Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County, No. 13-12383 (11th Cir. June 18, 2014)

Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County, No. 13-12383 (11th Cir. June 18, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,483|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County, No. 13-12383 (11th Cir. June 18, 2014)
Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County, No. 13-12383 (11th Cir. June 18, 2014)

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jun 18, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





[PUBLISH]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________  No. 13-12383 ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-00819-SDM-TBMHILLCREST PROPERTY, LLC,Plaintiff-Appellee,versusPASCO COUNTY,Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Middle District of Florida  _________________________ (June 18, 2014)Before TJOFLAT, FAY and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.
ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge:
Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
 by designation.
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 1 of 10
In this civil rights action, brought by Hillcrest Property, LLC (“Hillcrest”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Pasco County appeals from the District Court’sdecision granting a partial summary judgment on Hillcrest’s motion and issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Right-of-Way PreservationOrdinance (“Ordinance”). The District Court held that the Ordinance faciallyviolates substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that thisclaim was not barred by the statute of limitations. It also denied Pasco County’smotion for summary judgment on Hillcrest’s as-applied substantive due processclaim. No final judgment has been entered in this matter because Hillcrest’s as-applied claim is still pending before the District Court. We have jurisdiction over the District Court’s interlocutory order granting a permanent injunction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We also have pendent jurisdiction over the DistrictCourt’s order granting Hillcrest’s motion for partial summary judgment based onits claim that the Ordinance is a facial substantive due process violation.
See Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
 In re Bayshore Ford TrucksSales, Inc.
), 471 F.3d 1233, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that federal courts have pendent appellate jurisdiction over an “otherwise nonappealable interlocutoryorder” if it is “‘inextricably intertwined’ with or ‘necessary to ensure themeaningful review’ of an injunctive order.” (quoting
 Hudson v. Hal
, 231 F.3d2
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 2 of 10
1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000))).
We vacate the permanent injunction and summary judgment on Hillcrest’s facial challenge because we are persuaded that the statuteof limitations began running on the date the Ordinance was enacted.
The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (“Commissioners”)enacted the Right-of-Way Preservation Ordinance on November 22, 2005. It is part of a comprehensive plan to expand public highways in the county by 2025. (Doc. No. 36, Exh. E.) One of the highways set for expansion within this plan isState Road 52 (“SR 52”). (Doc. No. 36, Exhs. B–D.) The Ordinance requireslandowners whose property encroaches on SR 52 to convey in fee simple a portionof their property as a condition for receiving a development permit from theCounty. (ER 125; Pasco County Land Development Code § 901.2(H).) TheOrdinance also contains a provision allowing developers to seek a dedicationwaiver upon a showing that the “amount of land required to be dedicated to theCounty . . . exceeds the amount of land that is roughly proportional to thetransportation impacts of the proposed development site.” (ER 126–30; PascoCounty Land Development Code § 901.2(I).)Hillcrest, a property development company, has owned propertyencroaching on SR 52 since April 2001. (Doc. No. 36, Exh. A.) On October 21,3
Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 3 of 10

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->