South Commons Condo. Assn. v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 South Commons Condo. Assn. v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 2244 13- 2248

SOUTH COMMONS CONDOMI NI UM ASSOCI ATI ON; DONALD E. HOUGHTON;J UDI TH A. HOUGHTON; PETER A. ZORZI ; SOUTH MAI N REALTY, LLC;

SH REALTY, LLC; J OSEPH M. LAVI NSKI ; J UDI TH D. LAVI NSKI ;DALE ELLI OT BASS; LUCY M. PETERSON; MI CHELLE J . KACZENSKI ;STUDI O ONE, I NC. ; BALBONI ASSOCI ATES, I NC. ; MBL HOUSI NG ANDDEVELOPMENT, I NC. ; GREGORY P. ZORZI ; EDWARD A. PESSOLANO;

J AVI ER MULERO, d/ b/ a Di val i ci ous Sal on; THOMAS M. BOVENZI ,

Tr ust ee of Mai n- Hubbar d Real t y; MADELI NE R. ZORZI ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s /Cr oss- Appel l ees,

v.

CHARLI E ARMENT TRUCKI NG, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee/Cr oss- Appel l ant ,

CI TY OF SPRI NGFI ELD, MA; DOMENI C J . SARNO, J R. , Mayor ofSpr i ngf i el d; STEVEN DESI LETS, Spr i ngf i el d Bui l di ng Commi ssi oner ;DAVI D COTTER, Deput y Di r ector of Code Enf orcement , Spr i ngf i el d

Housi ng Di vi si on,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.


2/25

J ohn J . McCar t hy, wi t h whom J esse W. Bel cher - Ti mme andDoher t y, Wal l ace, Pi l l sbur y and Mur phy P. C. wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ant s/ cross- appel l ees.

Kara Thorval dsen, wi t h whom Geor ge C. Rockas and Wi l son,El ser , Moskowi t z, Edel man and Di cker LLP wer e on br i ef , f or

appel l ee/ cross- appel l ant .Edward Pi kul a, wi t h whomLi sa DeSousa, Ant hony Wi l son, and

t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d Law Depar t ment wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ees.

December 23, 2014


3/25

BARRON, Circuit Judge. On J une 1, 2011, a devast at i ng

t or nado st r uck t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s. The t wi st er

r i pped t hrough t he downtown ar ea and caused a gr eat deal of damage.

Among the bui l di ngs af f ect ed wer e t he South Commons Condomi ni ums.

Thi s appeal concer ns t he l awsui t t he owner s of t hose bui l di ngs

br ought agai nst t he Ci t y, i t s of f i ci al s, and one of i t s

contractors. 1

The owner s chose t o name t hose def endant s because t he

dest r uct i on of t he bui l di ngs di d not r esul t - - at l east not

di r ect l y - - f r om t he unpr ecedent edl y hi gh wi nds t hat st unned t he

Ci t y t hat day. The dest r uct i on i nst ead r esul t ed f r om t he

demol i t i on t he Ci t y or der ed - - and t he cont r act or car r i ed out - -

j ust one day af t er t he t or nado hi t .

I n seeki ng damages f or t he l oss, t he owner s say t he

t or nado di d not cause enough har mt o t hei r bui l di ngs t o j ust i f y t he

Ci t y' s dr ast i c response. And t he owner s f ur t her say t he Ci t y act ed

pr eci pi t ousl y - - and, ul t i mat el y unconst i t ut i onal l y - - i n r azi ng

t he bui l di ngs wi t hout l et t i ng t hem show how t he bui l di ngs coul d

1 I n addi t i on t o t he owner s, t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t he l awsui ti ncl ude some of t he bui l di ngs' r esi dent i al and commer ci al t enant s,as wel l as t he Sout h Commons Condomi ni umAssoci at i on. For ease of

exposi t i on, we wi l l r ef er t o t he gr oup col l ect i vel y as " t he owner s"t hr oughout .

The Ci t y of f i ci al s named as def endant s wer e Domeni c J . Sar no( t he Mayor of Spr i ngf i el d) , St even Desi l et s ( Spr i ngf i el d' s Bui l di ngCommi ssi oner ) , and Davi d Cot t er ( Spr i ngf i el d' s Housi ng Di vi si on' sDeput y Di r ect or of Code Enf or cement ) . But agai n f or si mpl i ci t y' ssake, we wi l l r ef er onl y t o t he Ci t y.

-3-


4/25

have been saved. The Ci t y def ends t he demol i t i on as a pr oper

r esponse t o an unpr ecedent ed nat ur al di sast er . But t he Ci t y al so

argues t he pr ocess i t used t o make t hat emergency j udgment f ol l owed

Massachuset t s l aw and sat i sf i ed t he demands of t he f ederal

Const i t ut i on - - at l east gi ven t he al l owance t he Ci t y says t he

f eder al Const i t ut i on makes f or swi f t ( and t hus somet i mes mi st aken)

government al ef f or t s t o deal wi t h t he i mmedi ate danger s damaged

pr oper t i es somet i mes pose.

I n deci di ng t hi s appeal , we, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t ,

consi der onl y t he f eder al const i t ut i onal due pr ocess i ssues. We

l eave t he owner s' var i ous st at e l aw cl ai ms t o t he mor e appr opr i at e

f or um: t he st at e cour t s. And i n r esol vi ng t he f eder al

const i t ut i onal i ssues, we, l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t , do not deci de

whet her t he Ci t y' s deci si on t o demol i sh t he bui l di ngs was t he r i ght

one t o make. We deci de onl y t hat , on t he r ecor d bef ore us, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t cor r ect l y concl uded t he demol i t i on di d not depr i ve

t he owner s of t hei r pr oper t y i n vi ol at i on of t he f eder al

Const i t ut i on' s guar ant ee of due pr ocess of l aw. Cr i t i cal t o t hat

j udgment , mor eover , i s our concl usi on t hat Massachuset t s of f er s an

adequat e r emedy f or what ever wr ongf ul l oss t he owner s may have

suf f er ed i n consequence of t he Ci t y' s act i ons. For t hese r easons,

we af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s j udgment di smi ssi ng t he owner s'

f eder al sui t under 42 U. S. C. 1983 wi t h pr ej udi ce and t hei r

pendent st at e l aw cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce.

-4-


5/25

I.

The t or nado cut t hrough t he cent er of t he Ci t y and caused

si gni f i cant damage t hr oughout t he downt own. Both t he Massachuset t s

governor and t he Spr i ngf i el d mayor decl ared a st ate of emergency.

Ci t y of f i ci al s qui ckl y determi ned t he Sout h Commons Condomi ni ums - -

a compl ex consi st i ng of bui l di ngs l ocat ed at 959- 991 Mai n St r eet ,

14 Hubbar d Avenue, and 133 Uni on St r eet - - wer e among the

pr oper t i es t hat suf f er ed si gni f i cant damage. Char l i e Ar ment

Tr ucki ng, I nc. , a pr i vat e company hi r ed by t he Ci t y, demol i shed

most of t hose bui l di ngs t he next eveni ng, J une 2, 2011. Onl y one

of t he condomi ni um uni t s, Uni t 10, was l ef t st andi ng.

Those basi c f act s ar e not i n di sput e. We r eci t e t he r est

as t he pl ai nt i f f s descr i be t hem i n t hei r compl ai nt , as we do when

we r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o gr ant a mot i on t o di smi ss.

See SEC v. Tambone, 597 F. 3d 436, 438 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) .

The Nat i onal Guar d and t he st at e pol i ce r est r i ct ed access

t o par t s of t he Ci t y. They evacuat ed t he r esi dent s of t he Sout h

Commons Condomi ni ums. The Ci t y ordered r esi dent s t o l eave t he

bui l di ngs. The r esi dent s wer e not al l owed t o r et ur n t o t he

bui l di ngs even though they coul d have been made saf e enough to

al l ow f or r et r i eval of t hei r cont ent s. The Ci t y pr ovi ded no not i ce

t o t he resi dent s of t he Sout h Commons Condomi ni ums t hat t he Ci t y

bel i eved t he bui l di ngs present ed an i mmedi at e danger t o publ i c

saf et y t hat woul d r equi r e t hei r demol i t i on. Thus, t he r esi dent s

-5-


6/25

wer e gi ven no oppor t uni t y t o at t empt t o st op t he demol i t i on. Nor

wer e engi neer i ng st udi es or anal yses under t aken t o conf i r mt he need

t o addr ess t he danger t he bui l di ngs posed or t o assess whet her t he

bui l di ngs mi ght be spar ed.

Never t hel ess, Char l i e Ar ment Tr ucki ng, I nc. , t he pr i vat e

demol i t i on company hi r ed by and act i ng at t he di r ect i on of t he

Ci t y, t ook down t he Sout h Commons Condomi ni ums i n a mat t er of

hour s. 2 Onl y days l at er di d Ci t y of f i ci al s i ssue or der s, addr essed

t o i ndi vi dual uni t - owner s, t enant s, and to t he Sout h Commons

Condomi ni um Tr ust , r el at i ng t o t he demol i t i on. 3

Af er t he passage of near l y a year , t he owner s of t he

Sout h Commons Condomi ni ums f i l ed sui t i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t f or

damages agai nst t he Ci t y, sever al Ci t y of f i ci al s, and Char l i e

Ar ment Tr ucki ng, I nc. The sui t cl ai med vi ol at i ons of t he owner s'

pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght s under 42 U. S. C.

1983, as wel l as var i ous vi ol at i ons of Massachuset t s st at e l aw.

The Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed t he f eder al cl ai ms wi t h prej udi ce

under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) and di smi ssed t he

2 The Ci t y l ater sought t o i mpose a l i en on t he Sout h CommonsCondomi ni ums f or t he amount of t he demol i t i on cost s.

3 The orders began i ssui ng on J une 8, 2011, and t he Ci t y sentt hemt o t he r eci pi ent s' al t er nat e addr esses i n some i nst ances, andal so, i n some cases, t o t hei r addr esses at t he Sout h CommonsCondomi ni ums. I n some cases, moreover , t he orders were t o vacat et he bui l di ngs - - somet hi ng t hat was not possi bl e gi ven t hey hadbeen demol i shed al r eady.

-6-


7/25

st at e cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce as an exer ci se of i t s di scret i on t o

deal wi t h pendent cl ai ms. Thi s appeal by t he owner s f ol l owed. 4

II.

We st ar t wi t h t he owner s' const i t ut i onal concer ns about

t he pr ocesses t he Ci t y used - - or r at her , di d not use bef or e t he

demol i t i on. And, t o do so, we eval uat e t he demol i t i on wi t h

r ef er ence t o t he st at e l aw t hat aut hor i zed i t . See Zi ner mon v.

Bur ch, 494 U. S. 113, 126 ( 1990) ( " [ T] o determi ne whether a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on has occur r ed, i t i s necessar y t o ask what

pr ocess t he St at e pr ovi ded, and whet her i t was const i t ut i onal l y

adequate. Thi s i nqui r y woul d exami ne t he pr ocedur al saf eguards

bui l t i nt o t he st at ut or y or admi ni st r at i ve pr ocedur e of ef f ect i ng

t he depr i vat i on, and any r emedi es f or er r oneous depr i vat i ons

pr ovi ded by st at ut e or t or t l aw. ") .

4 The owner s argue the Di st r i ct Cour t i mpr oper l y rel i ed onmat er i al s out si de of t he pl eadi ngs i n r ul i ng on t he mot i on t odi smi ss . However ,

[ a] mot i on t o di smi ss i s not aut omat i cal l y t r ansf or medi nto a mot i on f or summar y j udgment si mpl y because mat t er sout si de t he pl eadi ngs ar e f i l ed wi t h, and not expr essl yr ej ect ed by, t he di str i ct cour t . I f t he di str i ct cour tchooses t o i gnore t he suppl ement ary mater i al s anddetermi nes t he mot i on under t he Rul e 12( b) ( 6) st andard,

no conver si on occur s.

Gar i t a Hot el Lt d. P' shi p v. Ponce Fed. Bank, F. S. B. , 958 F. 2d 15,18 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . Revi ewi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der , we ar esat i sf i ed t hat suppl ement al mat er i al s, t hough ment i oned "t o f i l l i nt he backgr ound, " were pr oper l y excl uded i n t he act ual det er mi nat i onof t he mot i on under a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) st andar d.

-7-


8/25

We under t ake t hat eval uat i on de novo, whi ch i s t he same

st andard we use t o eval uate t he owners' subst ant i ve due pr ocess

cl ai m. We use t hi s st andar d as we ar e r evi ewi ng t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s deci si on t o di smi ss t hese cl ai ms pur suant t o Feder al Rul e

of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . See Vi st amar , I nc. v.

Fagundo- Fagundo, 430 F. 3d 66, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

A.

The par t i es agr ee t he Ci t y di d not provi de t he usual

guar ant ees of const i t ut i onal pr ocedur al due pr ocess - - not i ce and

an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d - - bef or e depr i vi ng t he owner s of t hei r

pr oper t y. But , i n some ci r cumst ances, t he const i t ut i onal r i ght t o

pr ocedur al due pr ocess does not act ual l y r equi r e t he use of t hose

advance saf eguards, at l east when t he st ate pr ovi des an adequate

r emedy af t er war ds - - or , as t he cases of t en say, post - depr i vat i on.

See, e. g. , Har r i s v. Ci t y of Akron, 20 F. 3d 1396, 1401 ( 6t h Ci r .

1994) ( "Such a pr ocedur e sat i sf i es t he ' f undament al r equi r ement of

due pr ocess' - - an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d ' at a meani ngf ul t i me

and i n a meani ngf ul manner . ' " ( quot i ng Par r at t v. Tayl or , 451 U. S.

527, 540 ( 1981) , over r ul ed i n par t on ot her gr ounds by, Dani el s v.

Wi l l i ams, 474 U. S. 327 ( 1986) ) ) .

And so, we must answer t wo quest i ons. Fi r st , we must

deci de whet her t hi s case i nvol ves t he ki nd of speci al ci r cumst ance

t hat woul d per mi t a demol i t i on t o pr oceed wi t hout t he use of t hose

advance pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons. And, second, i f t hi s case does

-8-


9/25

i nvol ve such a speci al ci r cumst ance, we must deci de whet her st at e

l aw suppl i es t he owner s wi t h an adequat e af t er - t he- f act r emedy f or

any wr ong t he Ci t y may have commi t t ed.

1.

"The Cour t has of t en acknowl edged . . . t hat summary

admi ni st r at i ve act i on may be j ust i f i ed i n emer gency si t uat i ons, "

Hodel v. Va. Sur f ace Mi ni ng & Recl amat i on Ass' n, I nc. , 452 U. S.

264, 299- 300 ( 1981) , and t he r eason i s not har d t o gr asp. By t hei r

natur e, emergency si t uat i ons requi r e an i mmedi ate r esponse. And,

i n consequence of " t he necessi t y of qui ck act i on by the St at e, "

Par r at t , 451 U. S. at 539, const i t ut i onal due pr ocess does not

r equi r e t he usual up- f r ont pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons i n deal i ng wi t h

emer genci es. The need f or speed, i n ot her wor ds, per mi t s t he

government t o t ake act i on t hat may cause a l oss t o pr oper t y wi t hout

f i r st not i f yi ng t he owner of t he pr oper t y or wai t i ng t o hear what

t hat owner has t o say, even though the government mi ght have saved

i t sel f f r om maki ng a cost l y mi st ake by t aki ng t he t i me t o gi ve

not i ce and t o wai t f or a r esponse. See San Gerni mo Car i be

Pr oj ect , I nc. v. Acevedo- Vi l , 687 F. 3d 465, 488 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( en banc) ( r equi r i ng "addi t i onal pr edepr i vat i on saf eguar ds woul d

def eat t he very pur pose of t he emergency st atut e" when " t he very

poi nt of [ t hese] emer gency pr ocedur es i s t o per mi t publ i c of f i ci al s

t o act pr ompt l y where there i s an emergency") ; El smere Park Cl ub,

L. P. v. Town of El smer e, 542 F. 3d 412, 419- 20 ( 3d Ci r . 2008)

-9-


10/25

( of f i ci al s' "f ar f r om per f ect " r esponse t o a heal t h hazar d was

per mi ssi bl e when " f aced wi t h a si t uat i on i n whi ch a f ai l ur e t o act

qui ckl y coul d have ser i ous heal t h consequences" ) ; Her wi ns v. Ci t y

of Rever e, 163 F. 3d 15, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( "No one can ser i ousl y

doubt t hat emer gency condi t i ons may exi st ( e. g. , a sever e f i r e

hazar d) t hat woul d warr ant a perempt ory shut down of a resi dent i al

bui l di ng. ") .

As t o what ci r cumst ance qual i f i es as an emergency t hat

mi ght j ust i f y such speedy act i on, t he Supr eme Cour t has obser ved

t hat a "depr i vat i on of pr oper t y t o pr ot ect t he publ i c heal t h and

saf et y i s ' [ o] ne of t he ol dest exampl es' of per mi ssi bl e summar y

act i on. " Hodel , 452 U. S. at 300 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Ewi ng v. Myt i nger & Cassel ber r y, I nc. , 339 U. S. 594, 599 ( 1950) ) .

Hodel i t sel f uphel d an emergency pr ocedur e t hat al l owed t he

Secr et ar y of t he I nt er i or t o i ssue summar y cessat i on or der s when a

mi ni ng operat i on posed an "i mmi nent danger t o t he heal t h and saf ety

of t he publ i c. " I d. at 301. And we have hel d si mi l ar l y i n

ci r cumst ances t hat are anal ogous, t hough not i dent i cal . I n San

Gerni mo, f or exampl e, we appr oved of an emergency pr ocedure f or

f r eezi ng const r uct i on wi t hout f i r st pr ovi di ng not i ce or an

oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he del ay. Ther e, Puer t o Ri co had put i n

pl ace t he summary pr ocedur e t o pr otect agai nst t he danger t o t he

publ i c t hat woul d r esul t i f t he gover nment di d not act qui ckl y.

687 F. 3d at 481- 82. And i n Her wi ns, we approved of an emergency

-10-


11/25

summary pr ocedur e f or order i ng a bui l di ng' s occupant s t o vacate due

t o danger s t he bui l di ng was t hought t o pose t o i t s i nhabi t ant s.

163 F. 3d at 18- 19.

Thi s case f i t s comf or t abl y wi t hi n t hi s l i ne of aut hor i t y.

The Ci t y asser t s t he r i ght t o car r y out t he demol i t i on under t he

gr ant of summary power cont ai ned i n chapt er 143, sect i on 7 of t he

Massachuset t s General Laws. 5 And whi l e, t o t he uni ni t i at ed, t hi s

st at ut or y scheme i s not ent i r el y cl ear , i t pl ai nl y does per mi t t he

Ci t y t o carr y out a summary demol i t i on of a damaged bui l di ng when

t he "publ i c saf et y . . . r equi r es" such "i mmedi at e[ ] " act i on t o

addr ess a "danger [ ] t o l i f e or l i mb. " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143,

6, 7. 6

5 The Ci t y al so r el i es on t wo r egul at i ons, sect i on 116. 3 andsect i on 5121. 3, bot h of whi ch cor r espond t o sect i on 7. See 780Mass. Code Regs. 116. 3, 5121. 3. The f or mer i s f r omt he gener albui l di ng code, and t he l at t er i s f r omt he speci al i zed bui l di ng code

appl i cabl e t o si ngl e and t wo- f ami l y dwel l i ngs. ( We ci t e t her egul at i ons - - f r omt he ei ght h edi t i on of t he gener al bui l di ng codeand t he sevent h edi t i on of t he code f or si ngl e- and t wo- f ami l ydwel l i ngs, r espect i vel y - - t hat wer e oper at i ve at t he t i me of t hedemol i t i on. )

6 The st at ut or y scheme aut hor i zes t he l ocal i nspect or t oi nspect bui l di ngs upon a r epor t of t hei r danger ousness: "The l ocali nspect or , i mmedi at el y upon bei ng i nf or med by repor t or ot her wi set hat a bui l di ng or ot her st r uct ur e or anyt hi ng at t ached t her et o orconnect ed t her ewi t h i n t hat ci t y or t own i s danger ous t o l i f e orl i mb . . . , shal l i nspect t he same. " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143,

6. Sect i on 6 of t he scheme t hen goes on t o pr ovi de t hat i n t heor di nar y case, t he i nspector "shal l f or t hwi t h i n wr i t i ng not i f y t heowner , l essee or mort gagee i n possessi on t o remove i t or make i tsaf e i f i t appear s t o hi m t o be danger ous . . . . " See al so 780Mass. Code Regs. 116. 2, 5121. 2. Sect i on 7 t hen pr ovi des t hat ,or di nar i l y, "[ a] ny per son so not i f i ed shal l be al l owed unt i l t wel veo' cl ock noon of t he day f ol l owi ng t he ser vi ce of t he not i ce i n

-11-


12/25

That t r i gger i ng st andar d, mor eover , i s at l east as

l i mi t i ng as the ones at i ssue i n San Gerni mo and Herwi ns. See San

Gerni mo, 687 F. 3d at 481 ( concl udi ng t he st andard aut hor i zed

summar y act i on onl y i n a "s i t uat i on i n whi ch t her e i s i mmi nent

danger t o t he publ i c heal t h, saf et y and wel f ar e or whi ch r equi r es

i mmedi at e act i on by the agency" ( quot i ng P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 3,

2167( a) ) ) ; Her wi ns, 163 F. 3d at 18- 19 ( concl udi ng emer gency l aw

aut hor i zed "an i mmedi at e shut down of a bui l di ng wher e an emergency

exi st s t hr eat eni ng heal t h or saf et y, " and t hus ensur ed "an

oppor t uni t y t o obj ect bef or e a bui l di ng i s shut down except

i n

emergenci es") . We are t hus not deal i ng wi t h an emergency st atut e

onl y i n f or m.

Tr ue, t hi s case i nvol ves a demol i t i on, whi ch was not at

i ssue i n ei t her Her wi ns or San Ger ni mo. But whi l e a demol i t i on

may cause a l oss mor e tot al ( i f not al ways mor e cost l y) t han a

del ayed st ar t t o const r uct i on or a t empor ar y or der t o vacat e, t he

dr ast i c nat ur e of t hat r esponse does not make t he j ust i f i cat i on f or

depar t i ng f r omt he or di nar y means of ensur i ng due pr ocess any l ess

whi ch t o begi n t o remove such st r uct ur e or make i t saf e, or t o makei t secur e. " I n an except i onal case, however , t he Ci t y may actsummar i l y: "[ B] ut i f t he publ i c saf et y so r equi r es and i f t he

al der men or sel ect men so or der , t he i nspect or of bui l di ngs mayi mmedi atel y ent er upon t he pr emi ses . . . and cause such unsaf est r uct ur e t o be made saf e or t aken down wi t hout del ay . . . . "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, 7. See, e. g. , Dagget t v. Bd. ofAssessors of Town of Saugus, 914 N. E. 2d 362, 362 n. 5 ( Mass. App.Ct . 2009) ( unpubl i shed) ( f i ndi ng t hat sect i on 7 al l owed " t he l ocali nspect or t o act expedi t i ousl y i n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ances" ) .

-12-


13/25

per suasi ve. I f a bui l di ng i s so badl y damaged i t must be

demol i shed i mmedi at el y t o pr ot ect l i f e and l i mb, t hen i t sur el y

poses a ser i ous danger t o the publ i c saf et y t hat must be addr essed

wi t h di spat ch. See Cat anzaro v. Wei den, 188 F. 3d 56, 62- 63 ( 2d

Ci r . 1999) ( f i ndi ng summar y demol i t i on of pr oper t y per mi ssi bl e t o

el i mi nat e an " i mmedi at e danger " t o publ i c saf et y) .

For t hese r easons, t he st at e l aw bef or e us i s not hi ng

l i ke t he stat e l aw t he Supr eme Cour t f ound const i t ut i onal l y

def i ci ent i n Zi ner mon v. Bur ch, 494 U. S. 113 ( 1990) . Cf . Har r i s,

20 F. 3d at 1404 ( hol di ng t hat t he "onl y avai l abl e cour se of act i on"

i n an emergency, not pr esent ed i n Zi nermon, i s t o t ake summary

act i on) . I n Zi ner mon, Fl or i da st at e l aw set f or t h pr ocedur es f or

both vol unt ary admi ss i on and i nvol unt ary commi t ment t o st ate ment al

hospi t al s. The pr ocesses f or t he f or mer wer e spar e whi l e t hose f or

t he l at t er i ncl uded t he t r adi t i onal r i ght s t o not i ce and a hear i ng.

The st at e l aw t hen del egat ed t o hospi t al empl oyees t he aut hor i t y t o

determi ne when t o i nvoke t he more pr otect i ve i nvol unt ary commi t ment

saf eguar ds. The st at e l aw t her ef or e conf er r ed upon t hose hospi t al

empl oyees t he di scr et i on not t o i nvoke t hose saf eguar ds, wi t h t he

r esul t t hat pat i ent s who pr esent ed t hemsel ves f or admi ssi on but who

wer e unabl e t o gi ve i nf or med consent coul d i n ef f ect be

i nvol unt ar i l y commi t t ed wi t hout f or mal pr ocess. Zi ner mon, 494 U. S.

at 122- 23.

-13-


14/25

Zi nermon concl uded i t was pr act i cal t o i mpose more

pr ocedur al saf eguar ds at t he poi nt of admi ssi on t han t he st at e had

put i n pl ace. And t he Cour t al so concl uded i t was pr edi ct abl e t hat

an admi ss i on of someone unabl e t o pr ovi de i nf ormed consent woul d

ensue wi t hout t he use of gr eat er saf eguar ds at t he t i me of

admi ssi on, gi ven t he di f f i cul t y t hose seeki ng vol unt ar y admi ssi on

mi ght have i n maki ng an i nf ormed j udgment . I d. at 138- 39 ( "Such a

depr i vat i on i s f or eseeabl e, due t o t he nat ur e of ment al i l l ness,

and wi l l occur , i f at al l , at a pr edi ctabl e poi nt i n t he admi ssi on

pr ocess. " ) . As a r esul t , t he Cour t hel d t he hospi t al empl oyees

coul d be sued f or vi ol at i ng pr ocedur al due pr ocess. The t heor y was

t hat t he hospi t al empl oyees coul d be l i abl e f or "abus[ i ng] . . .

br oadl y del egat ed, unci r cumscr i bed power " i n choosi ng not t o use

t he i nvol unt ar y commi t ment pr ocess , wi t h t he not i ce and hear i ng

r i ght s t hat woul d have at t ended t hat more f ormal i zed method of

commi t ment . I d. at 136.

But sect i on 7 does not conf er "br oadl y del egat ed,

unci r cumscr i bed power" t o pr oceed i n summary f ashi on. See San

Gerni mo, 687 F. 3d at 486 ( quot i ng Zi nermon, 494 U. S. at 13536) .

The st at ute i nst ead mar ks of f "an except i on t o be used onl y i n

emer gency si t uat i ons. " I d. at 485. The Ci t y may car r y out a

summary demol i t i on onl y upon a det ermi nat i on a damaged proper t y i s

so danger ous t o l i f e and l i mb t hat i mmedi at e demol i t i on i s r equi r ed

t o pr ot ect " t he publ i c saf et y. " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, 6, 7.

-14-


15/25

Sect i on 7 t hus r ender s i mpr act i cal t he pr ovi si on of advance not i ce

and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d. Such up- f r ont pr ocesses woul d

i mpede t he Ci t y f r om doi ng what needs t o be done t o pr otect t he

publ i c f r omt he i mmedi ate danger t he summary demol i t i on pr ocedur e

i s desi gned t o addr ess.

Nor , we not e, i s t he appl i cat i on of t hi s t r i gger i ng

st andar d l ef t sol el y to t he l ocal i nspect or who - - under t he

st at ut e - - f i r st l ear ns of t he danger a bui l di ng pr esent s. Rat her ,

under sect i on 7 and i t s at t endant r egul at i ons, a summar y demol i t i on

may occur onl y i f an act or di r ect l y account abl e t o t he vot er s

concl udes t he st andar d f or summary act i on has been met . 7 For t hat

r eason, t oo, t he l aw consi der ed i n Zi ner mon i s f ar r emoved f r omt he

one we consi der here.

Of cour se, under Massachuset t s l aw, an of f i ci al may

concl ude i n a par t i cul ar case t hat t her e i s an i mmedi at e need t o

7 By t he expr ess t er ms of t he st at ut e, i t appear s t hat - - i nt he case of a ci t y - - t he "al der men" must pr ovi de t heaut hor i zat i on. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, 7. But t he r egul at i onsi ssued pur suant t o sect i on 7 pr ovi de t hat t he bui l di ng commi ssi onercan act i mmedi at el y - - agai n, i n t he case of a ci t y - - i f or der edby t he mayor . Bot h r egul at i ons pr ovi de t hat : "[ I ] f t he publ i csaf et y so requi r es and i f t he mayor or sel ect men so or der , t hebui l di ng of f i ci al may i mmedi at el y ent er upon t he pr emi ses wi t h t henecessary workmen and ass i st ant s and cause such unsaf e st r uct ur e t o

be made saf e or demol i shed wi t hout del ay . . . . " 780 Mass. CodeRegs. 116. 3, 5121. 3 ( emphasi s added) . Nei t her par t y r ai ses anyi ssue about whet her t hi s shi f t f r om t he al der man t o t he mayor i nt he r egul at i ons i s one t hat sect i on 7 per mi t s, and so we assume f ort he pur poses of t hi s case t hat t he r egul at i ons ar e val i dnot wi t hst andi ng t he way they depar t f r om t he pl ai n t ext of t heunder l yi ng st at ut e.

-15-


16/25


17/25

pr ovi des an adequate af t er - t he- f act r emedy f or any wr ongf ul summary

act i on, see Par r at t , 451 U. S. at 543- 44, al l egat i ons of t he ki nd of

" r andom and unaut hor i zed" mi st akes i n appl i cat i on that t hose who

wor k i n government somet i mes make ar e not enough t o st at e a

pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m, Hudson, 468 U. S. at 533. And t hus,

t he al l eged st at e l aw er r or - - i f er r or i t was - - cannot save t he

owner s' pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m, at l east so l ong as an

adequat e, post - hoc r emedy i s avai l abl e.

2.

We thus now t ur n t o a consi derat i on of whether

Massachuset t s makes avai l abl e an adequat e af t er - t he- f act r emedy f or

any wr ongs t he Ci t y may have commi t t ed i n car r yi ng out t he summary

demol i t i on. I n both San Gerni mo and Herwi ns, we f ound t he st ate

di d pr ovi de such a r emedy. San Gerni mo, 687 F. 3d at 490; Herwi ns,

163 F. 3d at 19- 20. And we f i nd t he same t o be t he case here.

The Ci t y i dent i f i es chapt er 139, sect i on 2 of t he

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws as t he st at e l aw t hat suppl i es t he post -

hoc remedy t he f eder al Const i t ut i on r equi r es. That st at ut e al l ows

a pr oper t y owner t o chal l enge an or der f or demol i t i on and t o seek

t o annul , al t er , or af f i r m t he or der . 8 Sect i on 2 al so aut hor i zes

8 Sect i on 2 pr ovi des t hat :

A person aggr i eved by such or der may appeal t o t hesuper i or cour t f or t he count y wher e such bui l di ng orot her st r uctur e i s si t uat ed, i f , wi t hi n t hr ee days af t ert he servi ce of such at t est ed copy upon hi m, he commencesa ci vi l act i on i n such cour t . Tr i al by j ur y shal l be had

-17-


18/25

a pr oper t y owner t o seek damages f or an al r eady- demol i shed

bui l di ng, at l east i n ci r cumst ances i n whi ch t he sui t under sect i on

2 began pr i or t o t he demol i t i on. Ci t y of Wor cest er v. Ei senbei ser ,

387 N. E. 2d 1154, 1156- 57 ( Mass. App. Ct . 1979) . And al t hough t he

or der s i n t hi s case wer e sent onl y af t er t he bui l di ngs had been

t or n down, t he Ci t y ar gues t hat a demol i t i on or der t hat post - dat es

a demol i t i on i s equal l y subj ect t o chal l enge and annul ment under

sect i on 2.

The t ext of sect i on 2 does not say ot her wi se, and we ar e

not aware of anyt hi ng el se i n Massachuset t s l aw t hat woul d suggest

t he r emedy pr ovi ded by sect i on 2 i s not avai l abl e f or a sui t

br ought post - demol i t i on. Nor t he do t he owner s poi nt t o anythi ng

i n maki ng concl usory asser t i ons to t he cont r ar y. Thei r compl ai nt

mer el y asser t s i n sweepi ng f ashi on t hat no adequat e st at e l aw

r emedi es exi st . They do par ent het i cal l y r ef er ence t he t ext of

sect i on 2 i n t hei r openi ng br i ef , and t he t ext of chapt er 143,

sect i on 10 of t he Massachuset t s Gener al Laws, whi ch cross-

r ef er ences sect i on 2, i n t hei r r epl y. 9 But t hey ci t e no case - -

as i n ot her ci vi l causes. The j ur y may af f i r m, annul oral t er such order . . . . [ I ] f i t i s annul l ed, he shal lr ecover f r om t he t own hi s damages, i f any, and cost s. . . .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 139, 2.

9 Sect i on 10 pr ovi des t hat :

An owner , l essee or mort gagee i n possessi on aggr i eved bysuch order may have t he r emedy prescr i bed by sect i on t wo

-18-


19/25

f eder al or st at e - - i nt er pr et i ng ei t her pr ovi si on, l et al one any

case suppor t i ng t hei r pr ef er r ed r eadi ng of t hem. Nor do t hey

addr ess t he cases ci t ed by t he Ci t y suggest i ng j ust t he opposi t e

r eadi ng i s t he bet t er one, see, e. g. , Ci t y of Wor cest er , 387 N. E. 2d

at 1156- 57 ( annul l i ng or der af t er demol i t i on) , or cope wi t h t he

possi bi l i t y t hat t he t ext of sect i on 10 i s agai nst t hem. I n f act ,

because sect i on 10 makes cl ear t he r emedy of sect i on 2 cannot del ay

swi f t act i on, sect i on 10 appear s t o i ndi cat e t he r emedy of sect i on

2 can be depl oyed post - demol i t i on, as at t hat poi nt t he r i sk of

such del ay i s none. See, e. g. , Aubuchon v. Com. of Mass. by &

t hr ough St ate Bl dg. Code Appeal s Bd. , 933 F. Supp. 90, 93 ( D. Mass.

1996) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he Massachuset t s r emedi al f r amewor k i n

sect i ons 2 and 10 was an adequate post - demol i t i on r emedy, and

suggesti ng i t s avai l abi l i t y i n t hat pl ai nt i f f s had "f i l ed a

separ at e ( and ongoi ng) ci vi l act i on i n t he Super i or Cour t pur suant

t o t he r emedi al st at ut e" ) .

The owner s do al so suggest t here may be a cap on t he

damages avai l abl e under sect i on 2 - - and, pr esumabl y, t hat t hi s cap

makes t he remedy a const i t ut i onal l y i nadequat e subst i t ut e f or

advance not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d. But no such cap

of chapt er one hundr ed and t hi r t y- ni ne; pr ovi ded, t hat nopr ovi si on of sai d sect i on t wo shal l be const r ued so as t ohi nder , del ay or pr event t he l ocal i nspect or act i ng andpr oceedi ng under sect i on ni ne . . . .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, 10.

-19-


20/25

act ual l y appear s on t he f ace of t he st at ut e. Nor does the Ci t y

cont end ot herwi se, havi ng conceded t he absence of any such cap at

oral argument . The owners ar gue such a cap exi st s onl y by

r ef er enci ng t he t ext of a di f f er ent r emedy, t he st at e' s Tor t Cl ai ms

Act , whi ch has a l i abi l i t y cap of $100, 000. See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 258, 2. They pr ovi de no expl anat i on f or why t hat cap woul d

be br oadl y appl i cabl e t o ot her r emedi al st at ut or y pr ovi si ons, nor

can we f i nd any aut hor i t y so suggest i ng. 10

We t hus bel i eve sect i on 2 does const i t ut e an adequate

r emedy. The owner s, havi ng chosen a f eder al f or um t o seek r el i ef

t hat depends at l east i n par t on t he meani ng of st at e l aw, shoul d

not "expect t he f eder al cour t t o st eer st at e l aw i nt o unpr ecedent ed

conf i gur at i ons, " Sant i ago v. Sher wi n Wi l l i ams Co. , 3 F. 3d 546, 549

( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , but t hat i s

what woul d be r equi r ed f or us t o f i nd sect i on 2 i nadequat e. And

so, l acki ng any aut hor i t y that woul d r equi r e us t o hol d

Massachuset t s i nt ends t o pr ecl ude t hi s uncapped post - demol i t i on

10 I n t hei r i ni t i al f i l i ngs i n t he Di str i ct Cour t , t he owner scl ai med damages of $23 mi l l i on. The owner s cl ai mt he l i abi l i t y capi n t he st at e' s Tor t Cl ai ms Act makes t he st at ut e i ncapabl e of f ul l ycompensat i ng f or t hei r l osses and t hus i nadequat e to count as aconst i t ut i onal subst i t ut e f or t he pr e- depr i vat i on pr ocess t hey wer edeni ed. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, 2. But i n l i ght of t he

uncapped r emedy i n sect i on 2 of chapter 139, see Mass. Gen. Lawsch. 139, 2, we need not consi der whet her t he st at e' s Tor t Cl ai msAct , gi ven i t s cap, woul d pr ovi de an adequat e post - depr i vat i onr emedy. But see Hudson v. Pal mer , 468 U. S. 517, 535 ( 1984) ( " t hatPal mer mi ght not be abl e to recover under t hese r emedi es t he f ul lamount whi ch he mi ght r ecei ve i n a 1983 act i on i s not , as we havesai d, det er mi nat i ve of t he adequacy of t he st at e remedi es" ) .

-20-


21/25

r emedy, we decl i ne t o accept t he owner s' bare asser t i on that we

shoul d r each t hat concl usi on.

That sai d, we ar e awar e t he sect i on 2 r emedy may be

f or ecl osed t o t hese par t i cul ar pl ai nt i f f s because of t hei r f ai l ur e

t o chal l enge t he demol i t i on i n st at e cour t i n a t i mel y manner . And

we ar e awar e as wel l t hat t he l i mi t at i ons per i od appl i cabl e t o

act i ons br ought under sect i on 2 i s, at l east on i t s f ace, ver y

shor t . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 139, 2 ( "A person aggr i eved by

such or der may appeal . . . wi t hi n t hr ee days af t er t he servi ce of

such at t est ed copy upon hi m . . . . ") . But t hi s case i s much l i ke

Her wi ns, wher e we sai d of a seven- day t i me- l i mi t t o br i ng a

chal l enge to the summar y vacat e or der t her e at i ssue, " [ q] ui t e

possi bl y, t her e ar e ci r cumst ances - - per haps pr esent her e, al t hough

we doubt i t - - wher e i t i s si mpl y i nf easi bl e f or an appeal t o be

not i ced wi t hi n seven days. I f t he st at e t hen r ef used t o per mi t a

bel at ed appeal t her eaf t er , t hi s mi ght r ai se a quest i on whet her

st ate remedi es were adequate, but Herwi ns made no such ef f or t t o

appeal even bel at edl y. " 163 F. 3d at 20 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

So, t oo her e. The owner s di d not obj ect i n di st r i ct

cour t t o the char act er i zat i on by the Ci t y' s at t or ney that

" [ t ] her e' s been no ef f or t t o exer ci se any r i ght s under 139 [ sect i on

2] or 258 [ t he st at e Tor t Cl ai ms Act ] or any ot her r emedi es t hat

mi ght be out t her e, " and i n f act t he owner s di d not f i l e even t hi s

-21-


22/25

act i on unt i l near l y a year af t er t he l ast or der r el at i ng t o t he

demol i t i on i ssued. Nor , f i nal l y, do t he owner s act ual l y chal l enge

i n t hi s appeal t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he shor t t i me l i mi t

sect i on 2 pr ovi des f or f i l i ng f or r el i ef . And so, i f i t i s now t oo

l at e f or t he owner s t o br i ng a chal l enge under sect i on 2, t hat i s

a f unct i on i n t hi s case of when t he owner s sought t o avai l

t hemsel ves of t he r emedy, r at her t han i t s necessary const i t ut i onal

i nadequacy.

For t hese r easons, we cannot concl ude Massachuset t s f ai l s

t o pr ovi de an adequate post - depr i vat i on r emedy t o t he owners. And

t hat means we cannot concl ude t he Ci t y deni ed t he owners pr ocedur al

due pr ocess.

B.

The owner s' subst ant i ve due process cl ai m al so must be

di smi ssed. A subst ant i ve due pr ocess cl ai m must al l ege execut i ve

act i on t hat obj ect i vel y "shocks t he consci ence. " See Cnt y. of

Sacr ament o v. Lewi s, 523 U. S. 833, 846 ( 1998) . " [ T] he r equi si t e

ar bi t r ar i ness and capr i ce must be st unni ng, evi denci ng mor e t han

humdr um l egal err or . " Amsden v. Moran, 904 F. 2d 748, 754 n. 5 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) . Under t hi s hi gh st andar d, even a st at e act or ' s bad

f ai t h i s not necessar i l y enough t o sat i sf y the "shock t he

consci ence" t est . See i d. at 757 ( "[ e] ven bad- f ai t h vi ol at i ons of

st at e l aw ar e not necessar i l y tant amount t o unconst i t ut i onal

depr i vat i ons of due pr ocess" ) . And her e, we do not have an

-22-


23/25

al l egat i on of even t hat ki nd r egar di ng t he Ci t y' s deci si on t o or der

t he demol i t i on.

To t he cont r ar y, t he owner s concede t he Ci t y under t ook

t he demol i t i on i n r esponse t o what i t cl ai med was an i mmedi ate

danger t o t he publ i c saf et y. And t he owner s f ur t her concede t he

t ornado di d cause " si gni f i cant damage" t o t he Sout h Commons

Condomi ni ums. The owners' compl ai nt t hus appear s t o al l ege onl y

t hat i n or der i ng t he demol i t i on t he Ci t y mi sj udged t he gr avi t y of

t he damage t he t ornado caused and thus t hat t he Ci t y' s act i on was

"i ncor r ect or i l l - advi sed. " Cat anzar o, 188 F. 3d at 64. The

al l egat i ons i n t he owner s' compl ai nt do not show t hat t he Ci t y

act ed i n any way t hat coul d be deemed consci ence- shocki ng, see

Lewi s, 523 U. S. at 846, see al so DePout ot v. Raf f ael l y, 424 F. 3d

112, 119 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "Execut i ve br anch act i on t hat si nks t o

t he dept hs of shocki ng the cont empor ary consci ence i s much more

l i kel y to f i nd i t s r oot s i n ' conduct i nt ended t o i nj ur e i n some way

unj ust i f i abl e by any gover nment i nt er est . ' " ( quot i ng Lewi s, 523

U. S. at 849) ) , and t hus t he owner s' subst ant i ve due pr ocess

chal l enge must f ai l .

-23-


24/25

C.

That l eaves onl y t he st at e l aw cl ai ms. 11 But havi ng

di smi ssed t he f eder al cl ai ms at such an ear l y st age, t he Di st r i ct

Cour t pr oper l y exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on i n di smi ssi ng t he st at e l aw

cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce. 28 U. S. C. 1367( c) ; see al so Mar t i nez

v. Col on, 54 F. 3d 980, 990- 91 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . We t her ef or e

decl i ne t he cross- appel l ant Char l i e Ar ment Tr ucki ng, I nc. ' s

i nvi t at i on t o r evi si t t he st at e cl ai ms.

III.

We r ecogni ze i t i s no smal l t hi ng t o have a t or nado

unexpectedl y damage one' s bui l di ngs and t hen have them r azed

because t he ci t y or der ed t hem dest r oyed. But we deal her e onl y

wi t h t he quest i on whet her t he f eder al Const i t ut i on' s guar ant ee of

due pr ocess bar r ed t he Ci t y f r om maki ng t hat deci si on. And

pr ecedent s f r omt he Supr eme Cour t and t hi s Ci r cui t , as wel l as f r om

ot her ci r cui t s, r ef l ect t he r eal i t y t hat a ci t y r espondi ng t o a

nat ur al di sast er must make di f f i cul t choi ces wi t h di spat ch i n or der

t o pr ot ect t he publ i c. Thus when a ci t y deci des bui l di ngs ar e

suf f i ci ent l y damaged t hat t hey must i mmedi atel y be demol i shed t o

11 I n addi t i on t o the pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve due pr ocesscl ai ms, t he compl ai nt asser t s cl ai ms f or vi ol at i on of t he

Massachuset t s Ci vi l Ri ght s Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11I ,agai nst al l def endant s ( count t hr ee) ; negl i gence agai nst Char l i eAr ment Tr ucki ng, I nc. ( count f our ) ; t r espass agai nst Char l i e Ar mentTr ucki ng, I nc. ( count f i ve) ; conversi on agai nst Char l i e Ar mentTr ucki ng, I nc. ( count si x) ; and seven of t he pl ai nt i f f s asser t achapt er 93A cl ai m agai nst Char l i e Ar ment Tr ucki ng, I nc. ( countseven) .

-24-


25/25

pr ot ect l i f e and l i mb, and when t he ci t y does so pur suant t o a

st at e l aw t hat ant i ci pat es such an emer gency and aut hor i zes t he use

of summary pr ocedur e t o respond t o i t , t he remedy f or any wr ong,

absent consci ence shocki ng behavi or , must come f r om t he remedi es

t he st at e i t sel f suppl i es r at her t han f r oma f eder al sui t pr emi sed

on t he f eder al Const i t ut i on' s Due Pr ocess Cl ause. The Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s j udgment i s, accor di ngl y, AFFI RMED.

-25-

South Commons Condo. Assn. v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of South Commons Condo. Assn. v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)