## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 1621 J OHN G. R EGET, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF L A C RO SSE, J OHN M EDINGER, L ARRY K I R CH, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 05- C- 238

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 12, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 8, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f Ju dge, an d W ILLIAM S an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . T he Ci tyo fLa Cros se a nd J o hn R eg et h av e h ad a lon g, ac rim on iou s re lat ion sh ip ste m m i ng fro m Rege t’ s o perat i on o f a busi ness that double s a s a bo dy shop and an auto m obi l e- re sto ra ti on com pany. The City ’ s j unk-deal er or dinance re quir ed Re g e tt o c o mpl y wi th c e r t a i n b ui l di nga nd s a fe t y - c o de2 N o. 06

- 1621 provi si ons and to fence h is outdoorauto st or age fro m the v i e w o fh i s s ur r o un di ngr e s i de nt i a l n e i g hb o r s . Rege t c laim s t h e C i t y s in gle d h im ou t fo r en for c em en t o f th is or d in an c e a n d als o th at it d isc rim in at ed ag ain st h im in connect i on with a pr opose d rez oni ng pl an, al l i n vio lati on o fhi s r igh ts u n der the Equal Pro tect i on Cl ause of th e F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t. H e f i l ed th is law su it s e e k i ngda mag e s a nd i nj un c t i v e r e l i e f, b utthe di s t ri ct cour t g ra nted the defe nd ants’ m ot i on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Because R eg et h as not shown thatthe Cityhas tr eat ed hi m di ffer entl y than other si m i l ar l y s i tuate d b u s i n e s s e s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und Regethas oper ate d Jo hn’s A uto Body in the City o f La C rosse , W i sco nsi n, since 1 975. The co nfl i ct b etween R eg et a n d the Citydates bac k t o 1980 , wh en the Ci ty con d em ne d his ol d bu il d ing , c om p en sated him f or a m ov e to hi s pre sent l oca ti on, and gav e hi m an a dd it i o na l $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 t o r e mod e l h i s cu r r e ntb ui l di ng . On re ce i pto fthi s c o mpe ns a t i o n, R e g e ts i g ne d a r e l eas e wai v i n g a l l c l a i ms a g a i n s t th e C i t y a r i s i n g fr o m th e co ndem nati on and r el oca ti on. Si nce then, how eve r, R eg et i s co nvi nced the Ci ty i s try i ng to d ri ve him out of busi ness. I n the dist ri ct c ourt, Rege t m ade num er ous c laim s o f m i str eatm ent a t the hands ofci ty offi ci al s, but on a pp eal he l i m i ts h i s ar g um en t to thr ee : He c l ai m s th atthe Cityse l ecti vel y e nfo rce d i ts j unk-dea ler o rdi nance a g a i n s t h i m, t a r g e t e d h i m f o r r e z o n i n g i n a di s c r i mi natory f ashi on, and sel ecti vel y e nfo rce d i ts noi se re gula ti ons.N o. 06

- 1621 3

Iti s unclea r exac tl y w hen thi s fence requir em ent w as add ed 1 t o the or di nan c e. Rege tc l ai m s i twas pass ed i n 1 99 1 i n a re s ol ut i on he sa ys c i t y offi c i al s ni c kna m ed the “Re ge tRes ol uti on. ” The City dis agrees but do es not s pecify w h en t h e fe nce re qui re m en twas adopt ed. The di s t ri c tc our tthought the or di nan c e w as p assed i n 1 99 3, butwe c ann otl oc at e any reco rd evidence s up porting that s tat em ent. W hetheri t was ado pted i n 1 991 or 1993, i t i s und is pu ted that Reget never com p lied w ith th e or d ina nc e’s fen ce req u irem en t. The di spu te b etwee n Re g eta nd the Ci tyfl ar ed up in the ear l y 1 9 9 0 s , whe n the Ci t y c i t e d Re g e t s e v e r a l t i mes f or vi ol ating the j unk-deal ero rd i nance. Thi s o rdi nance i m poses a var i etyo fo bl i gat i on s o n j unk deal er s. I t r equ ires , a m o ngo th erthi ng s, tha t j unkde al er s o bt ain a l i cense; it al so i m poses cer tain bui l ding and safetyr equ ir e m en ts on j un k d ealers, and l im its w he n an d w he re th ey ca n op er at e. See L A C RO SSE, W IS ., C OD E § 2 0. 12. M ost i m port ant forpurposes o fthi s l i ti gat i on, the or dinance requ ires th at an y j un k d ealer w ho stores t w o or m ore j u n ke d ve h icle s o u t d oo rs for m or e t h an 30 d ay s b u ild a n op aq u e fe n c e s h ield in g t h e v eh icle s fro m p u b lic v i e w. Id. § 20. 12( F)
. Rege t was ci ted t h re e ti m es between

1 1991 and 199 4 f orvi ol ating the junk- deal ero rdi nance. The pa r ti es hav e n ot t o l d us whi chpr o vi si o ns o fthe or dinance Reget al l ege dlyvi ol ate d, but i t i s undis pu ted tha ta l l thr e e c i t a t i o ns we r e e v e ntua l l y di s mi s s e d. The next dispute between the par ti es ar ose i n 199 5- 1996 w hen t he Ci ty att em pted to re zone Reget ’ s pro perty fro m “hea vy i nd ustr i al ” t o “co m m er ci al, ” a m ove that w oul d h av e f or ced Rege t t o re l oca te hi s business yet4 N o. 06

- 1621 aga i n. The pro posed r ecl ass i fi cati on o fRege t’ s pro perty w as part ofa com prehensi ve re zoni ng o fthe City ’ s no rth si de, and i n connect ion w ith thi s proj ect, m or e than 100 p rop erties w ere rezon ed

. Rege t con t e n d s, how ever, that hi s pro pertywas the onl y hea vy i nd ustr i alpro perty ta r g et ed f o r r ez o ni ng . He c o m pl aine d, a nd the Ci tye ve ntuall y agreed to ab a n d on its attem p t to rezone Rege t’s pr o per tyi n ex chan g e f o r hi s ag r ee m en t to abi de bythe j unk

- dea l ero r dina nc e. M o r e spe ci fi ca l l y, i n a c o ve na nt si gned i n 199 7, Rege t pr om i sed to i nstall a fence on seve ra l si des o fhis b u sin ess to hi de hi s o utdoorauto sto ra ge fro m the vie w o fnearby re si dences. H e a l so ag r ee d t o abi de bythe Ci ty ’ s no i se r es tr i ct i o ns b y l i m i ting hi s ni ghtti m e o perat ion s. The Ci ty, i n turn, ag re ed that Reget ’ s pro pertywould r em ai n zo n ed f orheav y i ndus tr i al us e. In a ddi ti o n, t o a l l ayRe g et ’ s per si st en t com pla i nts that the Ci ty w as sel ecti ve ly enf or ci ng i ts or dinances , the Cityag re ed to en force any o rdi nance vi ol ati ons com m i tte d by Reg et’ s nei ghbor s. Regetneve r i nsta lled the fence. H e s ays he was ex cus ed fr o m do i ngs o b ec au se the Ci tyf ai l ed to l i ve up to i ts a g r ee m en t to e nf o r ce o rd inan ce v i o l at i o ns

— in par ticular, noise v i o l at i o ns

— th at h e c laim ed h is ne i g hb o r s we r e c o mm i t t i ng . In 2 0 03 R e g e tr e c e i v e d a f o ur th c i t a t i o n, thi s t i me f o r v i o l a t i nga b ui l di ng - c o de pr o visiono fthe j unk

- dea l ero r di na nc e. Aga i n, the parti es com prom i sed. Th e Cityag re ed to i nstal l a fence on Reg et ’s proper ty i tse l f, and Regetag re ed to r epay the Ci ty for t h e c ost o fthe fence ove r a per i od offi ftee n ye a r s . Ba s e d o n thi s a g r e e men t, the 2 0 0 3 c i t a t i o n w as di s mi s s e d.N o. 06

- 1621 5 I n 200 6 Reg et fi l ed thi s law sui t a l l eging, am ong othe r c laim s, that the Ci ty and var i ous c i ty offi ci al s v i ol ate d hi s e qual- prot ecti on r i ghts by sel ecti vel y e nfo rcing i ts or dinances ag ai ns t hi m and by tar get i ng hi m f or re zoni ng. The defendants m ove d f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d thi s m o ti o n, ho l di ng th at Regethad f ai l ed to subm i t e vi dence showingthat sim i l ar l y s i tuate d j unk deal er s r ecei ved m or e f avo rab le t r e a t men tfr o m t he Ci t y . T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on W e no te fi r sttha t al th o ug h mos t o fthe e ve nt s ati ss ue i n thi s di spute ar e qu ite d ate d, the defendants di d not ass er t a s tatute- of

- l i m i tat i ons defe nse. Thi s s urpri ses us. U nd er the appli cabl e s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons supp l i ed by W i sco nsi n l aw , Rege t had si x yea rs to br i ng a cl aim
. See W IS . S T AT . § 89 3.5 3 (g ove rning ac ti ons to re cove r f or v iola tio n s o f inju rie s t o n on c on tr ac tu al rig h ts ); Gray v . Lac ke, 88 5 F
. 2d 399, 40 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) ( applying se cti on 89 3. 53 t o § 1 98 3 equa l

- pr o tect i o n c l ai m s fi l ed i n W i sc o nsi n). Rege t fi l ed thi s l aw sui t in 200 6, but near l y a l l o f the e v e nt s i n thi s c a s e o c c urr ed i n the e a r l y a nd mi d1990 s. The onl y eve nt f al l i ng w i thi n the sta tute of l i m i tati ons w as the 2 003 cit ati on, and thi s ci tat i on was di sm i sse d w hen the Cityand Regetag re ed that the Ci ty w ou ld inst al l a fence ar ound Reget’ s pro pertyand ass ess hi m f orthe cos t in i nstal l m ents sp re ad ove r fi ftee n yea rs . H ow ev er , a st at u te -of-lim ita tio n s d efe n se is w aiv ed if it i s n o tr a i s e d, s e ePe r ry v . Su l l i van , 20 7 F
. 3d 379, 38 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 00) , so we w i l l pro ceed t o the m er i ts.6 N o. 06

- 1621 The dis tr i ct c ourtgr an te d t he defendants’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent, hol ding that Reget f ai l ed to est abli sh that a si m ila r ly situat ed bu siness w as treate d m ore f avo rabl y. Our r evi ew i s de no vo, se eWoodr uf f v. M as on , 54 2 F
. 3d 54 5, 5 50 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , a nd s um m ar y j udg m ent i s a pp ro pr i ate i f“the pl eadi ngs, the disc ove ryand dis

cl osur e m ate ri al s o n fi l e, and any a ffi davi ts show that ther e i s no ge nuine i ssue as to a n y m ateri alf act and that th e m ov an t is en ti t l e d t o ju d gm en t a s a m at te r of law ,” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6( c)
. W e co ns true a l l f ac ts i n the l i g ht m ost favorable to Reg et an d draw allreason able inferen ces in h is f avor. Se e M cKinney v. C adlewa y P rops. , Inc. , 548 F. 3d 496, 49 9-500 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. H owever, wh en th e n onm oving par ty bear s the bur den ofpro of, as R eget d oes he re, he m us t d e m o ns trate th e existen ce of a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act to defe at sum m ar y j ud gm en t. C el otex Corp. v. C atre tt, 477 U
. S. 317, 322-26 (1986 ). Th e Equa l P r o t e c t i o n Cl a us e o fthe Fo urt e e nth Am e nd

m en t pr o hibi ts state ac ti o n tha t di sc r i m i na te s o n the b as is of m em b er sh ip in a p r o te c te d cla ss or irra tio n ally tar get s a n i nd i vi du alf ordi scr i m i natory t re atm ent as a so cal l ed “cl ass o fo ne. ” SeeE ngquis t v. O regon D ep’tof Agric
. , 128 S. C t. 2146 , 2153 (2008); Vill
. o f Wil low brookv. O le ch , 528 U
. S. 56 2, 56 4 ( 2000 )
. The cl ass - of

- one theo ryo fequal p ro te c t i o n “p re su p p os es th at like in d ivid u als sh ou ld be t re ate d al i ke, and that to trea t th em di ffer entl y i s t o cl ass i fy them i n a way that m ust s urvi ve at leas t r ati onal i ty re vi ew . ” Engq uist , 128 S. Ct
. at 2155. A plaintiff al l eging a cl ass - of

- one equal

- prot ecti on cl ai m m ust e stablish th at (1) a s ta te ac to r h as int en tio n ally tre at ed h im d ifferently tha n oth ers sim il arly si tu ated , and ( 2) thereN o. 06

- 1621 7 is n o ra tio n al b as is f or th e d iffer en c e in tre at m en t. O le ch , 52 8 U .S. at 5 64 ; Srail v. Vill. o f L isle, 588 F. 3d 940, 94 3 ( 7th C ir. 2009). S o m e o f ou r c as es ha ve a l so r equi r ed pr o o ftha t th e st at e ac ti o n was mot i va te d b y i l l eg i ti m at e an i m us ag ain st the pl ai nti ff, wh i l e o ther s hav e t re ate d i l l egi tim at e an i m us a s analterna ti ve b as i s f o r c l as s- o f

- o ne liab ility

. S e eS r ail , 5 8 8 F. 3d at 944 (com p aring ou r “diverge n t c l as s-o f-on e p re c ed en t” ); Hanes v. Z uri ck, 57 8 F
. 3d 49 1, 49 4 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 543 F.3 d 891, 89 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( col l ecting ca ses ). W e nee d not re c on c ile th e c on flict h e r e . Re ge t’s cla ss -of-o n e c laim fails atth e firs t s t e p i n t h e a n aly sis . To be sim ilar ly si tuate d fo r pu rpos es ofa cl ass - of-on e equal- prot ecti on claim , the p erson s a ll eged to have been treated m ore f av o r ab l y mustb e i den ti ca l o r di r ec tly c o m par ab l e to the p lain tif fin a ll m at er ial re sp ec ts
. Srail, 588 F. 3d at 945; Raci neChar t e rO ne, Inc . v. Raci ne U ni f i e d Sc h. D ist., 42 4 F. 3d 677, 68 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. W h ile th is i s no t a “pre ci se f or m ula, ” i t i s n on ethel ess “cl earthatsi m i l ar l y s i tuate d i nd i vi du al s m ust be v er y s i m i l ari nd eed. ” M cDonal d v
. Vil l
. of Wi nne t ka , 3 7 1 F
. 3 d 9 9 2 , 1 0 0 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. We agr ee w i th the d i str i ct c ourtthatRege t has f ai l ed to show that a si m i l ar l y s i tuate d auto- sal vage busi ness w as tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y. W e b eg inw ith R eg et ’s c laim t h at th e C ity sin gle d h im out f orenfor cem ent o fthe j unk-deal ero rd inance. That o r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e s , a mo n g o th e r th i n g s , th a t“ [ t ] h e p r e mi ses o fa j un k d ea ler” be encl ose d by a “pro per fence. ” L A C RO SSE, W IS ., C OD E § 2 0. 12( F)
. The o rdi nance a pp l i es to8 N o. 06

- 1621 a j unk deal erwh o sto re s tw o orm ore j unked autom ob iles ou ts id e of an y bu ild in g for m or e t h an 30 d ay s. Id. § 7
. 01( V) ( Regu lat ions f orS tor age o fJ unked A utom obi l es an d P ar ts ). Re ge t m ain ta in s t h at t h e C ity int en tio n ally t a r g e t e d hi m fo r e nfo r c e men t o f thi s o r di na nc e by : ( 1) ci ting hi m thre e ti m es between 1991 and 1 99 4 fo r vi olati ng the o rdi nance ( the s peci fi c natur e o fthes e vi ol ati ons i s uncl ear ) ; and ( 2) “r equi ring” h im to fence hi s pr o per tyi n e xc ha ng e f o r s et tl emento fthe z o ni ng di spu te
. Re g etha s f ai l ed, ho wev er, t o e st ab l i shtha t he was t r ea te d di ffer en tl y tha n a s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed j unk d ealer. I n hi s deposi ti on t est i m ony, Reget i denti fi ed sev er al othe r auto- re pai r shops in La Cros se that he cl ai m ed w er e no t ci ted f or v i ol ating the j unk-deal ero rdi nance. Bu t he did notes ta b l i sh thatthes e businesse s had actual ly vi ol ate d the o rdi nance. That i s, he di d not pr od u c e e vi dence thatany ofthe com parat orbusinesse s engaged in t he o utdoorst or age o ftwo orm or e j unked ve h icle s fo r m or e t h an 30 d ay s a n d failed to co m p ly w i th the fence re quir em ent i n the j unk-s tor age o rdi nance. N o r di d he pr o duce e vi den ce th at th e co m par at o r j unk d ea l er s v i ol ate d the o rdi nance in so m e o therway ye t wer e no t ci te d. M o r eo ve r, th e C i ty ’ s th r ee c i ta ti o ns ag ai ns tR e g e twe r e f o r u n s p e c i fi e d v i o l a t i o n s o fthe or d in an c e a n d w er e u ltim ate ly d ism iss ed ; th is m a k e s c o mpa r i s o n wi th o the r j un kde a l e r s i n the Ci ty im p os sib le. Fin ally , Re ge t v olu n ta rily a gr ee d to bu ild a fe nce ar ound his pro pertyas a part ofthe 1997se ttl em ent o fhi s r ezo ni ng di spute with the Ci ty. W e ca nnot s e e ho w a v o l un t a r y a g r e e men t c a n s up po r t a cl ai m o f cl as s- o f

- o ne e qua l di sc r i m i na ti o n.N o. 06

- 1621 9 Regetal so conte nd s tha t th e Ci ty si ngl ed hi m o ut f or r ez o ni ng, but th e r ec o r d do es no t su ppo r t th i s con te nti on. The Ci ty re zoned m or e than 100 p ro perti es as part ofa re zoni ng proj ect encom passi ng the Ci ty’ s no rth side

. Rege t argu es th at non e of his im m ed iate neig h b ors w er e t ar ge te d for re zo n in g a n d th at h is w as t h e o n ly proper ty i n the re zoni ng i ni ti ati ve that w as sl ate d to be r e c l a s s i fi e d fr o m a h e a v yi nd us t r i a l t o a c o mm e r ci al u se . W e c an n otse e h ow eith er p oin t m at te rs . E ve n if he wa s th e o n l y p r o p e r t y o wn e r i n h i s i mme d i a t e n e i g hborhood affecte d by th e C ity’ s r ezo ni ng eff or t, Rege t ca n hardl y c l ai m he was t ar get ed f ordi scr i m inato rytr eat
men twh e n 1 0 0 pro pe r t i e s we r e u l t i mat e l y r e z o ne d. Regar dle ss, he ha s no t i dent ified a si m i l ar l y s i tuate d com pari son proper ty

— i n hi s i m m edi ate nei ghborhood oro ther w i se

— that w as tr eated m or e f avo rabl y. Rege t si m pl y a ss er ts , wi th o ute vi den ce , tha t hi s w as the onl y pr oper ty that ci ty pla nners w ante d to m ove fro m a h ea vy i n d u s t r ial to a c om m er c ial u se . Th er e is no e vi den ce i n the r ec o r d r eg ard in gthe pr i o r z o ni ng cl ass i fi cati on s o fthe 100 proper ti es that w er e s l ate d f orr ezo ni ng. M or eov er, and si gni fi cantl y, Reget’ s pro pertywas neverr ezo ned. T he Ci ty abandoned i ts eff or t t o r e c l a s s i fy R e g e t ’ s p r o p e r t y i n e x c h a n g e fo r h i s a g r e e m en t to bui l d a fen c e an d abi de by the Ci ty’ s no i se or dinance. R eget d oe s not id en tify

— an d we h av e no t f o und

— an y case s sugges ti ng tha t a cl ass - of

- one equal

- prot ecti on claim prem ised on an a llegation of discrim inatory zoni ng ca n be m ai ntai ned w hen the plai nti ff’ s pro perty is n ev er in fa c t re zo n ed

. C f. B arst ad v. M urra y C o u n ty,10 N o. 06

- 1621 420 F.3d 88 0, 88 4 ( 8th Ci r. 20 05) ( fi nd i ng no equal

- prot ection viol ation w he n cou nt y reversed a recent rezoning ). Fi nal l y, R ege t argues that the C i ty dis cri m i nated ag ai nst h im by “re q u irin g” h im to co m p ly w it h t h e n ois e o rd inance w h ile re fusi ng to enf or ce the o rdi nance a gainst hi s nei ghbor s. A gain, the basi s o fthi s cl ai m i s the 19 97 c o v e n a n ti n w h i c h R e g e ta g r e e d t o r e d u c e hi s n i g h t t i me op er at ion s in ord er to co m p l y w ith th e C ity ’s n ois e o rd inanc e a nd the Ci t y, i n t urn, a g r e e d t o e nfo r c e o r di na nce vi ol ati ons com m i tte d by Reg et’ s nei ghbor s. Rege t s ays he co m pla i ned to the Ci ty about num er ou s no i se vi ol ati ons fro m tr ucks i dli ng at a nei ghbor i ng m ote l an d th at the Ci ty re fused to ci te the m ot el. T hi s a rgum ent has th i ng s ba ck war d. To e st ab l i sha c l ai m o fs el ec ti ve e nf or cem ent, R eg et had to sho w that hewas ci ted under the o rdi nance a nd a si m i l ar l y s i tuate d or dinance vi ol ato r w as no t. Buthe ha s no s uche vi den ce . The 1 99 7 co ve na nt does not est abl i sh that the City sel ecti vely enfo rce d the o rdi nanc e against hi m . Rege t had an obl i gat i on t o co m pl y wi ththe Ci ty’s no i se o r di na nc e r eg ar dl es s o fthe pr o m i se s he made i n tha t se tt l ement; the 1 99 7 ag r ee m en t i mp o s e d n o n e w o b l i g a t i o n s o n e i th e r p a r t y a n d s e e ms d esi gned si m plyto enco urag e Reg et’ s co m pli ance with the Ci ty’ s o rdi nances. Ac c o r d i n g l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y en t e r e d s u mm ar y j ud gm en t f o r the de fen dan ts , a nd the j udg m en t dism i ssing Rege t’ s cl ai m s i s A FFI RMED .

2- 8- 10