2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-31-2006 

# R&J H olding C o v

. Redev Auth P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1666

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R&J H o ld in g C o v

. Re dev Auth" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1700. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1700NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT No: 04-1666 R & J HOLDI

NG COMPANY; RJFL ORI G I NDUSTRIAL

COMPANY, I

NC., Appe lla nts v. THE REDEVEL OPMENT AUTHO RI TY OF THE COUNTYOF MONTGOMERY; DONALD W. PULVER; GREATER CONSHOHOCKEN IMPROVEMENT CORP.; TB F A PARTNERS , L .P.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 09530 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J anuary10, 2005 B E FO R E : R O T H , C H E R T O FF* and R E ST A N I **, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary31, 2006)

OP I NI ON

*T hi s cas e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he pane l of J udges R oth, C hert off a nd R es t ani . J udge C h e rto f f re sig n e d a f

ter su b m iss io n , b u t b e f

o re th e f ili n g o f th e o p in io n . T h e d e c isio n is fil ed b ya q u o rum o f th e p an el. 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 6 (d). **H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: T hi s s ui tw as br oughtbey ond t i m e per i od pr es cr i bed bythe governi ng s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . Forthatr eas on, and other s el abor at ed bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s o rd e rs d is m is s in g A p p e lla n ts ’ s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im .

I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A s the fa ct s ar e w el l know n t o the part i es , the courtgi ves onl ya br i ef de s cr i pt i on o f th e f a c ts a n d p ro c e d u ra l p o s tu re o f th e c a s e . P lain tiff R & J H o ld in g C o m p a n yis a P e n n sy lv a n ia p a rtn e rsh ip th a t o w n s p ro p e rty a t 1 1 0 W a sh in g to n S tre e t, B o ro u g h o f C o n sh o h o c k e n , P e n n sy lv a n ia. P lain tiff R J F lo rig I ndus tr i al i s a Penns y l vani a corpor at i on oper at i ng a s t eel pr oces s i ng bus i nes s on the pr emi s es ( “the Fl or i g Pr operty ”) . D efe ndantR edeve l opm entA uthor i tyof the C ountyof M ont gom ery( “R A C M ”) i s a s t at e- cr eat ed publ i c ent i ty . D efe ndantD onal d Pul veri s t he pr i nci pal of the r emai ni ng tw o D efe ndant s : G r eat erC ons hohocken I m pr ovement C o rp o ra tio n (“ G C IC ” ) a n d T B F A P a rt n e rs , L P . In 1 9 8 6 , D e f

e n d a n t R A C M e n te re d in to a n a g re e m e n t w ith D e f e n d a n t G C IC . R A C M ag ree d to ac q u ir e p rop erti es b yem inen t do m ain, ag ree d to co n v eythem to G C IC fo r de v elop m en t, an d G C IC ag ree d to p ayall co sts i n cu rred an d to p rov ide s ec u ri ty . In 1993, R A C M ent er ed i nt o a s econd a gr eementw i th G C I C . R A C M agr eed t o acqui r e the F lo rig P ro p e rtyb ye m in e n t d o m a in . G C IC a g re e d to c o v e r a ll d ire c t co n d e m n a tio n c o sts i n exce s s of the C om m onw eal th’ s gr ant . U nderthe t erm s of the agr eement , R A C M w as3

author i zed t o fi l e a D ecl ar at i on of Taki ng forthe Fl or i g Pr opertyonl yon the pr i orw r i t t en cons entof G C I C . I n 1995, R A C M ent er ed an a gr eementw i th D efe ndantT B FA : the Sur etyA gr eement . U nderthe t erm s of the Sur etyA gr eement , T B FA w as as s i gned al l t he r i ght s of G C I C underthe pr i or1993 agr eement . T B FA agr eed t o payfunds nece s s aryfor the ac qui s i t i on of the Fl or i g Pr opertyw hi ch w er e notpai d bythe C om m onw eal th and T B FA agr eed t o pr ovi de s ur etythats uch paym ent s w oul d be forthcomi ng w hen they beca m e due. O n J u ly 1 1 , 1 9 9 6 , R A C M f ile d a D e c la ra tio n o f

T a k in g f

o r t h e F lo ri g P ro p e rt y . P lai n ti ff s co n test ed the tak ing in state co u rtp roc ee d ing s. P lai n ti ff s filed p reli m inary obj ect i ons i n t he s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs on A ugus t26, 1996, and fi l ed amended p re lim in a ry o b

je c tio n s o n J u n e 4 , 1 9 9 7 , s e e k in g to s e t a s id e th e D e c la ra tio n o f T a k in g s . P lain tiff s a lleg e d th a t (1 ) R A C M u n law f u llyd e leg a ted its e m in e n t d o m a in a u th o rityto D efe ndantPul ver , a pr i vat e per s on; ( 2) R A C M act ed i n bad fa i th; and ( 3) the pos t ed s ecur i tyw as i nadequa t e. O n D ece m ber17, 1998, the Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas overrul ed the obj ect i ons bas ed on unl aw ful del egat i on and bad f ai th, al though gr ant i ng addi t i onal s ecur i ty . T hi s deci s i on w as appea l ed. O n February13, 2001, the C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt re v e rs e d th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P le a s a n d h e ld th a t, in tera lia , R A C M u n law fu ll yd eleg ated it s em inen t do m ain a u tho ri tyto P u lver. N eith er state co u rt h e ld th a t D e f

e n d a n ts a c te d w ith b a d f a ith . On M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 1 , a f

t e rth e Co mmo n we a l th Co u r ta n n o u n c e d i t s d e c i s i o n , RACMT he dat e on the l ett erhead of thi s agr eementw as M ar ch 1, 2001. B uti tw as 1 count er s i gned byD efe ndantPul veron behal f of the ent i t i es he contr ol l ed on M ar ch 6, 2 0 0 1 . See J o in t A p p x . a t A -1 0 3 to A -1 0 4 . A f ter th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied R A C M ’s p e tit io n to a p p e a l, 2 P la in tif f s in th e in s ta n t liti g a tio n f ile d a f e e p e titio n . T h e f

e e p e titio n w a s g ra n te d . A p p a re n tly, A p p e lla n ts re c o v e re d $ 5 5 0 ,0 0 0 . O n O ct ober26, 2005, the C om m onw eal th C our trul ed thatw her e a de jure 3 condemnat i on i s decl ar ed unl aw ful and voi d, condemnee’ s r emedyunderthe Em i nent D o m a in C o d e is lim ite d to re im b u rs a b le c o s ts a n d e x p e n s e s p u rs u a n t to 2 6 P .S . § 1 -4 0 8 . R & J Ho ld i n gCo . v . R DA , 8 8 5 A . 2 d 6 4 3 (P A C m w lth 2 0 0 5 ) 4 ent er ed i nt o a fi nal agr eementw i th G C I C and TB FA . T hatagr eement , the M ar ch Let t er 1 A g re e m e n t, state d th a t R A C M “ h a s a c ted to a p p e a l th e d e c isio n o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth C our t ” t o the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t . T he C om pl ai nti ndi cat es atpar agr aphs 45 and 49 thatR A C M fi l ed the appe al on M ar ch 13, 2001 – aft erthe M ar ch Let t er A gr eementhad bee n exec ut ed. Fur therm or e, the M ar ch Let t erA gr eementr ecogni zed G C I C as R A C M ’ s devel operw i th r egar d t o the Fl or i g Pr operty , s ubj ectt o the l i m i t at i on that p rov isi o n s in p ri o r ag ree m en ts fo u n d u n en fo rce ab le bythe C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt w er e of “ no fur therfor ce a nd eff ectunl es s and unt i l a contr arydeci s i on i s r ender ed” on a p p e a l. O n Ju ly1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied R A C M ’s p e tit io n to a p p e a l. 2 O n D ec em b er 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , P lai n ti ff -A p p ell an ts i n sti tuted the in stan t acti o n . In D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs , theybr oughta fe der al due pr oces s cl ai m , a fe der al t aki ngs cl ai m , and s ever al s t at e l aw cl ai m s . T he fe der al t aki ngs cl ai m w as di s m i s s ed w i thout prej ud i ce and thereaft er purs ued i n st at e cou rtproceed i ng s. 3T he D i s tr i ctC our topi ni on m i s t akenl yi ndi cat ed D ece m ber31, 1999, r atherthan 4 D ece m ber31, 2000, as the r el evantdat e. T hi s m i norerr ordoes notchange the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s a n a lysis . 5 R egar di ng the onl yr emai ni ng fede r al cl ai m , br oughtunder§ 1983, that D efe ndant s vi ol at ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s byunl aw ful l ydel egat i ng e m in e n t d o m a in a u th o rityto P u lv e r a n d to e n tit ies h e c o n tro lled , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld thata tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i ed. B eca us e the C om pl ai ntw as fi l ed D ece m ber 31, 2002, vi ol at i ons occurr i ng pr i ort o D ece m ber31, 2000, w er e notact i onabl e. T he 4 D i s tr i ctC our tfur therhel d t hatPl ai nt i ffs knew of thei ri nj ury“atl eas tbyD ece m ber17, 1 9 9 8 , wh e n th e C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s i s s u e d th e De c e m b e rOr d e ro v e rru l i n g R & J H o ld in g ’s p re lim in a ry o b je c tio n s to th e D e c la ra tio n o f T a k in g .” D is t. C t. O p . a t A -0 1 6 . T her efor e, the C om pl ai nt , fi l ed on D ece m ber31, 2002, w as nott i m el y . Pl ai nt i ffA p p e llan ts h a v e tak e n th e p o sitio n th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s d id n o t b e g in to ru n u n til 2001 – w hen the C om m onw eal th C our tr ever s ed the or derof the C our tof C om m on Pl eas – ther ebyfi ndi ng and cl ar i fy i ng the ext entof A ppel l ant s ’ cons t i tut i onal i nj ur i es . T he D is tr ic t C o u rt re

je c te d th is p o s itio n . Fur therm or e, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant s t ook the pos i t i on thatthe M ar ch Let t er A gr eement , exec ut ed l es s than tw o y ear s pr i ort o thei rfi l i ng the C om pl ai nti n thi s act i on, cons t i tut ed a c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on, agai n t ol l i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he D i s tr i ct C our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatthe M ar ch Let t erA gr eement on i t s fac e onl ypurpor t ed t o obl i ge the part i es t o per form l egal act s , oract s l at er6

det erm i ned t o be l egal bythe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , s houl d the l att eroverturn any partof the or deri s s ued bythe C om m onw eal th C our t . T hus , no cont i nui ng vi ol at i on or aff i r m at i ve ac t s of unl aw ful conductw er e al l eged i n the tw o y ear s pr i ort o fi l i ng the C o m p la in t. H avi ng r ej ect ed both fede r al cl ai m s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o t ake j ur i s di ct i on of the r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . Pl ai nt i ffs s oughtr econs i der at i on. N o r el i ef w as gr ant ed, al though t he D i s tr i ctC our tcl ar i fi ed i t s pr i orhol di ng. P la in tif f -A p p e lla n ts h a v e a p p e a le d to th is c o u rt . I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andards of R evi ew D i s tr i ctC our tj ur i s di ct i on w as founded on 28 U . S. C . § 1331, 42 U . S. C . § 1983, a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D efe ndant - A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s and deni ed P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ants ’ m oti on t o recon si der. O n ap peal of a grant of a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, ours t andar d of r evi ew i s the s ame as thatappl i ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . O urs t andar d of re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(6 ) is p len a ry . W e a re re q u ire d to a c c e p t as tru e a ll alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t an d a ll reas on able i nferences t hat can be d raw n ther efrom , view i ng them i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. A R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on s houl d be gr ant ed i f i tappea r s t o a c e rt a in ty th a t n o re lie f

c o u ld b e g ra n te d u n d e r a n ys e t o f f a c ts w h ic h c o u ld b e p ro v e d .G ener al l y , “an appeal fr om a deni al of a M ot i on forR econs i der at i on br i ngs up 5 th e u n d e rly in g ju d g m e n t f o r re v iew , [th e re f

o re ] th e sta n d a rd o f

re v iew [ o n a m o tio n to r econs i der ] var i es w i th t he natur e of the under l y i ng j udgm ent . ” McA l ist er v. Sen try I ns. Co ., 9 5 8 F .2 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 2 -5 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). 7 See Evancho v . F is her , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 5 I n D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant s br oughta mul t i count C om pl ai nt . H er e, on appea l , theyonl ypr es s thei rs ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m ar i s i ng f ro m D e f e n d a n ts’ u n law f

u l d e leg a tio n o f

e m in e n t d o m a in a u th o rityto a p riv a te i ndi vi dual . “Subs t ant i ve due pr oces s i s an ar ea of l aw famous fori t s contr over s y , and not know n fori t s s i m pl i ci ty . ” D eBl as i o v. Zoni ng B d. of A dj us tm ent

f orthe Tw

p. of W . A m w e ll , 53 F. 3d 592, 598 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng Sc h a p e r v . C ity o

f H u n tsv ill e , 813 F .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 6 (5 th C ir .1 9 8 7 )) , abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by U nited A rt ist

s Th eatr e C i r cui t , I nc. v. Tw p. of W ar r i ngt on , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 (3 rd C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W h e re , as h e re , a p a rty m akes a § 1983 cl ai m al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of fe der al due pr oces s r i ght s bygovernm ent act i on depr i vi ng a partyof pr operty , the partym us tal l ege, and l at erpr ove, thati tw as d e p riv e d o f

a p ro p e rtyin ter e st b ya rb itrar yo r c a p ric io u s g o v e rn m e n t ac tio n . N o t all p ro p e rt yin te re s ts a re p ro te c te d , n o tw ith s ta n d in g re c o g n itio n o f th e in te re s t in s ta te la w . R ather , t o s t at e a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m i n vi ol at i on of the Four t eenth A m endment a s p ro tec ted b yS e c tio n 1 9 8 3 , “a p lain tiff m u st h a v e b e e n d e p riv e d o f a p a rticu lar q u a lity of pr opertyi nt er es t . ” D e B la sio , 5 3 F . 3 d a t6 0 0 . Th e p r o p e r tyi n t e r e s tmu s tb e i n s o me se n se “ f u n d a m e n tal” u n d e r th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n , n o tw ith sta n d in g re c o g n iti o n in8

s ta te la w . Nich o la s v . P e n n sy lva n ia S ta te U n ive rs ity , 2 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 , 1 4 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A ddi t i onal l y , pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege, and l at erpr ove, governm entconductthats hocks t he c o n s c ie n c e . S e e U

n itedA rtists , 316 F. 3d at400- 02. A m er e i m pr operm ot i ve by governm entoffi ci al s , even i f unr el at ed t o the mer i t s of the admi ni s tr at i ve det erm i nat i on i m pi ngi ng upon pl ai nt i ff’ s pr opertyr i ght s , i s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e s s c la im . Id . I I I . D i s cus s i on A s expl ai ned above , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatPl ai nt i ffs knew of thei ri nj ury“at l eas tbyD ece m ber17, 1998, w hen the C our tof C om m on Pl eas i s s ued the D ece m ber O rd e r o v e rr u lin g R & J H o ld in g ’s p re lim in a ry o b je c tio n s to th e D e c la ra tio n o f T a k in g .” D i s t . C t . O p. atA - 016. T her efor e, the C om pl ai nt , fi l ed on D ece m ber31, 2002, bas ed on a tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fora § 1983 ac t i on, w as nott i m el y . A ppel l ant s do not cont es tthe appl i cat i on of a tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i ods , buttheyhave t aken the pos i t i on thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons di d notbegi n t o run unt i l 2001 – w hen the C om m onw eal th C our tr ever s ed the or derof the C our tof C om m on Pl eas – ther ebyfi ndi ng an d clarify ing the e x tent o f A p p ell an ts’ co n sti tuti o n al i n juri es. T h e D istri ct C o u rt re je c te d th is p o s itio n . W e a g re e w ith th e p o s itio n ta k e n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I n W i l l i am s on C ount

y Regi onalP lanni ng C om m ’ n v. H am i l t on B ank of

Johns on C ity , 473 U . S. 172 ( 1985) , the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es hel d that“ther e i s no r equi r ementthata pl ai nt i ff e xhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e br i ngi ng a § 1983T he i ni t i al deci s i onm akerw as R A C M , or , perhaps , i tw as R A C M i n conj unct i on 6 w i th Pul verand Pul vercontr ol l ed ent i t i es , w hi ch t ogetherdeci ded t o fi l e the D ecl ar at i on o f T a k in g . W e as s um e thatno admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew bys t at e age nci es of the D ecl ar at i on of 7 T a k in g w a s p o s s ib le . See 2 6 P .S . § § 1 -4 0 2 , 1 -4 0 7 ; c f. A c ier n o v . Mitch e ll , 6 F. 3d 970 9 a c tio n . T h e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies m u st b e e x h a u ste d is con ceptual l ydis t i nct, ho w ever, from the q uest i on w hetheran ad m i nis trat i ve acti on m ust be fi nal , befor e i ti s j udi ci al l yr evi ew abl e. ” Id . at192 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “W hi l e the pol i ci es under l y i ng the tw o conce pt s oft en over l ap, the fi nal i tyr equi r ementi s conce rned w i th w hetherthe in iti a l deci s i onm akerhas arr i ved ata def i ni t i ve pos i t i on on the i s s ue that i nfl i ct s an ac tual concr et e i nj ury. . . . ” Id . ( emphasi s added) . T he pol i cyr equi r i ng f in a lity , as o p p o se d to e x h a u stio n , is th a t re so lu tio n o f th e e x ten t o f

th e in ju ry“ d e p e n d s in sig n if ica n t p a rt, u p o n a n a n a ly sis o f th e e f f e c t” o f th e c o n tes ted g o v e rn m e n t ac tiv ity a lle g e d ly ca u s in g p la in tif f h a rm . Id . at200. “Thateff ectcannotbe meas ur ed unt i l a fi nal deci s i on i s m ade a s t o how the r egul at i ons w i l l be appl i ed t o r es pondent ’ s pr operty . ” Id . In th e in sta n t li tig a tio n , A p p e llan ts ta k e th e p o sitio n th a t u n til th e in ter m e d iate sta te c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls, th e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt, d e ter m in e d th a t R A C M u n law f u lly del egat ed emi nentdom ai n pow er s t o Pul ver , no fi nal deci s i on had bee n m ade unde r W i l l i am s on . W e d isag ree . U n d er W i l l i am s on , onl ythe dec i s i on of the “i ni t i al d e c is io n m a k e r” m u s t b e f in a l. Id . at 1 9 2 . O n th e se f a c ts, th e in iti a l d e c isio n m a k e r is R A C M . I t s deci s i on beca m e fi nal for§ 1983 purpos es once A ppel l ant s had not i ce of t he 6 fi l i ng of the D ecl ar at i on of Taki ng i n 1996. O r , atthe veryl at es t , w i th the cl os e of 7(3d C i r. 19 93 ) ( “T here has been no act i on byanyauthori t at i ve b od yt o reverse these

a c tio n s, a n d th u s w e a ss u m e w ith o u t d e c id in g , p lain tiff h a s a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in h is pl ans ” unders t at e l aw ) . I f s uch r evi ew w er e pos s i bl e, then aga i n thi s § 1983 act i on w oul d notbe r i pe forr evi ew even now . A nd i n thos e ci r cumst ance s , w e coul d notr eac h th e m e ri ts o f

th e d is p u te . W e not e thatatno poi ntdo A ppel l ant s even a l l ege thattheyfi r s tdi s cover ed 8 s u b s e q u e n tt o th e 1 9 9 8 s t a t e tr i a l c o u r td e c i s i o n a n y f act nece s s aryt o putthem on not i ce thatthi s § 1983 l i t i gat i on acc rued, m uch l es s w hys uch a f actcoul d nothave be en d is c o v e re d w ith th e e x e rc is e o f d u e d ilig e n c e p ri o r t o 1 9 9 8 .

10 di s coveryi n s t at e courttr i al pr ocee di ngs , byw hi ch t i m e A ppel l ant s , exer ci s i ng due d ili g e n c e , sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re o f a ll th e re lev a n t fa c ts s u p p o rt in g th e ir§ 1 9 8 3 c la im . 8 Cf . L a ke v . A rn o ld , 232 F. 3d 360, 367 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( not i ng that“Penns y l vani a comm on l aw . . . r ecogni zes the di s coveryrul e, w hi ch t ol l s the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons unt i l a pl ai nt i ff a c tu a llyd isc o v e rs th e h a rm c a u se d b ya n e a rlier in f licte d b u t late n t in

ju ry ” ); C o rn v . C ity of Lauder dal e Lakes , 9 0 4 F .3 d 5 8 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (n o tin g th a t “a f e d e ra l cla im is gener al l ycons i der ed t o acc rue w hen the pl ai nt i ff know s orhas r eas on t o know of the i nj uryw hi ch i s the bas i s of the ac t i on”) . T he s t at e tr i al courti s s ued i t s opi ni on on D ece m ber17, 1998. T her efor e, by1998 A ppel l ant s had not i ce of the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve act i on caus i ng A ppel l ant s ’ i nj ury . T hus thi s 2002 act i on w as br oughtw el l bey ond the tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e not e thati n W i l l i am s on , the Supr eme C our tr efe rr ed to “ ju d ic ia l p ro c e d u re s ” in its d is c u s s io n o f e x h a u s tio n , n o t f

in a lity. W

i l l i am s on , 47 3 U. S. at193. W e know of no Thi r d C i r cui tauthor i tyhol di ng thats t at e court s ar e adj unct s of a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c ies f o r f in a lityo r rip e n e ss p u rp o se s. W e h a v e e x p re ss lyh e ld o th e rw is e . S e e T

a y l o rI n v e s tme n t

, L td . v . Up

p e rDa r b

y T wp . , 983 F. 2d 1285, 1293 n. 1211

(3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ O f

c o u rse , an a g g rie v e d p a rtym a ya p p e a l f o r ju d icia l re v iew . A c laim is ‘f in a l,’ h o w e v e r, af

ter th e .. . b o a rd h a s re n d e re d a d e c isio n . F in a lityd o e s n o t re q u ire sta te c o u rt re v iew o f

th e b o a rd ’s d e c isio n .”); id . at 1 2 9 2 (h o ld in g th a t W i l l i am s on ’s f

in a lity r equi r ementappl i es t o § 1983 al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of equa l pr ot ect i on, pr ocedur al due p ro c e ss , an d su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss ); s e e a l s o L a u d e r b a u g h v . Ho

p e we l lT wp . , 319 F. 3d 568, 575 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “The r i penes s doctr i ne pr event s j udi ci al i nt er fer ence unt i l an admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on has been f or m al i zed a nd i t s eff

ect s fel ti n a conc r et e w aybyt he c h a lle n g in g p a rt ie s .” ). A ppel l ant s poi ntt o per s uas i ve author i tyfr om anotherci r cui thol di ng thatthe

“ sta tu s o f

[ p lain tiff ’s] p ro p e rtyw a s n o t d e ter m in e d [ f o r f in a lityp u rp o se s] u n til th e sta te a p p e lla te c o u rt ” re a c h e d its d e c is io n . C orn , 904 F. 2d at588. Si nce C orn w as publ i s hed, it h a s b e e n h e a v ilyc riticiz e d b yth e c irc u it j u d g e th a t w ro te th e o p in io n , b yo th e r E lev e n th C ir c u it ju d g e s , a n d b yju d g e s w ith in th is c ir c u it. See New P or tLargo, I nc. v. Monr oe C o u n ty , 985 F. 2d 1488, 1498 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( E dm onds on, J . , concurr i ng) ( cr i t i ci zi ng C orn ); id . at1495 ( T

j ofl at , C . J . , concurr i ng) ( cr i t i ci zi ng C orn ); Sam er i c C or p. of D e la w a re v . C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , N o . C iv . A . 9 5 -7 0 5 7 , 1 9 9 6 W L 4 7 9 7 3 , a t * 3 & n .4 ( E . D . Pa. 1996) ( K el l y , J . ) ( r ej ect i ng C orn ) . W e s ee no r eas on t o embra ce the much cr i t i ci zed vi ew announce d i n C orn , and thi s panel i s , i n anyevent , bound byourpr i or pr ece dent s di s t i ngui s hi ng agenc ydet erm i nat i ons fr om s t at e courtr evi ew of fi nal agenc y a c tio n .12

A s expl ai ned above , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant s t ook the pos i t i on thatthe M ar ch Let t er A gr eement , exec ut ed l es s than tw o y ear s pr i ort o thei rfi l i ng the C om pl ai nti n thi s act i on, cons t i tut ed a c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on, agai n t ol l i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he D i s tr i ct C our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatthe M ar ch Let t erA gr eement on i t s fac e onl ypurpor t ed t o obl i ge the part i es t o per form l egal act s , oract s l at er det erm i ned t o be l egal bythe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , s houl d the l att eroverturn any partof the or deri s s ued bythe C om m onw eal th C our t . T hus , no cont i nui ng vi ol at i on or aff i r m at i ve ac t s of unl aw ful conductw er e al l eged i n the tw o y ear s pr i ort o fi l i ng the C om pl ai nt . A ddi t i onal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d: [ T ]h e c o n tin u in g v io la tio n d o c tr in e is a n a rr o w a n d e q u ita b le e x c e p tio n . T h e d o c trin e “ sh o u ld n o t p ro v id e a m e a n s f o r re liev in g p lain tiff

s f ro m th e ir dutyt o exer ci s e r eas onabl e di l i gence i n pur s ui ng thei rcl ai m s . ” C o w e ll [ v. P alm erTw

p. ], 2 6 3 F .3 d [ 2 8 6 ], at 2 9 5 [ (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ]. O n th e c o n tra ry , “if pr i orevent s s houl d have a l ert ed a r eas onabl e per s on t o actatthatt i m e the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theoryw i l l notover come t he r el evants t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ” K i ngv. T

ow nship of

E . L am bert , 17 F. Supp. 2d 394, 416 (E .D . P a . 1 9 9 8 ). D is t. C t. O p . a t A -0 1 9 . A lth o u g h the A p p ell an ts pu t fo rw ard a su b stan ti al resp o n se to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fi r s tr at i onal e, the onl

y arg u m en t pu t fo rw ard b yw ayo f re sp o n se to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s13

second rat i on al e i s that “the sub st anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m w as not r i pe u nti l P l ai nti ffs’ co m p let ed their ap p ea l t o the C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rtan d the C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt d e ter m in e d th e sta tu s o f th e F lo rig p ro p e rty , in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 1 . P lain tiff s d ili g e n tly br oughtthei rfede r al cl ai m s w i thi n tw o y ear s of the C om m onw eal th C our t ’ s deci s i on. ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at54; A ppel l ant s ’ R epl yat9. W e have al r eadyr ej ect ed thi s ar gum entas t o fi nal i tyand r i penes s . I tcan ha r dl yr es us ci t at e thei rcl ai m underthe ae gi s of the cont i nui ng vi ol at i ons doctr i ne. A lso tro u b lin g f

o r A p p e llan ts’ c o n tin u in g v io latio n s a rg u m e n t in su p p o rt o f th e ir s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m i s thei rgener al l i t i gat i on pos i t i on thatA ppel l ees ’ conduct sh o c k s th e c o n sc ien c e , a n e c e ss a rye lem e n t to th e ir d u e p ro c e ss c laim . A lth o u g h th is q u e s t i o n w a s n o tr e a c h e d b yth e D i s tr i c tC o u r t , i tw a s b r i e f e d b e f o r e u s o n a p p e a l . We not e thatnei therthe C our tof C om m on Pl eas , northe C om m onw eal th C our t( northe di s s ent ) m ade a nyexpr es s fi ndi ng of bad f ai th agai ns tA ppel l ees , al though thi s m att erw as b ri e f e d in s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See Jo int A p p x . at A -62 4 (ho lding b ystat e tri al co u rt th a t P lain tiff

f a iled to e sta b lish b a d f

a ith ); id . at A -8 2 2 to A -8 3 3 (sta te a p p e llate c o u rt d id n o t re a c h b a d f

a ith iss u e ); id . atA - 835 t o A - 841 ( di s s ent er s on appea l t aki ng the pos i t i on th a t th e sta te tria l co u rt c o rre c tlyf o u n d n o b a d f

a ith ). It se e m s c lea r th a t “b a d f a ith ” is m uch l i ke the “i m pr operm ot i ve” t es tthatthi s courtappl i ed i n B e llo a n d its p ro g e n y . T hats t andar d w as l at err ej ect ed i n favorof the much m or e bur dens om e “s hocks the cons ci ence ” s t andar d announce d i n U ni t ed Art is t

s . See Bel l o v. W

alker , 840 F. 2d 1124,14

1 1 2 9 (3 d C ir .1 9 8 8 ) ( a d o p tin g im p ro p e r m o tiv e te s t) , abr ogat ed by U nited A rt ist

s Th eatr e , 3 1 6 F . 3 d a t4 0 0 - 0 2 ( a d o p t i n g s h o c k s th e c o n s c i e n c e s t a n d a r d ) . Ag a i n , i ts e e ms r eas onabl e thati f A ppel l ant s coul d notm eetthe l ow erthr es hol d, then theycannotm eet th e h ig h e r s ta n d a rd .

I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e re aso n s elab o rated ab o v e, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers di s m i s s i ng A ppel l ant s ’ s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m . A ppl i cat i ons forfee s ar e deni ed.