FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 7, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 52 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 03 07 -VMC- TBM 12 6TH AVENUE LA

NDFILL, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, RICHAR D L. HA IN, SR., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us PINELLAS COUNTY, FLO RIDA, a p ol it ic al subd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Fl or id a, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 7, 2 01 2) Befo re WILSON andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andALBRITTON, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e.

Honora

ble W. Harold Albritton, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation.PER CURI AM:

12 6t h Av enue Land fil l, In c., an d i ts so le sh areh ol de r Ri ch ardL. Hain , Sr. (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e Owne rs ”), ap pe al a be nc h t ria l v erd ic t d en y in g re li ef i n t he ir ci vi l s ui t al le gi ng a taki ng witho utco m pe ns at io n b y

Pin el la s C ou nt y , Flo rid a (“ th e Co un ty”). After re vi ew, we affi rm on th e g ro un d tha t re s ju di cat a b ars th e fed eral co urts fro m

rel it ig at io n o f a cen tra l i ss ue inth e Owne rs ’ ta ki ng s cl ai m . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io ns of l aw, an d we d o n ot ov erturn t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun le ss th ey

are cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Caro -Gal va n v . Curti s R ic ha rd so n, In c., 99 3 F .2d15 00 , 15 04 (11 thCir . 19 93 ). The Owner s ar gu e th atth e Co un ty’ s fa il ur e in 19 93 to ren ew a fi ve -y ear pe rm itall owi ng th em

to co nt in ue op erat in g alan df il l o n t he ir p ro pe rty in P in el la s Co un ty dep riv edth e p ro pe rty of al l i ts eco no m ic va lu e. Sin ce the Co un ty pai d n o co m pe ns at io n, the Owner s co nt en d t ha t thi s was a taki ng invi ol at io n o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. V (“ [N]or sh al l p riv at e p ro pe rty be t ak enfor publ ic us e, wit ho utjus t co m pe ns at io n.” ). The Own ers ’ arg um en t b oi ls do wn t o th e fo ll owi ng syllo gi sm : (a ) th e Co un ty fail edto ren ew th e la nd fil l p erm it ; (b ) th e la ndha s n ow b een de pr iv edof a ll of i ts eco no m ic va lu e b ecau se itcanon ly be us edas alan df

il l; an d (c ) th eref

or e, th e Co un ty has co m

m it te d areg ul at ory

tak in g of th e Owne rs ’ la nd . 2As an in it ia l m at te r, th e Co un ty argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt was ba rred

fro m he ari ng th e cas e o n a cco un t o f res jud ic at a. W e ag ree. 1 Thi s d is pu te ha s b een on go in g s in ce 1 99 3, an d aco m pl et e rev ie w of i ts pr oc edur al hi st ory

is un ne ces sa ry

to de ci de th e cas e. The i m po rtantpa rt i s t ha t 2

The Owners a

rgue that the County

waived its re s judicata de fense by failingto raise it 1 in a timely

manner in the district court, and that the district court abuse d its discretion by allowingthe County

to amend its answer

in order to r aise that de fense . We find no abuse of discretion on the pa

rt of the district cour

t. Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) encour ag es a district court to “fr eely

g ive leave[t o amend plea dings] when justice so r equire s.” He re, the district court per

mitted the addition of the res judicata def ense, suc h that it was included in the pretria l order, g iving f

ull notice to the Owner s in advanc e of tria l. Howeve r, since no sing le source prese nts a complete list of this case ’s proc edura l 2 history with citations, its m ost releva nt portions are inc luded her e. Af ter be ing de nied a pe rmit in 1993, the Owne rs’ journe y beg an by filing a Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the Six th J udicial Circuit in Pinellas Count y , which wa s denied. 126th Ave . L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., No. 93-1004-CI -88A, slip op. at 2 (F la. Cir. Ct. Oct. 20, 1993). Plaintiffs then filed an inverse c ondemnation suit in P inellas County Circuit Court, which was re moved to the United States District Court for the Middle District of F lorida, whe re Plaintiffs lost on the merits. 126th Ave. L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., No. 94-1372-CIV-T- 17C, slip op. at 1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 1996). Howeve r, that dec ision was vacated by the Eleve nth Circuit on ripeness grounds bec ause “the F lorida cour

ts ha[d] not had an oppor tunity to gr ant re lief.” 126th Ave . L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., No. 96-3743, slip op. at 4 (11th Cir. Mar. 6, 1998) (per curia m). Pinellas County

Circuit Court rece ived the ca se bac k from the f eder al cour

ts and dismiss ed it, but subsequently was re verse d by

the Florida Court of Appe als. 126th Ave. L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., No. 94-4486-CI -11, slip op. at 2 (F la. Cir. Ct. Apr. 20, 1999). The F lorida Court of Appe als stayed the c ase so that the O wner s could exhaust their administrative re medies with the County . 126th Ave. L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., 758 So. 2d 721, 722 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). In 2000, the Owne rs submitted a landfill application to the County , which madeno rulinguntil 2005, when the Pinellas County Circuit Court ordere d the County to make a de cision. The County grante d the Owne rs only a two-year

landfill permit to close the la

ndfill, finally

endingtheir twelve -year

ody ssey to exhaust admini strative re medies. The Owners then e nded their journe y through the state c ourts in 2007, when Judge L og an found that they did not have a pr operty

interest in a landf

ill permit, and thus there c ould be no inverse condemnation. 126th Ave. L andfill, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty ., No. 94-004486CI -11, slip op. at 9 (F la. Cir. Ct. Aug. 16, 2007) . The F lorida Court of Appe als aff irmed that orde r without opinion. 126th Ave. L andfill, Inc., v. Pinellas Cnty ., 988 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008). 3th e Owne rs di d n otex haus t the ir a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wi th th e Co un ty unt il

20 05 , when th e Co un ty refus edto gra ntth e Owne rs an yth in g b uta two -y ear la nd fil l p erm itto clo se th e la nd fil l. An d t he Owner s d idno t ex haus t the ir s ta te co urt cl ai m s u nt il 20 07 , when Pin el la s C ou nt y Cir cu itJu dg e Walt Lo ga n g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Co un ty on a n i nv ers e co nd em na ti on cla im . 12 6t h Av e. Lan df

il l, In c. v. Pi ne ll as Cn ty., No. 9 4- 00 44 86 CI-1 1, s li p o p. at9 (F la . Ci r. Ct . Aug . 16 , 20 07 ). Ina ta ki ng s ca se ari si ng in Flo rid a, a p la in ti ff m us t fi rs t ex haus t adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, the n s eekin ve rs e co nd em na ti on inst at e co urt; on ly if bo th of t ho se are uns uc ces sf ul m ay a pl ai nt iff

att em ptto bri ng su itinfed eral co urt un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s Tak in gs Claus e. Reah ardv. Lee C nt y ., 30 F.3d 14 12 , 14 17 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ [A] Flor id a p ro pe rty owne r m us t p ur su e a rev ers e co nd em na ti on rem edy

inst at e co urt b efo re h is fed eral tak in gs cla im wil l b e rip e.”). Thi s re as on in g s te m s fr om W il li am so n C ou nt y

Reg io na l Pl an ni ng Co m m is si on v. Ham il to n B an k o f Jo hn so n C ity , 47 3 U.S. 1 72 , 10 5 S . Ct. 3 10 8 (1 98 5) , whi ch “bo il s d own to th e ru le th atst at e co urts alwa y s h av e a fi rs t s ho t at ad jud ic at in g atak in gs di sp ut e b ecau se a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cla im is no t ri pe un ti l the st at e h as de ni edth e wou ld -b e p la in ti ff’s co m pe ns at io n fo r a p ut at iv e 4ta ki ng , in cl ud in g b y un fav or ab le jud gm en t i n ast at e co urt p ro ceed in g.” Agri po st , LLC v. Mi am i-Da de Cn ty., 52 5 F .3d10 49 , 10 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ind eed , when th is Co urt fi rs t h eardth e Owne rs ’ cl ai m s i n 1 99 8, we d is m is se d t he ir c as e st at in g th atth ei r ta ki ng s cl ai m

co ul d n otbe rip e u nt il th ey were d en ie d c om

pe ns at io n b y Fl or id a co urts . 12 6t h Av e. Lan df il l, In c. v. Pi ne ll as Cn ty., No. 9 6- 37 43 , sl ip op . at 3– 4 (1 1th C ir. M ar. 6 , 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m). Howev er, wh ena pl ai nt iff see ks in ve rs e co nd em

na ti on inst at e co urt, s he

“ face s the po ss ib il it y

th atth e le ga l o r factua l i ss ue s re so lv edby the st at e co urt m ig htha ve pre cl us iv e eff ect[on fed eral co urts ] un de r th e Fu ll Fai th an d C red it St atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 73 8.” Agri po st , 52 5 F .3dat 1 05 2. Th is is pre ci se ly wha t happ en edinAgri po st , wher e th e fed eral co urts were b ou ndby the st at e co urt’s de te rm in at io n t ha t the pl ai nt iff s “ di d n otha ve a pr op erty in te res t p ro te ct edby ei th er the st at e o r fed eral co ns ti tu ti on s.” Id . Bec au se “ [p ro pe rty] in te res ts . . . are n otcrea te d b y th e Co ns ti tu ti on ” b ut rathe r “ are c reat edan d t he ir d im en si on s ar e d efi ne d b y ex is ti ng rul es or un de rs ta nd in gs th atst em fro m anin de pe nd en t s ou rce s uc h a s s ta te law,” t he fed eral co urts m

us t l oo k t o s ta te pro pe rty law to de te rm in e whe th er a t ak in g h as oc cu rred . Key st on e Bi tu m in ou s C oa l As s’n v . DeBen ed ic ti s, 4 80 U.S. 47 0, 5 19 , 10 7 S . Ct. 1 23 2, 1 26 0 (1 98 7) (qu ot in g Webb ’s Fab ul ou s Ph arm aci es , Inc . v. 5Bec kwi th , 44 9 U.S. 1 55 , 16 1, 1 01 S. Ct. 4 46 , 45 0 (1 98 0) ). In Ag rip os t, the st at e

co urt ex pl ic it ly fou ndth at , un de r st at e la w, th e p la in ti ff h adno reco gn iz ed pr op erty rig htth atha d b een tak en . “ [F]ede ral co urts ap pl y th e p recl us io n l aw of th e st at e who se co urts ren de redth e fi rs t d eci si on ,” Agr ip os t, 5 25 F.3dat 1 05 2 n .3, an d F lo rid a’s res jud ic at a d oc tri ne pre ve nt s re li ti ga ti on wher e “ (1 ) th e p art ie s ar e id en ti cal with t ho se fro m th e p rio r cas e, (2 ) th e is su es are i de nt ic al , (3) th ere was a fu ll an d fa ir o pp ortu ni ty to l it ig at e th e is su es an d t he y were ac tu al ly lit ig at ed , and (4 ) th os e is su es were n eces sa ry to th e p rio r ad

jud ic at io n.” Id. at10 55 . There fo re, res jud ic at a fo rb ad e th e fed eral co urts fro m rel it ig at in g the st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w or fa ctinAgri po st . Id. at10 56 . Inth e cu rren t ca se , Ju dg e Log an ’s op in io n d idno t m ak e a ru li ng pe r se on whe th er the Co un ty’ s ac ts vi ol at edth e fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on , bu t i t d idho ldth atth e Owner s h adno pro pe rty int eres t i n t he lan df il l p erm it . The d eci si on to gra nt su m m ary jud gm en t t o the Co un ty w as ba se d e nt ire ly on t he ho ld in g fr om Osce ol a Co un ty v. Bes t Di ve rs ifi ed , Inc ., 93 6 S o. 2 d 5 5 (F la . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 6) . InOsce ol a Co un ty, a p la in ti ff l an df

il l o wne r arg ue d t ha t the co un ty’ s re fu sa l t o g ran t a la nd fil l p erm itha d e ffec te d atak in g. Os ceo laCn ty., 93 6 S o. 2 d a t 5 7– 58 . He pr oc eed edto st at e co urt, ar gu in g t ha t h e was en ti tl edto co m pe ns at io n b as edon a th eo ry of i nv ers e co nd em

na ti on . Id. Ho wev er, the co urt fo un d t hi s ar gu m en t

6un av ai li ng be cau se un de r st at e la w, th e co un ty “ha d t he ab so lu te leg al rig ht ” to

requi re the pl ai nt iff

to rece iv e a p erm itinord er t o o pe rat e h is lan df il l. Id . at 6 0. Tha t i s, “ as a m at te r of

law [t he pl ai nt iff

] ha d n o ri gh t t o o pe n t he lan df il l.” Id . at 66 . Ju dg e Log an , fin di ng th e o pi ni on inOsce ol a Co un ty to b e “ co nt ro ll in g o f th e fact s an d l aw to be ap pl ie d t o t he fact s i n thi s ca se ,” de te rm in edth atth e Owne rs he re co ul d n otm ak e o utanin ve rs e co nd em na ti on cla im

be cau se th ey

di d n otha ve a rec og ni zab le pro pe rty int eres t i n t he lan df il l p erm it . 12 6t h Av e. Lan df il l, In c. v. Pi ne ll as Cn ty., No. 9 4- 00 44 86 CI-1 1, s li p o p. at9 (F la . Cir . Ct. Au g. 1 6, 2 00 7) . Thi s o rd er was affi rm edwitho utop in io n b y th e Sec on d Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal of Flo rid a. 12 6t h Av e. Lan df il l, In c., v. Pi ne ll as Cn ty., 98 8 S o. 2 d 6 32 , 63 2 (F la . Ct . App . 20 08 ). Ju stli ke th e fed eral co urt i n Ag rip os t, we ar e b ou ndby the st at e co urt’s fin al de ci si on th atPla in ti ffs ha d n o re co gn iz ab le pro pe rty int eres t i n o pe rat in g a la nd fil l. Ag rip os t, 5 25 F.3dat 1 05 6. Th e st at e co urt’s h ol di ng di d n otex pl ic it ly ru le on a fed eral tak in gs cla im , bu t thi s d oe s n otm at te r. “ Bec au se a st at e co urt o f co m pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on he ldth at[th e Owne rs ] di d n otha ve a co m pe ns ab le pro pe rty in te res t, [t he ir] fed eral tak in gs cla im ne ces sa ril y

fai ls .” Id . W e are bo un d b y Ju dg e Log an ’s det erm in at io n— affi rm edby the Flo rid a Co urt o f App eal —tha t the

7Owner s d idno t h av e a p ro pe rty int eres t i n alan df il l p erm it . Thu s, the y

can no t 3 m ak e o uta cl ai m

fora ta ki ng un de r th e fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on . Id. Thi s ru li ng do es no t p recl ud e fu ture l an do wne rs fro m ha vi ng a fed eral co urt ev en tu al ly hear acla im

th atst at e act io n a m ou nt edto a ta ki ng . It m erel y requi res th atst at e co urts ge t the fir stsh ot , andth e subs eque ntap pl ic at io n o f th e Fu ll Fai th an d C red itst atut e m ay

m ean th atfutur e p la in ti ffs are u lt im at el y pre cl ud edfro m th enpro ceed in g t o fe de ral co urt an d m ak in g t he same argu m en ts a se co ndti m e. Id . at 1 05 2. Det erm in in g wh ethe r th e st at e co urt ru li ng wil l h av e a p recl us iv e effe cton fed eral co urts un de r th e d oc tri ne of r es jud ic at a wil l d ep en d o n t he pr eci se ho ld in g o f th e st at e co urt. The co m bi na ti on of Wil li am so n, the Fu ll Fai th an d C red itSta tu te , andFlo rid a’s in ve rs e co nd em na ti on pro ces s m ean s t ha t a fed eral co urt ca nn othe ar a t ak in gs cas e whe re the Flo rid a st at e co urt fo un d t ha t a pl ai nt iff di d n otha ve a co m

pe ns ab le pro pe rty int eres t. The fed eral di st ric t co urt u lt im at el y reac he d the co nc lu si on th atth ere h ad

The Owners a

rgue that under

Florida law, re s judicata is not a bar to liti g ation if 3 invocation of the doc trine “w ill work an injustice.” de Cancino v. E. Airlines, I nc., 283 So. 2d 97, 98 (F la. 1973); F leschev. Interstate War ehouse, 411 So. 2d 919, 924 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). Although Florida

courts have not specified the nature or extent of injusti ce ne cessa ry to avoid the application of res judicata, the cour ts have a pplied the injustice exception when ther e has bee n an interve ning c hang e of c ontrolling law . See F lesche , 411 So. 2d at 923–24. Here , the Owner s have not a

rgued that ther e has be en any chang e in controllingFlorida law since J udg e L og an’s August 2007 decision. We thus conclude that the injustice e x ception to re s judicata does not apply

here . 8be enno tak in g, b utres jud ic at a sh ou ldha ve ob vi at edth e n eedfora tr ia l o n t he

m eri ts . The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIRMED .

9