Ugorets v. City of Shorewood

Background

Alex and Elena Ugorets alleged that their single-family residence, located on Brentwood Avenue in Tonka Bay, bordered Shorewood and abutted Timber Lane, a Shorewood cul-de-sac. An unpaved driveway on the property had been used for more than twelve years to access Timber Lane. After Shorewood residents objected to that use, Shorewood installed a barrier on May 10, 2021, blocking the driveway and preventing the Ugorets from accessing Timber Lane.

The Ugorets asserted three claims: an inverse-condemnation claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, a takings claim under Article I, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution, and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. They sought money damages and temporary and permanent injunctive relief.

Fifth Amendment Takings Claim

The court denied dismissal of the Fifth Amendment takings claim against the City of Shorewood. An inverse-condemnation claim alleges that government action effectively takes or devalues private property without providing just compensation. The court concluded that the complaint sufficiently alleged a protected property interest in access to Timber Lane. It relied on the allegation that the property directly abutted the road and stated that whether the property actually abutted Timber Lane, including the effect of the municipal boundary, was a factual dispute that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court did not allow the request for injunctive relief to proceed. It stated that equitable relief is unavailable when money compensation can remedy an alleged taking and found no indication that damages would be insufficient. The Fifth Amendment claim therefore proceeded only as a claim for just compensation.

Minnesota Constitutional Takings Claim

The court granted dismissal of the state constitutional inverse-condemnation claim. Minnesota courts require this type of claim to be brought through a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Ugorets instead relied on Minnesota Statute § 117.025, which defines a taking but does not create a private right of action to enforce a constitutional right. The court concluded that the Ugorets had not followed the required procedure.

Conspiracy Claim

The court granted dismissal of the conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. A claim under Section 1985(3) requires, among other things, a conspiracy motivated by class-based discriminatory intent. The court found that the Ugorets did not allege that they belonged to a protected class or that the defendants acted with discriminatory intent. It also held that the defendants, as members of a government entity, could not conspire among themselves unless they acted outside their official duties for their own personal benefit, which the Ugorets did not allege. Because the Section 1985 claim failed, the related Section 1986 claim also failed.

Proper Parties

The court held that the City of Shorewood was the only proper defendant for the Fifth Amendment takings claim. It dismissed the Shorewood City Council because state law did not establish that the council could be sued separately from the city. It dismissed the individual defendants—Jennifer Labadie, Paula Callies, Debbie Siakel, Patrick Johnson, Nathaniel Gorham, Greg Lerud, Larry Brown, Marie Darling, and Tim Keane—as redundant parties or, in the case of the takings claim, because the alleged taking was attributable to the city rather than to them individually. The court also treated the individual-capacity allegations as official-capacity claims because the complaint did not specify the capacity in which the individuals were sued.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Shorewood, the Shorewood City Council, and the other listed defendants. It granted the motion as to the claims against the council and individual defendants, the Sections 1985(3) and 1986 conspiracy claim, and the Minnesota Constitution inverse-condemnation claim. It denied the motion as to the Fifth Amendment takings claim against the City of Shorewood. The court granted Tim Keane’s separate motion to dismiss as to all claims against him and denied his request for costs and disbursements. Judge Tunheim did not state that any dismissed claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.