Carminucci v. Pennelle

Background

The defendants asked the court to reconsider part of an earlier decision by Judge Lisa Margaret Smith. That earlier decision had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including denying summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim concerning enforcement of the Mount Pleasant Town Code’s site-plan requirement.

The property had previously received a special-use permit in October 1994. The court stated that the Town Code required special-use permits for automobile repair garages, required a site plan with a special-use-permit application, and required renewal of those permits every 15 years. The defendants confirmed that these provisions were in effect in 2015. The record did not show that the plaintiffs had properly submitted a site plan or special-use-permit application after the prior permit expired in October 2009.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the defendants had met the demanding standard for reconsideration because the earlier decision had not specifically addressed whether the Town Code provisions concerning special-use permits for automobile repair garages applied to the site-plan issue.

The court found that Defendant Sal Pennelle had probable cause to issue a violation for failing to obtain the site-plan approvals needed to operate a repair garage. Probable cause means a reasonable basis, based on the known facts and law, for taking the challenged action. The court explained that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliation claim based on an allegation that the defendants prosecuted a plaintiff because of retaliatory motives. The court therefore held that probable cause defeated the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim to the extent it was based on the site-plan violation.

The court separately noted that the plaintiffs focused on selective enforcement, but Judge Smith had already granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs’ selective-enforcement claim concerning the site-plan requirement, and the plaintiffs had not asked the court to reconsider that ruling.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause granted the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the portion of Judge Smith’s decision that had denied summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim concerning the site-plan requirement. The court dismissed that portion of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim. The order did not state that the entire action was dismissed.