Herman v. Town of Cortlandt, Inc.

Background

Kathleen Herman and Jeff Ghiazza alleged that they owned a trailer on Lot 45 of the Riveredge Mobile Home Park in the Town of Cortlandt. They alleged that they discovered on or about February 22, 2016, that the trailer was gone and later learned that Robert Dyckman had demolished it. The complaint alleged that Dyckman acted under instructions from the Town.

The case originally named Robert Dyckman as “Robert Dykeman.” The court stated that Dyckman was the correct spelling and used it throughout the opinion. The plaintiffs appeared without lawyers. The opinion states that Ghiazza submitted opposition to the motion but that Herman did not, and that Ghiazza could not represent Herman.

The case’s remaining claim against Dyckman was a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought against him in his individual capacity. The court had previously dismissed the claim against Dyckman in his official capacity as duplicative of the claim against the Town. The court also previously denied a motion to dismiss the takings claim against the Town and Dyckman and Chris Kehoe in their individual capacities, while granting dismissal of the plaintiffs’ negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Motion and legal standard

Dyckman moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), or alternatively for summary judgment. Because the court did not consider materials outside the pleadings, it declined to convert the motion into a summary-judgment motion. It applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Under that standard, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions as true. The plaintiffs’ status as people without lawyers required the court to read their filings with special consideration, but it did not allow the court to invent factual allegations or excuse compliance with substantive and procedural law.

Court’s analysis

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without paying just compensation. The court treated the alleged demolition of the trailer as a physical taking.

The court concluded that a Takings Clause claim cannot be brought against a government official in the official’s individual capacity. It reasoned that the constitutional violation involves a government entity taking private property for a public purpose and owing compensation, which is inconsistent with imposing personal liability on an individual employee. The court noted that the Second Circuit had not addressed the issue but found decisions from other courts persuasive.

Because the plaintiffs’ claim against Dyckman was brought in his individual capacity, the court held that the claim failed as a matter of law. It therefore did not address Dyckman’s alternative arguments that he lacked sufficient personal involvement or was protected by qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted Dyckman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and to terminate Dyckman—incorrectly sued as Robert Dykeman—as a defendant. The opinion did not state that the entire case was dismissed or resolve the claims against the other defendants.