F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 29, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1580 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00198 -CV -W LS -1 HIGHLAND PROPERTIES, a Geo rg iaJo in t Ven tu re, HO ME BUI LD ER S A SSO CIA TI ONOFAL BAN Y & SOUTHW EST GA., INC., Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lla nts , ve rs us LEE COUNT Y UTILITIES AUTH ORITY, De fendants-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

_________________________ (M ar ch 29, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s a nd H omeb uil de rs A sso ci at ion of A lba nya nd So uth w es t G eo rg ia( H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s) appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgmen t i n fav orof Lee Co un ty U ti li ti es Aut ho rit y (th e Aut ho rit y ) aft er a b en ch tri al . H igh la nd Pro pe rt ie s a sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin hol din g: ( 1) H igh la nd Pr ope rt ie s is not

sim ilarl y situa te d to the W at er P le nti fu l su bdi vis ion s, a nd (2 ) H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s f ai le d to pr ove the A uth or ityha d no r at ion al ba sis f or tre at i n g Hi g h l an d Pr o p er t i es d i ff er en t l y t h an th e Wa t erPl en t i fu l s u b d i v i s i o n s . We c o n c l u d e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te rr , a n d a f f i r m. I. BACKGROUND A. W ate r P le nti

ful Sub div isi ons W at er P le nti fu l c ontra ct edw ith the ow ne rs a nd d ev el ope rs of f our se parate subd ivisio ns to prov ide wate r and sew er ser vices betwee n 199 2 and 199 5. E ach subd ivi sio n ha d ase parate pr ovi sio n f or thea m ount

c harg edf

or w at er tap a nd water meter f

ees. O n June 4, 1997 , the A utho rity purchased the water and sew er sy ste m s of

W at er P le nti fu l, I nc . , that se rv ic edthe f our sub div isi ons. T he A uth or itya gr ee d to c om

plya nd c ar

ryout the e xis tin g pr ovi sio ns o f the s u b d i v i s i o n c o n tr a c t s . O n O c t o b e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 7 , th e A u t h o r i t y p r o mu l g a t e d “A Re sol uti on E stabli shi ng R at es a nd F or O the r Pu rp ose s” e xpr es slya dopt ing the w at er tap f ee s, w at er m et er f ee s, a nd r at es a s pr ovi de d un de r the sub div isi on3

co ntr ac ts a s th e rate struc tur e fo r the r es pe ct ive sub div isi ons. I n A ugus t of 199 9, the A uth or itypr om

ulg at edar es olu tio n r ev isi ng the w at er a nd s ew er

tap f ee s f or all other subdi visio ns in Lee C ount y and expressly incorporated the rate structure unde r the A uth or ity/W at er P le nti fu l c ontra ct

f or the sub div isi ons. F or

a ll fo ur subd ivisio ns, the w ater tap and water m eter f ees re m ained the sam e as theywe re be fo re a cq uis iti on b y the A uth or ity . T he A uth or ityha s c onsi ste ntl y abid edbythe Aut ho rit y/WaterPle nt ifu l co nt ract . B. High lan d P rope rti es

/A guna c In N ove m

be r 1997 , H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s, a ct ing in a j oin t ve ntu re w ith Jow er s C onstru ct ion Co m pa ny , be ga n de ve lop m en t of appr oxi m at el y 160 re sid en tia l un its loc at edof f of U . S. 19 i n L ee Co unt y , G eo rg ia , kno w n a s N orth H igh la nd C ro ssi ng s ubdi vis ion . H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s e nte re d in to a c ontra ct w ith A guna c, I nc . , apr ivate w at er a nd s ew er

pr ovi de r, w he re byA guna c ag re edto provide a wate r and sew er sy stem to North H ighland Crossing. T he contract pr ovi de d, in part

that “ [i ] n th e ev en t w at er a nd s ew er

are obt ai ne d f

or N orth H igh la nd C ro ssi ng S ubdi vis ion f ro m A guna c or

it s su cc es sor , the n th er e sha ll be no t ap f ee s c harg edf

or N orth H igh la nd C ro ssi ng[ ’ ] s su bdi vis ion lot s to hoo k up to the Agunac w ater a nd sewer sy stem .” A dditi onally , the c ontract provided Agunac an opt ion to te rm

inate the a gr ee m en t a t a nyti m e. T he re w as no p ro vis ion in the4

ag re emen t tha t r eq uir edw ri tte n or ve rb al not ic e of

te rm inatio n to H igh la nd Pr ope rt ie s. O n M ar ch 25, 199 8, the A uth or ityc onde mne d th e A guna c pr ivate w at er a nd se wag e syst em

ser vi ci ng Nort h Hi gh la nd Cro ss in g s ub ject t o t he co nt ract . On June 5, 199 8, a n “ A w ar d of S pe ci al Ma ste r” w as e nte re d in thec onde mna tio n action awarding $6 ,994,798 to the cond emnees, $6, 950,000 of w hich was aw arded to Agu na c. Ther e was no ap pe al fil ed in th e co nd emna ti on act io n. A ft er the c onde mna tio n, Jow er s be ga n c onstru ct ing r es ide nti al uni ts i n North H ighland Crossing. Jower s m et w ith Kenneth Christoph er B oswell, Ge neral Ma na ge r of

the A uth or ity , to dis cu ss the H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s/A guna c ag re emen t that st at edH igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s w as not sup pose d to pa y a nyw at er tap f ee s or se w er tap f ee s f or N orth H igh la nd C ro ssi ng. B osw el l t oldJow er s th e A uth or ity now ow ne d th e w at er

a nd s ew er

sy ste m a nd tha t Jo w er s w oul d ha ve to pa y the w at er a nd s ew er

tap f ee s f or N orth H igh la nd C ro ssi ng u nti l the A uth or itytol d hi m ot he rwis e. O n D ec em

be r 22, 200 0, the A uth or ityvot edto te rm inate the H igh la nd Pr ope rt ie s/A guna c ag re emen t. T ha t sa m e da y , a n a tto rn eyf or the A uth or ityw ro te a l et t ert o th e a t t o rn ey fo r H i g h l an d Pr o p er t i es s t at i n g i twa s th e A u t h o ri t y’ s posit ion th e H ighland Properties/A gunac agreement was unenforce able under5

Ge orgia law. In the event the agre ement was e nforceable, the Authority wa s ex er ci sin g it s op tio n to te rm inate the a gr ee m en t a t w ill . H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s f

ile d ac om

pla int in the dis tr ic t c ourt a sse rt ing the A uth or ityw as vio la tin g: ( 1) the E qua l P ro te ct ion Cl au se of theF ourte en th Amendm ent because there wa s no rational basis for tre ating Highland Properties dif fe re ntl y tha n th e W at er

P le nti fu l su bdi vis ion s, ( 2) the Co ntr ac ts C lause of the United States C onsti tutio n, (3) the Taking s Clause of the U nited States Constitu tion, and (4) G eorgia statutory condemnation p rocedures. T he parties m utually agree d to drop all claim s except the Equal Pr otection claim . The district court held a bench trial and entered an order in favor of the A utho rity . The district co urt c onc lud edH igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s di d no t sh ow the y w er e sim ilarl y situa te d to the W at er P le nti fu l su bdi vis ion s or that the A uth or ityha d no r at ion al ba sis f or tre at in g t he m

di ffer en tl y th an th e Water Pl en ti fu l s ub di vi si on s.

II. DISCUSS ION

“ On ap p ea l o f ad i s tri ctco u rto rd erfr o m a b en ch tri al , we re v i ew th e c o u rt ’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de novo and its findin gs of fact f or clear err or.” HGI Ass oc s., In c. v . W et m ore P rin tin g Co. , 427 F. 3d 86 7, 873 (11th Cir. 2005). “ The E qual Pr ote ct ion Cl au se of

the F ourte en th A m en dmen t, § 1, c omm an ds tha t no S ta te sh al l d en y to an y pe rs on wit hi n i ts juri sd ic ti on th e eq ua l p ro te ct io n o f th e la ws.”6

No rdl ing er

v . H ahn , 112 S . Ct . 232 6, 233 1 ( 1992 ) (q uot at ion s om itt ed ). T he Cl au se pr ev en ts the gov ernmen t “ fr om tr eatin g di ff

er en tlype rs ons w ho are in al l relevant re spects alike.” Id. W hen state economic activity is challenged and there is n o c la im

of dis criminatio n ba se d on some sus pe ct c la ss, the n th e state a ct ivi tyis pr es um ed va li d u nl es s i t i s n otrat io na ll y rel at ed to a le gi ti m at e st at e in te res t. F oto U SA , I nc . v . B d. of R eg en ts o

f the U niv . Sy s. , 141 F. 3d 10 32, 1037-38 (11th Cir. 1998 ). A. Similarly Situ ated T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fi ndi ng H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s is not sim ilarl y situated to Water Ple ntiful. T he Highland Properties contract provided for a te rmin at io n o f th e co nt ractat wi ll , whi le th e Water Pl en ti fu l co nt ract s d id no t. H igh la nd Pro pe rt ie s’ c ontra ct w ith A guna c co nta ine d apr ovi sio n pe rm itt ing A guna c to t erminate the c ontra ct w ith out not ic e to H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s, w hil e the W at er P le nti fu l c ontra ct s r eq uir edit s pr e- ex ist ing c ontra ct s be hon or edbythe A uth or ity . A s A guna c’ s le ga l su cc es sor , theA uth or ityw as pe rm itt edto te rm

inate the c ontra ct

a t w ill . T hus, H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s a nd W at er P le nti fu l are not

in al l rel ev an t as pe ct s al ik e, an d a re n otsi mil arl y si tu at ed . See Nordling er , 112 S. Ct. at 23 31 .7

B. R ati onal

B asi s The district court also did not err in finding th e A utho rity had a rational ba sis f or tr eatin g H igh la nd P ro pe rt ie s a nd the W at er P le nti fu l su bdi vis ion s differe ntly . The A utho rity had a legitim ate interest in not breaching the W ater Plentiful subd ivisio ns contracts, and thus had to adh ere to the pre-existing W ater Pl en tif ul f ee s a nd r at es . C onve rs el y , the A uth or ityw as not bou nd b y the H igh la nd Pr ope rt ie s/A guna c ag re emen t, a nd h adale git im at e ec onom ic int er es t i n r ai sin g the r at es to m at ch tho se of the r es t of

the c ounty . T hus, the A uth or ityha d a rat io na l b as is forit s ac ti on s. Se e F oto U SA , 14 1 F .3d at 1 03 7- 38 . III. CONCLUSION The district court did not err in finding Highland Properties a nd W ater Pl en tif ul w er e not

sim ilarl y situa te d. A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fi ndi ng the A uth or ityha d ar at ion al ba sis f or the dis parate tr eatmen t of the pr ope rt ie s. AFFIR MED.