Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EUREKA V LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD, Board of Selectmen of Town of Ridgefield, Board of Finance of Town of Ridgefield, Economic Development Commission of the Town of Ridgefield, Bennett’s Farm Development Authority, Barbara Serfilippi, Clerk of Town of Ridgefield, Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Ridgefield, Defendants-Appellees,
    No. 12-4427-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 10, 2013.
    Jean Kim (Gordon Schnell, Lloyd Constantine, on the brief), Constantine Cannon LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., PIERRE N. LEVAL and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    Barbara M. Schellenberg, Cohen and Wolf, P.C., Bridgeport, CT (Stewart I. Edelstein, Monte E. Frank, Cohen and Wolf, P.C., Bridgeport, CT; Thomas W. Beecher, Collins, Hannafin, Garamella, Ja-ber & Tuozzolo, P.C., Danbury, CT on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Eureka V LLC brings this action against the Town of Ridgefield, Connecticut and various agencies and officials thereof, seeking to enjoin the taking of Eureka’s real property and for damages under the Fair Housing Act. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and history of the case.

With respect to Counts I and II of the complaint, the district court properly entered judgment because the town’s offer of judgment gave Eureka more relief than it could have gotten at trial.

Regarding Counts III and IV, certain theories of liability Eureka now presses to this Court appear nowhere in the complaint and were not presented to the district court. Parties may not use briefs to modify their pleadings, and this Court will not entertain arguments not raised below. Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.1998); Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 585-86 (2d Cir.1994). We have considered Eureka’s other arguments and find that they have no merit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district court.