Herman v. Town of Cortlandt, Inc.

Background

The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ takings claim for failure to exhaust state remedies. After the Supreme Court decided Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, the court ordered the defendants to explain why the case should not be reopened under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which permits relief from a judgment in specified circumstances. The plaintiffs also submitted what appeared to be a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Takings claim

The defendants largely conceded that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the judgment on the takings claim. They argued, however, that the claim still failed the finality requirement because the alleged mistaken destruction of the plaintiffs’ property was not a final decision by the Town. The court rejected that argument, relying on its earlier ruling and cited Second Circuit and district court authority that a physical taking satisfies the finality requirement.

The court concluded that the defendants had not shown cause why the case should remain closed, at least as to the takings claim. It vacated the prior order and corresponding judgment, except as to the procedural due process and Freedom of Information Act claims, and reopened the case. The court stated that the defendants could raise their additional arguments later, if appropriate. Those arguments included alleged duplication of official-capacity claims, failure to exhaust the state Freedom of Information Law claim, expiration of the state-law property-damage claim, insufficient allegations of the individual defendants’ personal involvement, and failure of the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim to state a cause of action.

Other claims and preliminary injunction

The procedural due process, substantive due process, and Freedom of Information Act claims remained invalid for the alternative reasons given in the earlier order. The court therefore granted no relief from judgment as to those claims.

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the plaintiffs had not shown imminent, irreparable harm that could not be remedied by money damages.

Disposition

Judge Seibel denied the preliminary-injunction motion, vacated the prior order and judgment except as to the due process and Freedom of Information Act claims, and reopened the case. The parties were directed to appear for a status conference on January 29, 2020, and the Clerk was directed to vacate the specified documents, reopen the case, and send the order to the plaintiffs.