FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 8, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 10814 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 0 7 -0 1 5 0 1 -C V -O R L -2 2 G JK R O B E R T W . K U P K E , A N I T A O . K U P K E , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s O R A N G E C O U N T Y , F L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , T R A C E Y G R E E N E , K U R T F A S N A C H T , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008)In this contex t, a “bush hog ” (also known as a “brush hog ”) is not an a nimal, but a ty

pe 1 of mower used to clea

r veg etation by

pulling it behind a tractor.

2 B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In thi s c i vi l ri gh t s a ct i on , R ob ertand A ni t a K up ke al l ege they w er e depri ved o f p ro p er ty w ith o u t p ro ce d u ra l d u e p ro ce ss . W e v ac ate th e d istrict co u rt’s th resh o l d d i sm i ssal o f th e cl ai m an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I . A tthe m ot i on t o d i sm i ss st age w e, l i ke the di stri ctcourt , as sum e the fa ctual a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t a r e tru e a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le f a c tu a l in f

e r e n c e s in fa vo r of the pl ai nt i ff

. S ee , e. g. , S pani sh B roadcas t i ng S ys . of F l a. , Inc. v. C l ea r C hann el C om m c’ ns. , Inc. , 37 6 F . 3d 10 65 , 10 70 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T hen w e r evi ew de novo w he the rthe c om pl a i nt , s o c ons true d, s t a t e s a c l a i m f orr e l i e f . I d. T he K upke s w e r e c i t e d by the O r a nge C ounty C ode E nf or c e m e ntB oa r d, the i rl oc a l l a nd us e a uthor i ty , f ori m pe r m i s s i bl e out doors t or a ge of c e r t a i n he a vy m a c hi ne ry ( i nc l udi ng a bul l doz e r , a c r a ne , a ba c khoe , a nd a “ bus h hog” ) a nd f or 1 m a i nt a i ni ng a j unky a r d. T he K upke s pr ot e s t e d tha tthe i rm a c hi ne s w e r e bona f i de fa rm i ng equi pm entand there fore exem pt ed by F l ori da st atut e f rom l ocal nu i sa nce a n d z o n in g la w s . A hear i ng on the ci t at i on w as hel d i n A ug ust19 98 , atw hi ch the K up kes3

p r e s e n te d s o m e e v id e n c e , b u t th e E n f o r c e m e n t B o a r d a d

jo u rn e d th e h e a r in g to perm i tappel l ant s t o con structan ou tbu i l di ng t o h ou se thei r e qu i pm ent , w hi ch w oul d ha ve br oughti ti nt o c om pl i a nc e w i th the z oni ng l a w s . L a t e r , i n J ul y 1999, th e h e a r in g w a s r e c o n v e n e d , ap p a r e n tly w ith n o o u tb u ild in g h a v in g b e e n b u ilt. A ft eraf fordi ng the K up kes m i ni m al t i m e ( fi ve m i nu t es ) t o p uton evi dence that the i re qui pm e ntw a s e xe m pt , the E nf or c e m e ntB oa r d i s s ue d a n or de rf i ndi ng the K u p k e s in v io la tio n o f

th e O r a n g e C o u n ty C o d e a n d g iv in g th e m th ir ty d a y s to corr ec tthe prob l em . T here af t er , fi nes w ou l d acc rue a t$2 50 per day , as autho ri ze d b y F la . S ta t. § 1 6 2 .0 9 ( 1 ) . T he K upke s appe a l e d the or de rt o F l or i da ’ s N i nth J udi c i a l C i r c ui t . B oth the E n fo rcem en tB o ard an d th e N i n th Ju d i ci al C i rcu i td en i ed a st ay p en d i n g ap p eal , so the fi nes c on t i nu ed t o acc rue, ul t i m at el y r ea chi ng abou t$1 25 , 00 0. T he B oard pl ac ed a l i en up on the K rupk es ’ prop erty i n M ar ch 20 00 . T o avo i d further f i nes a nd f or e c l os ur e of

the l i e n, the K rupke s s ol d the i rf a r m e qui pm e nta ta uc t i on, r e s u ltin g in a s u b s ta n tia l lo s s . S e llin g th e e q u ip m e n t b r o u g h t th e p r o p e r ty in to com pl i ance w i th the zoni ng re qu i re m ent s, so the E nforcement Bo ar d fi l ed an a f f i da vi tof c om pl i a nc e be f

or e the N i nth J udi c i a l C i r c ui ti n F e brua ry 2001. T he B oard al so agre ed, atsom e unspeci fi ed dat e a ft erthi s a ff i davi tw as fi l ed and aft er nego t i at i on w i th the K up kes, t o reduce the fi ne t o $ 2, 50 0, w hi ch the K up kes then4

pa i d vol unt a r i l y . T he r e a f t e r , the N i nth J udi c i a l C i r c ui tf ound the E nf

or c e m e nt B o a r d ’s a c tio n to b e la w f u l. T h e K u p k e s s o u g h t ap p e lla te r e v ie w in F lo r id a ’s F if th D i s tr i c tC our tof

A ppe a l . T he c our tgr a nt e d c e r t i or a r i a nd c onc l ude d the J ul y 1999 he a r i ng de pr i ve d the K upke s of pr ope r ty w i thoutpr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s by d e n y in g th e m a m e a n in g f u l o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d p r io rto im p o s itio n o f th e f in e . T h e c o u r t v a c a te d th e N in th J u d ic ia l C ir c u it’s ju d g m e n t a n d r e m a n d e d w ith i nstruct i on s t o v ac at e the E nforcement Bo ar d’ s orderand o rdera new B oard h e a r in g , w h ic h N in th J u d ic ia l C ir c u it o n r e m a n d d id . B e f o r e a n e w h e a r in g c o u ld b e h e ld b e f

o r e th e E n f

o r c e m e n t B o a r d , a tto rn e y s f o rO r a n g e C o u n ty v o lu n ta r ily d is m is s e d th e c a s e . T h e K u p k es th en fi l ed th i s su i t , seek i n g t o reco u p th e $ 2 , 5 0 0 fi n e, th e l o ss the y t ook w he n the y w e r e f or c e d t o a uc t i on the i rf

a r m e qui pm e nt , the c os t s of the a u c tio n , a n d lo s t p r o f

its f r o m th e irin ab ility to f

a r m d u e to s a le o f

th e e q u ip m e n t. O n m o tio n o f

d e f e n d a n t, th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s d is m is s e d f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c l ai m . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe com pl ai ntst at ed no const i tut i on al vi ol a t i on, ora l t e rna t i ve l y tha te ve n i f i tdi d, the m one t a ry l os s e s i nc urr e d by the K upke s w e r e notc aus e d by the vi ol a t i on a l l e ge d. T hi s t i m e l y appe a l e ns ue d.

I I .5

T he el em ent s of the § 1 98 3 cl ai m ati ss ue here are (i ) depri vat i on of a c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d p r o p e r ty in te r e s t, a s a r e s u lt o f ( ii) s ta te a c tio n , a n d ( iii) w i thoutthe be ne f

i tof c ons t i tut i ona l l y a de qua t e pr oc e s s . S e e , e . g. , G r a y de n v. R ho des, 34 5 F . 3d 12 25 , 12 32 -33 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). A nd al tho ug h w e have never expl i ci t l y s t at ed i tas a s epar at e e l em entof the cl ai m , i ti s r ea di l y app ar entthatfor a c l a i m a l l e gi ng de pr i va t i on of pr ope r ty w i thoutpr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s t o s uc c e e d, th e r e m u s t b e a c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e s ta te a c tio n a n d th e p r o p e r ty de pr i va t i on. I d. a t1232 ( due pr oc e s s i m pl i c a t e d w he r e pl a i nt i f f s a r e de pr i ve d of pr ope r ty “ a s a r e s ul tof

” s t a t e a c t i on) ; s e e a l s o R os s v. C l a y t on C ty . , G a . , 173 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 07 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T hu s, the K up kes’ theory of the ca se i s thatthe defi ci entJul y 199 9 p re depri vat i on hear i ng re sul t ed i n the i m po si t i on of a f i ne (s t at e a ct i on ), w hi ch they eventual l y pai d (a depri vat i on of prop erty) , and the ac cum ul at i ng fi nes c ause d th e m to u n d e r ta k e a f

ir e - s a le a u c tio n , r e s u ltin g in f u r th e rlo s s e s o f

p r o p e r ty . M ea nw hi l e, on ce the re m anded E nforcement B oard act i on w as di sm i ss ed, they had no po st -depri vat i on procedural re m edy und erst at e l aw , ensuri ng thatthey r ec ei ved co n st i tu t i o n al l y i n ad eq u at e p ro cess. T he di stri ctcourttre at ed the st at e a ct i on com pl ai ned o f her e a s the vo l un t ary di sm i ss al of the adm i ni stra t i ve proceedi ng before the E nforcement Bo ar d aft er6

r e m a nd f r om the F l or i da c our t s . A c c or di ngl y , i tc onc l ude d ( i ) tha tthi s s t a t e a c t i on coul d n otgi ve ri se t o a procedural du e proces s c l ai m because a ny pl ai nt i ff has a n ab s o lu te r ig h t to d is m is s its c a s e , a n d ( ii) th a t th e d e p r iv a tio n s o f p r o p e r ty c om pl a i ne d of

, w hi c h a l l oc c urr e d be f or e the vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l , c oul d notha ve b e e n c a u s e d b y th e d is m is s a l, a n d th e r e f o r e n o c la im w o u ld lie . W e be l i e ve the di s tr i c tc our tm i s c ons true d the c om pl a i ntby f oc us i ng on the w rong st at e a ct i on . T he com pl ai ntdo es , i n p l ac es , al l ege that“ [a ] s aconsequence o f th e No t i c e o f

Di s m i s s a l th e Ku p k e s we r e d e p r i v e d o f th e i rd u e p r o c e s s o f

l a w, r e s ul t i ng i n [ da m a ge s ] . ” C om pl . ¶ 28. B utthe c om pl a i nta s a w hol e , f a i r l y r e a d, a l l e ge s tha tthe da m a ge s s oughta r e a c ons e que nc e of the c i t a t i on i m pos e d a f t e rthe i na de qua t e J ul y 1999 he a r i ng a nd tha tthe vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l m e r e l y de pr i ve d the K u p k e s o f

s ta te p r o c e d u r a l r e m e d ie s w h ic h c o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d c o n s titu tio n a lly a de qua t e pos t - de pr i va t i on pr oc e s s . S e e C om pl . ¶ 27 ( “ A s a c ons e que nc e of [ the vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l ] , the s t a t e c our tl os tj ur i s di c t i on t o f ur the rhe a rthi s di s put e a nd t o pr ovi de pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s . . . T he [ vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l ] r e s ul t e d i n a de pr i va t i on of

K upke s ’ c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d pr ope r ty i nt e r e s ti n tha tthe K upke s c oul d no l onge ra va i l the m s e l ve s of s t a t e c our tr e m e di e s . . . ” ) . P ut d if f e r e n tly , w e d o n o t u n d e r s ta n d ap p e lla n ts to a r g u e th a t n o tic e a n d a h e a r in g is r e qui r e d be f

or e a l oc a l gove rnm e nti ns trum e nt a l i ty m a y di s m i s s a l a w s ui tor7

ad m i n i strat i v e p ro ceed i n g . A p p el l an t s m erel y arg u e th ei r p ro ced u ral d u e p ro cess c l a i m di d notr i pe n ora c c rue unt i l the vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l of the e nf or c e m e nt ac t i on by O ra ng e C ou nty, and ri gh t l y s o, because al ac k o f due process before a d e p r iv a tio n o f

p r o p e r ty m a y b e c u r e d b y a d e q u a te p o s t- d e p r iv a tio n p r o c e s s . M cK i n n ey v . P at e, 2 0 F . 3 d 1 5 5 0 , 1 5 5 7 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) (en b an c). T h i s i s b ecau se

“ the c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on a c t i onabl e unde r§ 1983 i s notc om pl e t e w he n the de pr i va t i on oc c ur s ; i ti s notc om pl e t e unl e s s a nd unt i l the s t a t e f a i l s t o pr ovi de due pr oc e s s . ” Z i ne r m on v. B ur c h, 494 U . S . 113, 126 ( 1990) . T hus , appe l l a nt s a r gue tha tw hi l e due pr oc e s s w a s de ni e d the m a tthe J ul y 1999 he a r i ng, i tw a s not apparentun t i l the vo l un t ary di sm i ss al thatthey w ou l d al so be deni ed any f urther st at e l aw rem ed y. I n a n y e v e n t, e v e n if

th e K u p k e s a t tim e s d e s c r ib e d th e irc la im le s s a r tf u lly tha n the y m i ghtha ve , a c our t ’ s pr ope rf oc us a tthe m ot i on t o di s m i s s s t a ge i s on the fa ctual al l egat i on s of the com pl ai nt– w hether i tcont ai ns “ enou gh fa ctual m att er ( ta k e n a s tru e ) to s u g g e s t th e r e q u ir e d e le m e n t[ s ]” o f th e c la im . W a tts v . F la . I n t’l. U ni v. , 495 F . 3d 1289, 1295 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd punc tua t i on o m itte d ) . W h e n th e f

a c ts in th e c o m p la in t c a n b e g iv e n a g e n e r o u s b u t r e a s o n ab le construct i on w hi ch m i gh tsa t i sf y the el em ent s of the cause of a ct i on al l eged, they oughtnotbe gi ve n s om e othe rc ons truc t i on unde rw hi c h the c l a i m bor de r s onThe fact that the Kupke s voluntarily paid the finelikely

does not render the deprivation 2 of prop e rt y attributa bleto p rivatec on du c t rather t ha n s tatea c tio n, be c a

us ethea c tio ns of

private parties may

be attributed to the statewhere it “coerce d or at lea st significa ntly encourag ed the a c tio n alle g e d tovio latetheCon stitution .”F ocus on theF amily

v. Pin e lla s Sunc oa st Tra

ns ity Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Whether the lost profits, losses on auction of theequipment, and the c osts of auction ca n plausibly

be ascribed to state action are questions for the district cour t on remand. 8 fr i vo l ou s. H ence , i m po si t i on of the fi ne i s the approp ri at e s t at e a ct i on for purpo se s o f th i s c l a i m. S o c ons true d, w e be l i e ve the c om pl a i nta de qua t e l y a l l e ge s a de pr i va t i on of pr ope r ty r e s ul t i ng f

r om s t a t e a c t i on, a tl e a s tw i th r e s pe c tt o the $2, 500 f i ne . T he E nf or c e m e ntB oa r d’ s i s s ua nc e of a c i t a t i on a nd f

i ne c l e a r l y c ons t i tut e d s t a t e a c t i on, an d u p o n p aym en t , d ep ri v ed th e K u p k es o f p ro p erty. 2 A m o r e c o m p lic a te d q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth e K u p k e s w e r e a f f o r d e d a d e q u a te proces s. In consi deri ng w hether a dequ at e r em edi es exi st , w e m ustconsi der w hat r e m e di e s a r e a va i l abl e unde rs t a t e l a w , notw he the rthe pl a i nt i f f t ook a dva nt a ge of th e m . H o r to n v . B d . o f

C ty . C o m m ’r s , F la g le rC ty ., 2 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . F lo r id a la w o r d in a r ily p r o v id e s f o rp r e - d e p r iv a tio n p r o c e s s , n a m e ly no t i ce and a heari ng before the E nforcement B oard before aci t at i on w i l l i ss ue, w ith ap p e lla te r e v ie w to f o llo w . B u t a m e a n in g f

u l p r e - d e p r iv a tio n h e a r in g is p r e c i s e l y w h a tap p e l l a n t s w e r e d e n i e d h e r e . Th e Co u n ty u r g e s th a ts o me co m b i n at i o n o f (i ) j u d i ci al rev i ew o f th e E n fo rcem en tB o ard o rd er, (i i ) m an d am u s, an d (i i i ) a n ew E n fo rcem en tB o ard h eari n g w o u l d affo rd th e K u p k es al l th e p ro cess9

th e y a r e d u e . W e a r e n o t s o c o n f id e n t, h o w e v e r , th a t a n y o f th e s e , o ra ll o f

th e m in com bi nat i on , prov i de a m ea ni ng ful po st -depri vat i on re m edy i n the ci rc um st ance s p r e s e n te d . T o b e m e a n in g f u l, a p o s t- d e p r iv a tio n r e m e d y m u s t a f f o r d th e p r o p e r ty ow ne ra n oppor tuni ty t o r e c ove rthe pr ope rty t a ke n w i thoutdue pr oc e s s i f the evi dence s o w arra nt s, and i ti s notcl ea r f rom the re cord and t he part i es ’ bri ef s that a n y o f th e p r o c e d u r e s a d v o c a te d b y th e C o u n ty d o s o . A s to ap p e lla te r e v ie w in the F l ori da court s: i n thei r app ea l of the E nforcement Bo ar d act i on , the K up kes as se rt ed a l ac k o f due process as a def ense a ga i ns te nf

or c e m e ntof

the c i t a t i on agai nstthem . T he ci t at i on w as qu as hed i n d ue course af t erthe F i fth D i stri ctC ou rt o f A p p e a ls ’ d e c is io n , b u t a s w e r e a d th e c o m p la in t, th e ap p e lla te c o u r t’s m a n d a te p r o v id e d n o b a s is f

o rim p o s itio n o f

a n y liab ility a g a in s t th e C o u n ty , n o rd id it n e c e s s a r ily r e q u ir e r e p a y m e n t o f f in e s p a id a f

te rth e d e f

ic ie n t h e a r in g . I n c o n tr a s t, i n thi s a c t i on the K upke s e m pl oy tha ts a m e c ons t i tut i ona l a r gum e nt , l a c k of due proces s, as a c la i m t o r e c ove rda m a ge s . P e rhaps the F l or i da c our t s w oul d not adhere t o thi s f

orm al di st i nct i on , bu tw e have no reas on t o b el i eve t o the contra ry at th i s st ag e o f th e p ro ceed i n g s. T he C ou nty a l so urges thatthe K up kes s ho ul d h ave s ou gh tre hear i ng before th e E n f o r c e m e n t B o a r d , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d a n a d e q u a te s ta te la w r e m e d y . B utc ontr a ry t o the C ounty ’ s pos i t i on, ne i the rthe f a c e of the c om pl a i ntnorourTh e rewa s n o a rgument t hat th ea pp e llatec ourt ’smandatewa s igno re d; a pp e lla nts 3 c on c e dethat vo luntary

dis mis sal w a s w ithin t

heCounty ’sri ghts . 10 r e vi e w of

F l or i da l a w s ugge s t s tha tthe K upke s c oul d obt a i n r e he a r i ng be f or e the E nforcement Bo ar d o n thei r ow n m ot i on . Indeed, atl ea ston e F l ori da courthas hel d thatE nforcement Bo ar ds l ac k l egal autho ri ty t o g ra ntre hear i ng t o agg ri eved l a ndow ne r s . C i ty of

P a l m B a y v. P a l m B a y G r e e ns L L C , 969 S o. 2d 1187, 1190 ( F l a . C t . A pp. 2007) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he C ounty a l s o ur ge s tha tthe F l or i da c our t s c oul d i s s ue m a nda m us c om pe l l i ng a ne w E nf or c e m e ntB oa r d he a r i ng i f the F i fth D i stri ct ’ s m andat e s o requi re s, bu tthati s ausef ul re m edy onl y i f anew hear i ng w ou l d b e. 3 E ve n i f the K upke s c oul d obt a i n r e he a r i ng be f or e the E nf

or c e m e ntB oa r d on th e iro w n m o tio n o rb y m a n d a m u s , it is n o t ap p a r e n t th a t s u c h a h e a r in g w o u ld p r o v id e a n a d e q u a te p o s t- d e p r iv a tio n r e m e d y f o rw r o n g f

u lly c o lle c te d f

in e s . C hapt e r162 of

the F l or i da S t a tut e s , the or ga ni c a c tw hi c h a uthor i z e s the c r e a t i on of l oc a l z oni ng E nf

or c e m e ntB oa r ds , s pe c i f i e s the qua l i f

i c a t i ons a nd t e r m s of B oa r d m e m be r s , F l a S t a t . § 162. 05, a uthor i z e s e nf or c e m e ntpr oc e e di ngs , § 162. 06, and speci fi es procedures t o b e e m pl oyed atB oard heari ng s, § 1 62 . 07 . B uti tm akes no m ent i on of a m ec hani sm w here by a property ow ner m ay i ni t i at e anew proceedi ng t o rec ou p an u nl aw ful l y i m po se d fi ne af t erpaym entthere of; i tappears tha tE nf or c e m e ntB oa r ds m a y be a uthor i z e d onl y t o he a re nf or c e m e ntpr oc e e di ngs11

in itia te d b y c o d e in s p e c to r s . S e e F la . S ta t. § § 1 6 2 .0 5 ; 1 6 2 .0 6 ( 1 ) . Y e tbe c a us e C hapt e r162 i s f a i r l y s ke l e t a l aboutthe pr oc e dur e s t o be e m pl oy e d i n E nf

or c e m e ntB oa r d di s put e s , F l or i da c our t s “ f i l l the pr oc e dur a l gaps i n [ c hapt e r162] by the c om m on- s e ns e appl i c a t i on of ba s i c pr i nc i pl e s of

due p r o c e s s .” M a s s e y & M a s s e y v . C h a r lo tte C ty ., 8 4 2 S o .2 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . S o th e ab s e n c e o f a r e f u n d - lik e p r o c e d u r e in C hapt e r162 doe s notde c i s i ve l y pr ove tha tthe K upke s c oul d notobt a i n a r e f und; F l or i da c a s e l a w a nd a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr a c t i c e a r e a l s o r e l e va nt . P e rhaps E nforcement Bo ar ds have an i nform al prac t i ce of re fund i ng fi nes thata c ou rtl at er d et erm i n ed t o h av e b een i m p o sed w i th o u td u e p ro cess. P erh ap s th e p o w er t o d o so i s t a ke n f orgr a nt e d by F l or i da c our t s a nd E nf or c e m e ntB oa r ds . B uta tthi s s t a ge of th e p r o c e e d in g s a n d g iv e n th e a r g u m e n ts p r e s e n te d to u s , w e a r e n o t s u f f ic ie n tly c o n f id e n t th a t s u c h a p o w e ro rp r a c tic e e x is ts to c o n c lu d e th a t th e K u p k e s w o u ld have a post -depri vat i on re m edy. T hi s app ea rs t o b e am att erthatm ay be m ore f rui t f ul l y a ddr e s s e d on a s um m a ry j udgm e ntr e c or d. I n s hor t , w e c a nnots a y w i th a ny c onf i de nc e tha tthe K upke s ha ve not a l l e ge d a c ogni z abl e due pr oc e s s c l a i m . I n pa r t i c ul a r , a s the above di s c us s i on m a k e s c le a r , n e ith e rth e r e c o r d a t th e m o tio n to d is m is s s ta g e n o rth e a r g u m e n ts m a de on appe a l c onc l us i ve l y de m ons tr a t e tha tthe K upke s ha d a n a de qua t e r e m e dyWe alsoe nc ourag ethepa rtie s tomakeg oo d f

aithe ff or ts to re a c h a

re a so na ble 4 se ttl e ment o f t

hismatter, whic h h a s gro wn , n o dou bt u nn e c e ssa ri ly, f ro m a sim plezoningdispute into a decade-long , multi-forum sag a. 12 t o r e c ove rthe w r ongf

ul l y i m pos e d f

i ne s . T he r e f

or e , w e m us tr e m a nd the c a s e f or fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 4 A cc ordi ng l y, w e VA C A TE the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng the c om pl a i nta nd RE MAND f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.