotestablishedhere,thoughitisaclosecase.Id.
ThisanalysisdoesnotaccountforthenatureoftheTowns
tactics.TheTownwilllikelyneverputupabrickwallinbetween
Shermanandthefinishline.Rather,thefinishlinewillalwaysbe
movedjustonestepawayuntilShermancollapses.Inessence,the
TownengagedinawarofattritionwithSherman.Overtenyears,
Shermanwasforcedtospendover$5.5millionontopoftheoriginal
$2.7millionpurchase.Asaresult,hebecamefinanciallyexhausted
tothepointoffacingforeclosureandpossiblepersonalbankruptcy.
Moreover,atnopointcouldShermanforcetheTowntosimplygive
afinalyayornaytohisproposal.Whenaskedatargument,the
TownscounselcouldnotnameonewayShermancouldhave
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 24 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
25
appealedanyaspectoftheTownsdecadeofmaneuversinorderto
obtainafinaldecision.SeeOralArg.Tr.at21:2022:9.
Wearemindfulthatfederalcourtsshouldnotbecome
zoningboardsofappeal....Sullivanv.TownofSalem,805F.2d81,
82(2dCir.1986).Everydelayinzoningapprovaldoesnotripen
intoafederalclaim.Unfortunately,itisnosimpletaskto
distinguishproceduresthataremerelyfrustratingfromthosethat
areunfairorwouldbefutiletopursue.Butwhenthegovernments
actionsaresounreasonable,duplicative,orunjustastomakethe
conductfarcical,thehighstandardismet.
Anditwasmetinthiscase.Seekingafinaldecisionwouldbe
futilebecausetheTownusedandwillinalllikelihoodcontinueto
userepetitiveandunfairprocedures,therebyavoidingafinal
decision.Shermanisthereforenotrequiredtosatisfythefirstprong
ofWilliamsonCounty.Thisconclusionisconsistentwiththe
principlesbehindWilliamsonCounty.Thefinaldecisionrequirement
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 25 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
26
ensuresthatacourtknowshowfararegulationgoesbeforeitis
askedtodeterminewhetherthatregulationgoestoofar.Inthis
case,wearenotdealingwithanyoneregulationbuttheTowns
decadeofobstruction.Afinaldecisionisnotnecessarytoevaluate
whetherthatobstructionwasitselfataking.
B. StateProceduresProng
UnderthesecondprongofWilliamsonCounty,aplaintiffs
claimisripeonlyiftheplaintiffhassoughtjustcompensationby
meansofanavailablestateprocedure.Dougherty,282F.3dat88.
WhileWilliamsonCountypreventsaplaintifffrombringinghis
takingsclaiminfederalcourtbeforefirstseekingcompensationfrom
thestate,itdoesnotprecludestatecourtsfromhearing
simultaneouslyaplaintiffsrequestforcompensationunderstate
lawandtheclaimthat,inthealternative,thedenialofcompensation
wouldviolatethe[TakingsClauseofthe]FifthAmendmentofthe
FederalConstitution.SanRemoHotel,L.P.v.CityandCnty.ofS.F.,
545U.S.323,347(2005).Thisisbecause[r]eadingWilliamson
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 26 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
27
Countytoprecludeplaintiffsfromraisingsuchclaimsinthe
alternativewoulderroneouslyinterpret[theSupremeCourts]cases
asrequiringpropertyownerstoresorttopiecemeallitigationor
otherwiseunfairprocedures.Id.(quotingMacDonald,477U.S.at
350n.7).
ShermanfirstbroughtsuitagainsttheTowninfederalcourt
in2008.TheTownarguedthatthetakingsclaimwasunripeinpart
becauseShermanhadnotallegedthathesoughtandwasdeniedjust
compensationbyanavailablestateprocedure.Shermanvoluntarily
dismissedthecase,andfollowedSanRemobyfilinghisfederal
takingsclaimandhisstatelawclaimforcompensationinstatecourt.
TheTownthenremovedthecasefromstatecourttofederalcourt,
whereitarguedonceagainthatthetakingsclaimmustbedismissed
becauseitcanbeheardonlyinstatecourtunderWilliamsonCounty.
InSansottav.TownofNagsHead,724F.3d533(4thCir.2013),
theFourthCircuitconcludedthatwhenthedefendantremovesa
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 27 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
28
takingsclaimtofederalcourt,thestateproceduresprongof
WilliamsonCountydoesnotapply.Weagreewiththatcourts
reasoningthatrefusingtoapplythestatelitigationrequirementin
thisinstanceensuresthatastateoritspoliticalsubdivisioncannot
manipulatelitigationtodenyaplaintiffaforumforhisclaim.Id.at
545.
TheremovalmaneuverpreventsShermanfromlitigatinghis
federaltakingsclaimuntilhefinisheslitigatinghisstatelawclaim
forcompensation.Inotherwords,itpreventsShermanfrom
pursuingbothclaimssimultaneously,nomatterwhatforumthey
arebroughtin.ThisrunsagainstSanRemo,whichallowsplaintiffs
todojustthat.Inotherwords,theremovaltacticcandeny[]a
plaintiffanyforumforhavinghisclaimheard,oratleastforcethe
plaintiffintothekindofpiecemeallitigationthat,underSanRemo,
cannotberequired.Seeid.at547.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 28 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
29
Weconcludethatwhenadefendantremovesatakingsclaim
fromstatecourttofederalcourt,thesecondprongofWilliamson
Countyissatisfied.Shermanstakingsclaimisripe,andwemay
addressthemerits.
C. MeritsoftheTakingsClaim
Thelawrecognizestwospeciesoftakings:physicaltakings
andregulatorytakings.BuffaloTeachersFednv.Tobe,464F.3d362,
374(2dCir.2006).Thiscaseconcernsaregulatorytaking,which
occurswhenthegovernmentactsinaregulatorycapacity.Id.
Thegravamenofaregulatorytakingclaimisthatthestate
regulationgoestoofarandinessenceeffectsataking.Id.
Regulatorytakingsarefurthersubdividedintocategorical
andnoncategoricaltakings.HuntleighUSACorp.v.UnitedStates,
525F.3d1370,1378n.2(Fed.Cir.2008).Acategoricaltakingoccurs
intheextraordinarycircumstancewhennoproductiveor
economicallybeneficialuseoflandispermitted.TahoeSierraPres.
Council,Inc.v.TahoeReglPlanningAgency,535U.S.302,330(2002).
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 29 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
30
Anythinglessthanacompleteeliminationofvalue,oratotalloss,
isanoncategoricaltaking,whichisanalyzedundertheframework
createdinPennCentralTransportationCo.v.NewYorkCity,438U.S.
104(1978).TahoeSierra,535U.S.at330(internalquotationmarks
omitted).
InTahoeSierra,theSupremeCourtadvisesthreetimesto
resistthetemptationtoadoptwhatamounttoperserulesfor
regulatorytakings.Id.at326;seealsoid.at321,342.Inthatcase,the
Courtaddressedwhethertemporarymoratoriaondevelopment
constitutedataking.Id.at321.Itconcludedthattheanswerwas
neitheryes,alwaysnorno,never.Id.TheCourttherefore
rejectedacategoricaltakinganalysisanddecidedthatissuewas
bestanalyzedwithinthePennCentralframework.Id.
WefollowtheSupremeCourtsguidancetoresistperserules.
LikethetemporarymoratoriaatissueinTahoeSierra,evaluatingthe
typeofobstructionatissuehereisnotsusceptibletoayesalwaysor
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 30 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
31
nonevercategoricalapproach.WewillthereforeanalyzeShermans
takingsclaimwithinthePennCentralframework.Wewillthen
considertheTownsargumentthattheclaimistimebarred.And
becauseweconcludeunderthenoncategoricalmethodthat
ShermanhasstatedaclaimthattheTowneffectedataking,weneed
notdecidetheissueunderthecategoricalapproach.
1. NonCategoricalTakingandPennCentral
ThePennCentralanalysisofanoncategoricaltakingrequires
anintensiveadhocinquiryintothecircumstancesofeachparticular
case.BuffaloTeachersFedn,464F.3dat375.Weweighthree
factorstodeterminewhethertheinterferencewithpropertyrisesto
thelevelofataking:(1)theeconomicimpactoftheregulationonthe
claimant;(2)theextenttowhichtheregulationhasinterferedwith
distinctinvestmentbackedexpectations;and(3)thecharacterofthe
governmentalaction.Id.(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Shermansclaimpassesthistest.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 31 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
32
First,theTownsactionseffectivelypreventedShermanfrom
makinganyeconomicuseofhisproperty.Newstudieswere
demandedaftertheywerealreadycompleted;newdeficienciesin
Shermansproposalswerefoundaftertheywerealreadyapproved;
newfeeswererequiredaftertheyhadalreadybeenpaid;andnew
regulationswerecreatedwhenShermancompliedwithwhathad
previouslybeenrequired.BecausetheTownkeptstringinghim
along,Shermancouldneverdevelophisproperty.TheTownwon
itswarofattrition.
Second,theTowninterferedwithShermansreasonable
investmentbackedexpectations,amatterofteninformedbythe
lawinforceintheStateinwhichthepropertyislocated.Ark.Game
&FishCommnv.UnitedStates,133S.Ct.511,522(2012).When
ShermanboughtMareBrook,itwasalreadyzonedforresidential
use.Hisreasonableexpectation,therefore,wasthathewouldbegin
recoupingthatinvestmentafterareasonabletimetogettheTowns
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 32 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
33
approvalonatleastsomeformofdevelopment.Hecouldnothave
expectedtheTownsdecadeofobstructionthatpushedhimtothe
brinkofbankruptcy.
Thethirdfactorthecharacterofthegovernmentactionis
themostelusive.SeeJohnD.Echeverria,MakingSenseofPenn
Central,23UCLAJ.ENVTL.L.&POLY171,18699(2005)(outlining
ninepossibledefinitionsofcharacter);ThomasW.Merrill,The
CharacteroftheGovernmentalAction,36VT.L.REV.649,66171(2012)
(outliningsixthemesorideasconsideredbycourtswhen
evaluatingcharacter).
InPennCentralitself,theCourtstatedthat[a]takingmay
morereadilybefoundwhentheinterferencewithpropertycanbe
characterizedasaphysicalinvasionbygovernmentthanwhen
interferencearisesfromsomepublicprogramadjustingthebenefits
andburdensofeconomiclifetopromotethecommongood.438
U.S.at124(internalcitationomitted).Inthiscase,theTowns
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 33 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
34
actionsarenotpartofapublicprogramadjustingthebenefitsand
burdensofpubliclife.Rather,theTownsingledoutShermans
development,suffocatinghimwithredtapetomakesurehecould
neversucceedindevelopingMareBrook.TheTownsalleged
conductwasunfair,unreasonable,andinbadfaith.Thoughthe
precisecontoursofthecharacterfactormaybeblurry,wecan
neverthelessconcludethattheTownsconductinthiscasefalls
safelywithinitsambit.
BalancingthePennCentralfactors,weconcludethatSherman
statedanoncategoricaltakingsclaim.
2. StatuteofLimitations
TheTownarguesthatShermanstakingsclaimisbarredby42
U.S.C.1983sstatuteoflimitations,whichthepartiesdonot
disputeisthreeyearsinthiscase.SeeOrmistonv.Nelson,117F.3d
69,71(2dCir.1997).AccordingtotheTown,inevaluatingwhether
Shermanstatedaclaim,weshouldhaveconsideredonlywhat
occurredinthethreeyearsbeforethecomplaintwasfiled.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 34 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
35
Butthatargumentwouldmeanthatagovernmententity
couldengageinconductthatwouldconstituteatakingwhen
viewedinitsentirety,solongasnotakingoccurredoveranythree
yearperiod.Wedonotacceptthis.TheTownusedextremedelay
toeffectataking.ItwouldbeperversetoallowtheTowntousethat
samedelaytoescapeliability.
TheonlywayplaintiffsinShermanspositioncanvindicate
theSupremeCourtsadmonitioninPalazzolothatgovernment
authoritiesmaynotburdenpropertybyimpositionofrepetitiveor
unfairlanduseproceduresistoallowtothemaggregateactsthat
arenotindividuallyactionable.See533U.S.at621.Aclaimbased
onsuchadeathbyathousandcutstheoryrequiresacourtto
considertheentiretyofthegovernmententitysconduct,notjusta
sliceofit.
Infact,insupportoftheprohibitiononrepetitiveandunfair
procedures,theSupremeCourtcitedacasemuchliketheonebefore
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 35 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
36
us:Montereyv.DelMonteDunesatMonterey,Ltd.,526U.S.687(1999).
Thatcase,alreadydescribedaboveinmoredetail,involvednineteen
differentsiteplansandfiveformaldecisionsoverfiveyears.Id.at
698.Cityplannerskeptdemandingproposalswithfewerresidential
unitsafterthepropertyownerscompliedwiththepreviousdemand.
Id.at69598;seealsoTahoeSierra,535U.S.at33334(citingDelMonte
Dunesandsuggestingthatdelayinbadfaithcouldsupportatakings
claim).
InNationalRailroadPassengerCorp.v.Morgan,theSupreme
Courtallowedhostileworkenvironmentclaimstosimilarlybe
evaluatedintheirentirety.536U.S.101(2002).Inthatsituation,the
unlawfulemploymentpractice...cannotbesaidtooccuronany
particularday.Itoccursoveraseriesofdaysorperhapsyears....
Id.at115(internalquotationmarksomitted).Andeachactthat
makesuptheunlawfulconductislikelynotactionableonitsown.
Id.Asaresult,theSupremeCourtconcluded,hostilework
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 36 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
37
environmentclaimsaretimelysolongasanactcontributingtothat
hostileenvironmenttakesplacewithinthestatutorytimeperiod.
Id.at105.
Althoughthiswayofapplyingastatuteoflimitationsis
generallyusedintheemploymentdiscriminationcontext,wehave
notlimitedittothatareaalone.SeeShomov.CityofNewYork,579
F.3d176,18182(2dCir.2009)(concludingthatthecontinuing
violationdoctrinecanapplytoEighthAmendmentdeliberate
indifferenceclaims);seealsoFahsConstr.Grp.,Inc.v.Gray,725F.3d
289,292(2dCir.2013)(percuriam)(concludingthatforEqual
Protectionclaimsbroughtunder1983,[w]hereaplaintiff
challengesacontinuouspracticeandpolicyofdiscrimination...the
commencementofthestatuteoflimitationsperiodmaybedelayed
untilthelastdiscriminatoryactinfurtheranceofit(internal
quotationmarksomitted)).
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 37 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
38
Here,Shermansclaimisbasedonanunusualseriesof
regulationsandtacticalmaneuversthatconstitutesatakingwhen
consideredtogether,eventhoughnosinglecomponentis
unconstitutionalwhenconsideredinisolation.Asinthecontextof
thecasesdescribedabove,itcannotbesaidthatShermansproperty
wastakenonanyparticularday.ButbecauseShermanalleges
thatatleastoneoftheactscomprisingthetakingoccurredwithin
threeyearsoffilingthecase,hisclaimisnottimebarred.We
thereforeneednotreachtheissueofwhetherthelimitationsperiod
istolledunder28U.S.C1367(d).
II. OtherFederalClaims
TheDistrictCourtruledthatotherfederalclaimswereunripe
forthesamereasonitconcludedShermanstakingsclaimwas
unripe.BecausewehavedeterminedthatShermanstakingsclaim
was,infact,ripe,theDistrictCourtsrulingcannolongerstand.
Therefore,forthefederalnontakingsclaimsthatweredismissed
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 38 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
39
solelyonripenessgrounds,theDistrictCourtshouldconsideron
remandwhetherShermanstatedaclaim.
Someclaims,however,theDistrictCourtdismissedforfailure
tostateaclaim.Theywere(A)claimsunder42U.S.C.1981and
1982;and(B)aproceduraldueprocessclaimbasedontheTowns
consultantsfeelaw.Thoseclaimswereproperlydismissed.
A. Section1981andSection1982Claims
TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatShermandidnotstatea
claimbasedon1981,anditdeniedasfutileShermansrequestto
addaclaimunder42U.S.C.1982forthesamereasonsitdismissed
the1981claim.SeeSherman,2013WL1148922,at*6n.6.
Forbothclaims,Shermanmustallegefactssupportingthe
Townsintenttodiscriminateagainsthimonthebasisofhisrace.
SeeRiverav.UnitedStates,928F.2d592,60708(2dCir.1991).Jews
areconsideredaraceforthepurposesof1981and1982.United
Statesv.Nelson,277F.3d164,177(2dCir.2002).
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 39 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
40
ShermansallegationsthattheTowndiscriminatedagainst
himbecausehewasJewishareinsufficient.Hestatesthatthe
municipalDefendantsknewthathewasJewish,andthatata
TownBoardmeeting,heheardTowncitizensexpressfearthat
MareBrookmightbecomeaHassidicVillagelikethenearby
KiryasJoel.Healsoallegesthatamodelhomewasvandalized
withaspraypaintedswastika.However,noneofthisislinkedto
anyTownofficial.Nordoesheallegethatanysimilarlysituated
nonJewsweretreateddifferently.Therefore,theDistrictCourt
correctlydismissedthe1981claimanddeniedShermanleaveto
amendtoaddthe1982claim.
B. DueProcessChallengetoConsultantsFeeLaw
TheDistrictCourtalsoproperlydismissedShermansclaim
thattheTownsimpositionofitsconsultantsfeelawdidnot
providesufficientproceduraldueprocess.TownCode483
providesthatanapplicantforapprovalofanylanddevelopment
proposalshallreimbursetheTownsreasonablefees.Pursuantto
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 40 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
41
485(A),[a]napplicantmayappeal,inwriting,totheTownBoard
forareductionintherequiredreimbursementamount.Theappeal
mustbefiledwithinfifteendaysfromthedeliveryofthevoucher
itemizingtheservicesperformedandtheamountchargedforthose
services.485(B);483(K)(L).Theitemizedvoucheris
accompaniedbyanotice,informingtheapplicantofthese
requirements.483(L).
Shermanmakestwoargumentsinsupportofhisdueprocess
claim.
4
First,hearguesthattheTowndidnotprovideSherman
withactualnoticeofwhathewasbeingaskedtopayfor....
AppellantsBrief58.However,thecomplaintstatesthatwhilehe
initiallydidnotreceiveinvoicesfortherequiredconsultantsfees,

4
Shermansargumentsinsupportofthedueprocessclaimraisedforthefirst
timeinhisreplybriefarewaived.SeeJPMorganChaseBankv.AltosHornosde
Mexico,S.A.deC.V.,412F.3d418,428(2dCir.2005)([A]rgumentsnotmadein
anappellantsopeningbriefarewaivedeveniftheappellantpursuedthose
argumentsinthedistrictcourtorraisedtheminareplybrief.).Wealsodonot
considerShermansargumentthattheprovisionsinquestionviolatedNewYork
lawbecausetheDistrictCourtdeclinedtoexercisesupplementaljurisdiction
overthatclaim.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 41 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
42
thePlanningBoardeventuallyprovidedPlaintiffwithits
consultantsinvoices....
ShermanalsoarguesthattheTowndidnotallowapre
deprivationhearingwhenhecomplained....AppellantsBrief58
59.However,Shermandidnotobjecttothefeesinthe15days
requiredby485(A).Hereceivedtheinvoiceforthe$25,000feein
February2010.HepaidthefeeinMarchofthatyear.Hedidnot
didnotappealthefeeuntilJune24,2011overayearafterthehe
receivedtheinvoices.
5

Inshort,Shermandoesnotallegethathewasnotprovided
withanopportunitytobeheard.Rather,heallegesthathedidnot
takeadvantageofthatopportunity.[I]freasonablenoticeand

5
Thecomplaintalsoreferencesatimelyfiledappealin2010.However,the
complaintexplicitlystatesthatShermanfiledtheappealonJune24,2011and
doesnototherwisementiona2010appeal.Althoughfactualallegationsofa
complaintarenormallyacceptedastrueonamotiontodismiss,thatprinciple
doesnotapplytogeneralallegationsthatarecontradictedbymorespecific
allegationsinthe[c]omplaint.DPWNHoldings(USA),Inc.v.UnitedAirLines,
Inc.,F.3d,2014WL1244184,at*6(2dCir.Mar.27,2014)(internalcitation
andquotationmarksomitted).Moreover,theappealstimelinessisalegal
conclusionthatweneednotacceptastrue.SeeAshcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678
(2009).
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 42 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
43
opportunityforahearingaregiven,dueprocesswillbesatisfied,
regardlessof...whethertheownertakesadvantageofthe
opportunityforahearing.Brodyv.Vill.ofPortChester,434F.3d121,
131(2dCir.2005);seealsoSmigav.DeanWitterReynolds,Inc.,766
F.2d698,70809(2dCir.1985)(rejectingproceduraldueprocess
challengetotheimpositionofcostsandattorneysfeesbecausethe
partyhadanopportunitytobeheardbutfailedtotakeadvantage
oftheopportunity).TheDistrictCourtthereforeproperly
dismissedthisclaim.
III. StateLawClaims
TheDistrictCourtdeclinedtoexercisesupplemental
jurisdictionoverShermansstatelawclaimsonthegroundthatit
haddismissedallofhisfederalclaims.BecauseShermanstatedat
leastonefederalclaim,wealsovacatetheDistrictCourtsdecision
toremandthestatelawclaimstostatecourt.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 43 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
44
CONCLUSION
BecauseofthewaytheTownhandledShermansMareBrook
proposalandsubsequentlitigation,Shermansclaimbecameripe.
Accordingtotheallegationsinthecomplaint,whichwetakeastrue
forthesepurposes,theTownemployedadecadeofunfairand
repetitiveprocedures,whichmadeseekingafinaldecisionfutile.
TheTownalsounfairlymanipulatedthelitigationofthecaseina
waythatmighthavepreventedShermanfromeverbringinghis
takingsclaim.Itremovedthecasefromstatecourt,andthenmoved
todismissonthegroundthatthetakingsclaimmustbeheardin
statecourt.Wecannotacceptthistactic.Throughoutitall,the
TownpreventedShermanfromdevelopinghisland.HadtheTown
actedmorereasonably,theclaimmayneverhavebecomeripe,and
notakingmayeverhadoccurred.WeREVERSEtheDistrictCourts
decisiontodismissShermansfederaltakingsclaim.
BecausetheWilliamsonCountyripenessrequirementsare
satisfied,weVACATEtheDistrictCourtsdecisiontotheextentit
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 44 05/16/2014 1226083 45
SHERMANV.TOWNOFCHESTER
45
dismissedShermansfederalnontakingsclaimssolelyonripeness
grounds.Onremand,theDistrictCourtmayconsiderwhether
Shermanhassufficientlystatedthoseclaims.
WeAFFIRMtheDistrictCourtsdecision(1)todismiss
Shermans1981claim,(2)todenyShermanleavetoamendtoadd
a1982claim,and(3)todismissShermansproceduraldueprocess
claimbasedontheconsultantsfeelaw.
Becauseatleastonefederalclaimhasbeenstated,we
VACATEtheDistrictCourtsdecisiontodeclinetoexercise
supplementaljurisdictionoverShermansstatelawclaimsonthe
groundthatallthefederalclaimshadbeendismissed.Onremand,
theDistrictCourtmayreconsiderwhethertoexercisesupplemental
jurisdictioninlightofthenewpostureofthecase.
WeREMANDtotheDistrictCourtforfurtherproceedings
consistentwiththisopinion.
Case: 13-1503 Document: 98-1 Page: 45 05/16/2014 1226083 45