### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 6, 2006 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1140 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 00-02080 -CV -C-M JOSEP H R. CAMPB ELL, MARILYN CAM PBELL, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , ve rs us RAINBOW CITY, AL ABAMA, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry 6, 200 6) Before CA RNE S and PRY OR, Circuit Judges, and FO RRE ST ER , D istrict Judg e. *On Marc h 9, 2001, Plaintiffs, repre sented by new c ounsel, filed a se cond ame nded 1 complaint in which only

the municipality

of Rainbow City

was named as a

Def endant. There afte r, the mayor and the Boa rd of Adjustment we re no long er pa rties to the litigation. 2 FO RRE ST ER , D istrict Judg e: Pl ai nti ff s, Jos ep h and M ar ily

n C am pbe ll, br ough t this a ct ionpur suant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 i n th e U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of Alabam a against De fendant Rainbow City (here inafter “ De fendant” or “ the City ”), its m ay or a nd i ts B oard

of A dj ustm en t, se ek ing dam ag es a lle ge dly r es ult ing f

ro m the Ci ty Co unc il an d P lanni ng C om m iss ion ’ s de nia l of

te ntativ e ap pr ova l f

or Plaintiffs’ proposed b uildi ng project. Plaintiffs contend that the City violated 1 their rights und er the F irst Am endm ent and the Fourteenth Am endm ent’ s Equal Pr ote ct ionCl au se w he n it de nie d th em

suc h te ntativ e ap pr ova l. P la int if fs c la im that all other developers that cam e before the Planning Comm issio n had received ap pr ova l and ave r that P la int if fs w er e tr eate d di ff

er en tly by the Ci ty be ca use of Mr . Cam pbe ll’ s c an did ac y

in a pr ior m ay or al e le ct ion , in w hic h he r ana ga ins t the inc um be nt m ay or , am em

be r of the P lanni ng C om

m iss ionthat r ef

use d to giv e te ntativ e ap pr ova l. T he c as e w en t t o tr ia l, a nd the j ur y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t f

or Pl ai nt iff s.Def endant a lso appea ls the district court’s rulingon sever al other grounds. B eca use we 2 conclude that the district court should have g rante d the City ’s Rule 50 motion, we nee d not addre ss Defe ndant’s other arguments. 3 De fe n d an tRa i nb o w C i t y h as ap p ea l ed , a s s er t i n g as erro r t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s denial of De fendant’ s Rule 50 m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law. W e agre e 2 for tw o reasons. P laintiffs failed as a m atter of law to show that the City ’ s final policym aker a cted with an unconstitu tional m otive, and thus no rea sonable jury could find th at the City

violated the Plaintiffs’ First A m endm ent rights. Moreover, Pl ai nti ff s have not

of fe re d any e vid en ce to supp ort an e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im of sim ilarly -situated indi vidu als who w ere treated diff erently . Thus, the district court shou ld h av e gr an te d th e Ci ty ’ s R ule 50 m oti on. F or

the se r ea sons , the or de r of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r ev er se d, a nd i t i s di re ct ed to en te r j udgm en t f

or D ef en dant. I. Back ground In 1996, Mr. Cam

pbell ran for the offic e of May or of Rainbow C ity and was defeate d by

the incum

bent, May or Sue G lidewell. D uring his bid for office, Mr. Cam pbe ll w as c ri tic al of

G lid ew el l and h er

pol ic ie s. A ll bui ldi ng p ro

j ec ts i n R ai nbowCi ty

m ust ga in a ppr ova l of

the Ci ty Co unc il an d th e Pl an nin g C om m iss ion . A s part

of he r of fi ce , May or

G lid ew el l i s a vot ing m em

be r of both th e Ci ty

Co unc il an d th e Pl an nin g C om m iss iona nd appoin ts six o f the other nine m em bers to the Planning Comm issio n. P rior to finalTh e c ity bu ild ingins pe c tor

de ve lop e d th e c on c e pt o f t e ntativ e a pp ro va l and

its 3 require ments. The City

g rants or de nies tentative a pproval if it is sought by

a deve loper, but the City has neve r off

icially require d that it be obtained. Although the parties r epeatedly ref er to Plaintiffs’ prope rty

as “te n acr es,” a fter the 4 orig inal purcha se of the la nd, the Campbells sold 1.17 acre s. Thus, the ac rea g e is less than nine acr es, re nderingthe density figures g iven by

the par ties too low. Never

theless, bec ause our analy sis does not chang e whe ther the a cre ag e is nine or ten, w e will continue to re fer to the land a s te n a c re s. 4 ap pr ova l of

apr oj ec t, the P lanni ng C om m iss ionc angr an t t en ta tiv e ap pr ova l i f the ap pli cant m ee ts c er

ta in r equir em en ts. T en ta tiv e ap pr ova l pe rm its the de ve lop er to start pr ep ar ing the sit e fo r co nstru ct ionby a llo w ing c le an ing a nd c le ar ing of the land and s om e m ino r gr ad ing . 3 T he Ra inb owCi ty

Z oni ng O rd inanc e ha s ase t of spe ci fi c re gul at ion s gove rn ing de ve lop m en ts w ith in R ai nbowCi ty . O ne suc h r eg ulatio n a ff ec tin g m ultifam ily housi ng develop m ents relates to density . Prior to 1999, the Or dinance al low ed ade nsi ty of te n un its pe r ac re . T he O rd inanc e w as a m en de d in199 9 to al lo w a de ns it y

of s ix te en un it s p er ac re. O n M ay 5, 199 7, the Cam

pbe lls bou ght

appr oxi m at el y

te n a cr es of

land wit hi n R ai nb ow Ci ty. The p ro pe rty was zo ne d fo r m ul ti fam il y ho us in g. 4 Pl ai nt iff s wan te d t o b ui lda la rg e ap art m en t co m pl ex on th e tr actof l an d. O ri gin al ly , the Cam

pbe lls int en de d to bui ld 1 80 unit s onthe pr ope rty . I n or de r to develop th e property

in this m anner, Plaintiffs w ouldneed to obtain a variance be ca use the pr e- 1999 O rd inanc e w oul d pe rm it onl y 100 uni ts o n ate n- ac re tr ac t of5

land. I n January

199 8, Mr . Cam

pbe ll m et w ithMay or

G lid ew el l t o di sc uss the co nstru ct ionof

a n a partm en t c om

ple x onthe pr ope rty . L at er , on F eb ru ar y 20,
w he n M r. Cam

pbe ll cam e be fo re the Ci ty ’ s P lanni ng C om m iss ion , he sou ght

to develop 16 2 apartm ents on th e land. He brought a vicinity m ap, which hig hli ght ed

the pr ope rty , to the m ee tin g. T he P lanni ng C om m iss ionde ci de d to ta ble the m atte r fo r dis cu ssi on. O n M ar ch23 and 2 4, 199 8, Mr . Cam pbe ll atte nde d aCi ty

Co unc il m ee tin g an d aP lanni ng C om

m iss ionm ee tin g to de te rm ine if he w oul d be pe rm itt ed

to bui ld 1 62 a

partm en ts o n th e land. B oththe Co unc il an d th e Pl an nin g C om m iss ion ta ble d th e m atte r fo r furthe r dis cu ssi on. O n Apr il 28, 199 8, Mr . Cam pbe ll ag ai n w en t be fo re the P lanni ng Co m m iss ion . T his ti m e he state d th at he w as se ek ing to bui ld o ne bui ldi ng w ith 16 unit s onpart

of the pr ope rty . Mr . Cam

pbe ll be lie ve d th at

if he im pr es se d th e Planning Comm issio n with this develop m ent, it w ouldallow him to buil d the other apartm ents. T he Planning Comm issio n, w ary of Mr. Cam

pbell’s r equest, tabled a n y a c t i o n u n t i l i tc o u l dc o n s u l twi t h t h e C i t y’s a t t o rn e y. In May 199 8, M r. Cam

pb el l h ire d a n a tt orne y

to he lp hi m

wit h h is req ue st s. On May 11, 1998, Mr. Cam

pbell attended a City

Council m eeting and left pa pe rw ork w ith the Council. In a letter addressed to the May or on the sam e date,There is some dispute about whether there wer e four

or five r equire ments for tentative 5 approva l. Plainti ffs submitted one docume nt from the Rainbow City Planning Commission stating the require ments for tentative approva l were : (1) name , addre ss, and phone number of the pr op e rt y owne r, (2 ) t

he a dd re ss o f t he pr op e rt

y un de r c on sid e ratio n, (3 ) a sk e tc h o f t

he pr op e rt

y with building locations, and ( 4) zoning a nd land use infor

mation. The docume nt attache d to the Plaintiffs’ J une 8 letter , howeve r, conta ined another additional require ment: (5) appr oval subject to p lans and

sp e c if ic atio ns and

a ft e r r e vie w b y

bu ild ing , f

ir e , a nd e ng ine e ri ngde pa

rtme nts . T his dis pute is n ot r e le va

nt t o o ur ana ly sis . 6 Pl ai nti ff s st at ed the ir r ea sons f or se ek ing a

vari an ce f

ro m the li m itatio n of

te n un its pe r acr e. O n June 8, 199 8, the Cam pbe lls se nt anothe r le tte r to the May or a nd the City Council. T he Cam

pbells in dicated in the letter that the City law y er had inf orm ed the m that the y ha d no t c om

pli ed w iththe r equir em en ts o f te ntativ e ap pr ova l and the le tte r w as a n a tte m pt t o de m onstrate c om

pli an ce . T he

5 Cam pb el ls st at edth atth ey

were s eek in g t en ta ti ve ap pr ov al fortwen ty-two apartm ents per acr e on their ten-acr e trac t. A ttached to the letter w as a sketch dr awn in pe nc il sh owi ng th e lo cat io ns of t he pro po se d b ui ld in gs . The next corr espond ence betw een the parties appear s to have taken place
m or e than on e y ear la te r. A ft er a n in qui ry

f ro m the Cam pbe lls ’ a tto rn ey , on Oc tober 8, 1999, the City ’ s attorney stated that the Cam

pbells had n ever satisfied the f if th r equir em en t f

or te ntativ e ap pr ova l. U nde r the str

uc tur e se t up by

the Ci ty , part ie s di ssatis fi ed w iththe P lanni ng Co m m iss ion ’ s r es pons e m ay

appe al to the Bo ar d of

A dj ustm en t. O n N ove m be r 5,7

1999 , the C am

pbells filed an application with the Boar d of Adj ustm ent in which the y sou ght anum be r of vari an ce s. P la int if

fs sou ght avari an ce w ithr eg ar d to apartm ent density , so as to allow them to buil d twenty -one units p er a cre as oppo sed to six teen, the m axim um that the Or dinance would have allowed at that tim e. T he y

a lso sou ght

avari an ce f

ro m the se tba ck

r equir em en t f

or bui ldi ngs, w hic h r equir ed

ase tba ck of f if te enf ee t f ro m park ing a re as . T he y

sou ght a va ria nc e fro m

th e req ui rem en t fo r th e m an da to ry sp aci ng be twee n b ui ld in gs . Finally , P laintiffs asked for a var iance fr om the m andatory

front and back y ard space re quirem ents. T he Board of A djustm ent, which m et in May 2000 , turned dow n a ll of

P la int if fs ’ r eque sts f

or vari an ce s. E ve ntu al ly , P la int if fs sol d ha lf

of t h e p r o p e rt y. A n o t h e r

p a rt y d e v e l o p e dt h a tp o rt i o n o f t h e p r o p e rt y u n d e r

t h e n a me Me ad owO ak s. Plaintiffs offe r the following developm ents as com parators: the E towah St ee lw orke rs Cr ed it U nio n, the W al la ce Me dic al Ce nte r, Re ge nc y P oin t, S t. Christoph er Apartm ents, the H idden Creek Apartm ents, Mea dow O aks, T erry E ch ols ’ apartm en ts o n B ro w n A ve nue , a nd T er ry E ch ols ’ apartm en ts o n S ixth Stre et . The E towah Stee lworkers C redit Union and the W allace M edical Center are co m m er ci al de ve lop m en ts. R eg en cy P oin t w as bui lt in 2 000 as aP lanne d U nit8

D ev el opm en t f

or am ixe d- use r et ir em en t c om m uni ty . T he re is no e vid en ce in the re co rd to showthat R eg en cy

P oin t so ught

or obt ai ne d te ntativ e ap pr ova l f ro m the Pl an nin g C om

m iss ionto de ve lop the pr ope rty . T he a re a w as r ez one d w ith out the de ve lop er f ur nis hin g th e Ci ty

w ithaz oni ng r eque st o r a co nc ep t pl an . A cc or din g to P la int if

fs ’ e xpe rt , Mr . S tin son, Re ge nc y P oin t do es not

have the m ix o f co m m er ci al a nd r es ide nti al hou sin g r equir ed by the O rd inanc es r el at ing to a Pl an ne d Un it Deve lo pm en t. T he S t. Ch ri sto phe r ap ar

tm en t c om

ple x w as bui lt part ia lly

on l an d z one d f

or R-1 property , a

designatio n which does not allo w the building of apartm ents. Mr . St ins on c oul d f

ind no r ec or d of

plans h av ing be ensub m itt ed to the Ci ty ’ s bu ild ing de pa rtment. T he H idd enCr ee k Apartm en t c om ple x is asm al l, six te en -unit de ve lop m en t sit ua te d onaha lf

-a cr e ne ar P la int if fs ’ tr ac t of

land. T he re is no e vid en ce in the re co rd to showthat the de ve lop er s of the H idd en

Cr ee k Apartm en ts s ough t or rece iv edten ta ti ve ap pr ov al forth e d ev el op m en t p rio r to rece iv in g fi na l ap pr ov al . A cc or din g to Mr . S tin son, the H idd enCr ee k Apartm en ts d o no t c om ply w iththe Ci ty O rd in an ces go ve rn in g d en si ty, pa rk in g, an d re crea ti on al area s. T he Me ad owO ak s de ve lop m en t, af if ty -s ix- uni t m

ult if am ily apartm en t co m ple x, bui lt on l an d or igi na lly ow ne d by

P la int if fs , w as gr an te d te ntativ e9

ap pr ov al by the Pla nn in g C omm is si on aft er i ts de ve lo pe rs su bm it te d a si te pl an . T he de ve lop m en t a s bu ilt doe s no t have the pr ope r buf fe r zo ne be tw ee n th e de ve lo pm en t an d a n a djac en t s in gl e fam il y res id en ce. Fi na lly , P la int if

fs c la im the ir pr oj ec t t o be sim ilarl y

sit ua te d to the tw o se ts of apartm en ts b uil t by

T er ry E ch ols : an e igh t- uni t c om ple x onBr ow n A ve nue a nd a te n- uni t c om

ple x onS ixth S tr ee t, both of w hic h do not

c om port w iththe Ci ty Or dinance in num erous way s. B oth Echols’ developm ents sou ght and received t e n t a t i v e ap p r o v a l f

r o m th e P l a n n i n g C o mmi s s i o n . E a c h t i me M r . E c h o l s c a me be fo re the Co m

m iss ion , he br ough t si te plans o utl ini ng the pr opos ed loc at ion s of the bui ldi ngs. O n af

ewoc ca sio ns h e w as a cc om panie d by both hi s arc hit ec t and his e ngi ne er

w ho w oul d answ er

que sti ons pose d by

the P lanni ng C om

m iss ion rel at in g t o t he pro po se d d ev el op m en t. Mr. Ec hols app eare d before that Planning Com m issio n six or seven tim es pr ior to re ce ivi ng t en ta tiv e ap pr ova l f or his de ve lop m en t onS ixth S tr ee t. F or his Br ow n S tr ee t de ve lop m en t, Mr . E ch ols a tte nde d a t l ea st tw o m ee tin gs p ri or to ge tti ng t en ta tiv e ap pr ova l. E ac h ti m e that he w as not gr an te d te ntativ e ap pr ova l, the P lanni ng C om

m iss ionw oul d ta

ble the m atte r fo r furthe r dis cu ssi on, a nd h e w as e xpe ct ed

to re tur n to se ek appr ova l a t the ne xt m ee tin g.10

At tria l, P laintiffs supp orted their argum ent that they we re tre ated d i ff er en t l y an dre t al i at ed ag ai n s tb y t h e C i t y wi t h t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e C i t y’ s fo rm er Bu ild ing I nspe ct or , Ja ck Bo w lin gs. A lth oughMr . Bo w lin gs w as not present at trial beca

use he wa s deceased, he had given sworn testim ony at three pr etri al de posi tio ns. Mo re ove r, pr ior to the thi rd

de posi tio n, he ha d su

bm itt ed a sw or n a ff idavit to the part ie s. P la int if

fs c ont en d th at

the state m en ts i n th e de po si ti on s an d t he affi da vi t p ro ve th atth ey were t reat edun

jus tl y by the Cit y . D ef en dant arg ue s th at

the te sti m ony

of Mr . Bo w lin gs i s in adm iss ab le , apos iti on w ithw hic h w e fi nd s om e sym pa thy . H ow ev er , be ca

use w e de ci de the c as e on o t h e r g r o u n d s , we n e e dn o tf

u rt h e r a d d r e s s M r . B o w l i n g s ’ t e s t i mo n y. S i mi l a r l y, we do not address De fendant’ s appealing argum ent that the expert testim ony relied on to su pport the awar d of dam ages is inadm issib le. II. D isc us sio n A ft er the c onc lus ionof

P la int if fs ’ c as e an d a t the e nd o f tr ia l, the Ci ty m ad e Ru le 50 m oti ons fo r j udgm en t a s am atte r of law . T he tr ia l c ourt de nie d th es e m oti ons. D ef

en dant a ppe al s th is d en ia l. W e rev ie w a Ru le 50 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law de novo , ap pl y in g t he same sta nd ard s u se d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. A be l v
. D ubbe rly , 210 F . 3d 1334 , 133 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( pe r curi am). W e co nsi de r “ w he the r suf fi ci en t11

co nf lic t e xis ts i n th e ev ide nc e to n ec es sit at e subm itt ing the m atte r to the j ur y or whether the evidence is so weighted in favor of one side that that party is entitled to succeed in his or her own positio n as a m atter of law. ” Id
. “ A lth oughw e loo k at the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty , the non m ovant m

ust pu t forth m ore than a m ere scintilla of evidence sugg esting th at reasonable m inds cou ld reach diff ering verdicts.” Id
. Be ca use the j ur

y f ound f or P l a i n t i f f s o n b o t h th e F i r s tA me n d me n tc l a i m an dt h e e qu a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m, D e f e n d a n tmu s ts h o wth a tth e tr i a l c o u rte rr e di n s e n d i n g b o t h c l a i ms t o t h e ju ry. A . S e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 Cl a i ms A “ loc al gov er

nm en t ‘ m ay

onl y be he ld l ia

ble und er S ec tio n 19 83 i f ac tio n pursuant to official . . . policy of som e nature c aused a constitut ional tort.” M att he ws v . Co lum bia Co unt

y , 2 9 4 F . 3 d1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e r c u r i a m) (quot ing Ch urc h v
. Ci tyof H unt sv ill e , 30 F.3d 13 32 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 19 94 )). Furthe r, onl y

m uni ci pa l of

fi ce rs or gr oups w ho h av e fi na l po lic ym ak ing auth or ity
m ay su bjec t t he m

un ic ip al it y

to § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty. Id . B. FirstAm endm ent W e assum e, for the purposes of appeal, that Plaintiffs’ speech is protected by the F ir st A m en dm en t. W e al so a ssu m e that P la int if fs pr oduc ed

e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d have f

ound that M ay or

G lid ew el l so ught

to puni sh12

Pl ai nti ff s inr et al ia tio n f

or the ir pr ote ct ed

spe ec h. I n or de r to f

ind that the Ci ty

is lia ble f or suc h an a lle ge d to rt , how ev er , w e m ust f ind that the P lanni ng Co m m is si on , th e fi na l p ol ic y

m ak er, act edwit h t he im pr op er m ot iv e. Matthews , 294 F.3d at 1297 . An im proper m otive of one of the m em bers of a nine-m em

ber Pl an ni ng Co m

m is si on is no t i m

pu te d t o t he res t o f th e Co m m is si on . Id

. (unc onst itu tio na l m oti ve of one m em be r of athr ee -m em

be r m aj or ity

is ins uf fi ci en t to i m put e anunc onst itu tio na l m oti ve to a co m m iss ion ); Mas on v. Vil la ge of El P ortal , 240 F . 3d 1 337, 133 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or m uni ci pa lity ap pr opr ia te w he re pla int if f show ed e vid en ce of

dis cr im inator

y m oti ve he ld b y

one m em ber of a three-per son m aj ority ). In M att he ws , the pla int if

f al le ge d th at

he r j ob a s th e Co unty ’ s D ir ec tor of A dm ini str at ive S er

vic es w as e lim inate d inr et al ia tio n f or he r state m en ts concerning a com

pany with w hich the Count y

wa s attem

pting to contract. Thr ee of f ive c ounty

c om m iss ion er s vo te d to e lim inate the pos iti on. I n aspe ci al ve rd ic t, a j ur y de te rm ine d th at

one of the c om m iss ion er s w as m oti va te d to e lim inate the posi tio n by

the pla int if

f’ s pr ote ct ed

spe ec h and tha t the tw o othe r co m m iss ion er s we re “ i n fl u en ce d ” b y t h at co m m i s s i o n er . We h el d , h o we v er , t h at t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s ev ide nc e did

not sup port a f ind ing of unc onst itu tio na l m oti ve on b eh al f of the Co un ty Comm is si on on th e b as is eit he r of a th eo ry of d el eg at io n o r rat ifi cat io n.13

Matthews , 294 F . 3d at 12 97. W e fo und that a de le ga tio n th eo ry

appl ie s on ly wher e a group with final policym aking auth ority delegates its authorityto another pe rs on o r en tity , a nd tha t pe rs on o r en tity is not sub j ec t t o any

r ev ie wby

the or ig in al po li cym ak er. Id
. ( ci tin g Sc ala v . Ci tyof W int er P ark, 116 F . 3d 1 396, 1399 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ). W e al so f ound that i n or de r fo r a m

uni ci pa lity

to be li ab le unde r a ratif

ic at ionthe or

y , the f ina l po lic ym ak er

m ust r at if y not onl y the de ci sio n of it s m em be r w itha n un co nst itu tio na l m oti ve , but a lso the unc onst itu tio na l ba sis it se lf. Id
. (c iti ng Gattis v. Brice , 136 F. 3d 72 4, 727 (11th Cir. 1998)). H er e, a s in Matthews , the e vid en ce f ai ls t o sh owthat the P lanni ng Co m m iss ion , the pol ic ym ak er f or the Ci ty , a ct ed

w itha n un co nst itu tio na l m oti ve in d en y ing P la int if

fs “ te ntativ e ap pr ova l” f

or the ir bui ldi ng p ro

j ec t. T he onl y ev ide nc e that P la int if

fs of fe re d in to e vid en ce w er e the opi nio ns o f Mr . Bo w lin gs that M ay or

G lid ew el l i nf

lue nc ed a nd c ontro lle d th e Pl an nin g C om m iss ion ; the re is not a scintill a of evidence that the Com m issio n knew of and ratified an unc onst itu tio na l m oti ve in its de ci sio n to r ep eate dly ta ble P la int if

fs ’ r eque st f

or te ntativ e ap pr ova l of

the ir pr oj ec t. W ith out

a ny e vid en ce sho w ing that a

m aj or ity of the m em

bers of the final policym aker, the Planning Comm issio n, ac ted with an unc onst itu tio na l m oti ve , the tr ia l j udge e rr ed in de ny ing D ef

en dant’ s R

ule 50 mo t i o n w i t h r e s p e c tt o th e P l a i n t i f f s ’ F i r s tA me n d me n tC l a i m.14

C . Eq ua l P ro te ct ion A s apr el im inary

c onsi de ratio n, f

ed er al c ourts s houl d be dis inc lin ed to “ sit as az oni ng b oard

of r ev ie w , ” an d a s a“ ge ne ra l r ule , ” zo nin g de ci sio ns “ w ill not usuallybe found bya fe deral court to im plicate constitut ional gu arantee s.” G re en bri ar V

illage, L
. L. C. v . M

ountain B rook

, Ci ty , 345 F . 3d 1 258, 126 2 ( 11th Cir. 2003 ) (per

curiam). N evertheless, the Equal Pr otection Clause requires gove rn m en t e nti tie s to tr eat si m ilarl y sit ua te d pe opl e al ike . E qua l pr ote ct ion cl ai m s are not

li m ite d to ind ivi dua ls d isc ri m inate d a ga ins t ba se d onthe ir
m emb er s h i p i n a v u l n er ab l e c l as s . R at h er , we h av e r ec o g n i ze dan y i n d i v i du al ’s ri ght to be f re e fr om int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n a t the hands of gov er nm en t of fic ia ls . Se e, e.g ., E

& T R ea ltyv . Str ic kland , 830 F. 2d 11 07, 1112 (11t h Cir. 1 9 8 7 ) . To p r e v a i l o n th i s tr a d i t i o n a l t yp e o f e qu a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m, b a s i c a l l y a se le ct ive e nf

or ce m en t c la im , that the Ci ty ’ s O rd inanc e w as appl ie d to the m , a nd not oth er de ve lop m en ts, P la int if

fs m ust sho w( 1) that the y

w er e tr eate d di ff

er en tly from other sim ilarly

situated ind ividu als, and (2) that Def endant unequ ally

applied a fac ia ll y ne ut ral ord in an ce fo r th e p ur po se of d is cri m in at in g a ga in st Pla in ti ffs . Se e Str ic kland v. A lde rm an , 74 F.3d 26 0, 2 64 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Pl ai nti ff s’ e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im

a nd the c ourt’ s j ur

y ins tr uc tio n th er eo n s e e m t o mi rr o r

an e w e r tr e n di n e qu a l p r o t e c t i o n l a w , “ac l a s s o f o n e c l a i m”Some circuits have rea d Olech to stil l require ill will on the par t of the def

endant. See, 6 e.g. Purze v. Village of W inthrop Harbor , 2 86 F .3 d 4 52 , 4 54 (7 th C ir . 2 00 2) . O the r c ir c uit s fo l l o wi n g Olech have fo un d th at a pla int if f c an a lso br inga

su c c e ssf ul e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la im mere ly by “neg ativing e very

conce ivable basis which mig ht support” the g overnme nt action. W arre n v . Ci ty

of A the ns , O hio , 411 F.3d 697, 711 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (quotation and citation omitted). Wi thout decidingwhether illega l animus is required to show a equal pr otection violation, we find that the Campbells have not satisfied either te st. 15 w i t h o u tan e c e s s a ry s h o w i n g o f i l l w i l l o r

d i s c r i mi n a t o ry p u r

p o s e . T h e S up r e me Court has recognized the Equal Pr otection Clause is im plicated in “ class of one” claim s “ wher e the plaintiff alleges that she has been intention ally treate d dif fe re ntl y f ro m oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d and tha t the re is no r at ion al ba sis f or the differe nce in treatm ent.” Village of W illowbro ok v. Ole ch , 528 U . S. 562 , 564 (2000) (per curiam). 6 The analy sis of Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim requires a finding that the re w er e de ve lop m en ts whic h w er e sim ilarl y sit ua te d to the Cam

pbe lls ’ propos ed developm ent, beca use “ [d] iffer ent treatm ent of dissim ilarly situated persons do es not vio late the equal protection clause.” E & T R ea lty , 830 F. 2d at 1 1 0 9 . As h o w i n g th a ttw o p r o j e c t s w e r e s i mi l a r l y s i tu a t e dr e qu i r e s s o me sp eci fic it y . Str ic kland v. A lde rm an , 74 F . 3d at 26 4- 65; Racine C harter One, I

nc. v. R ac ine U

nif ie d Sc hool

D ist
. , 424 F. 3d 67 7, 680 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding that

“ [t] o be consid ered ‘ sim ilarly situated,’ com

parators m

ust be pri m a fa ci e identical in a ll re le vant r es pe ct s” ) (i nte rn al c itatio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). I n th e zo nin g16

co nt ex t, p ro

jects whi ch see k d iff

eren t t y pe s o f va ria nc es are n ot si m il arl y si tu at ed . Se e P urz e v. V

illage of W

int hrop H arbo r , 286 F. 3d 45 2, 455-56 (7th Cir. 2002). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt i n it s j ur y ins tr uc tio ns c or

re ct ly spe ci fi ed the f ir st ste p inde te rm ini ng i f Pl ai nti ff s’ e vid en ce sup porte d an e qua l pr ote ct ionvio la tio n w he n it r equir ed the j ur y to fi nd tha t the Ci ty

tr eate d P la int if

fs “ dif fe re ntl y f ro m sim ilarl y sit ua te d landowne rs w ho s ough t t en ta tiv e ap pr ova l of apartm en t bu ild ing plans. ” H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing D ef

en dant’ s R

ule 50 m oti on be ca use P la int if

fs f ai le d to pr ovi de the j ur

y w ithsuf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h it reasonably

could have determ ined that any of the com

parators offe red by

Plaintiffs were s im il arl y

si tu at edto th e Pl ai nt iff

s’ dev el op m en t. Appl y ing the log ic in R ac ine , in or de r fo r an y de ve lop m en t t o be sim ilarl y situated to Plainti ffs’ proposed p roj ect, it m ust be pri m a fa ci e ide nti ca l i n a ll relevant re spects. I n any ty pe of zoning sit uation, the use of the proposed de ve lop m en t i s qu ite r el ev an t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly r ec ogni ze d th e im portance of use in its equal protection charge to the jury which direc ted that onlydevelopers who sough t approval of apar tm en t bui ldi ng p lans c oul d be co nsi de re d si m ilarl y

sit ua te d. B ec au se the Cam

pbe lls sou ght

to bui ld a

larg e residential com

plex, it w ouldbe in error for the court to consider com m ercia l de ve lop m en ts tha t so ught te ntativ e ap pr ova l t o be c onsi de re d si m ilarl y sit ua te d toThe PlanningCommi ssion rezoned the land on whic h the Reg ency Park deve lopment 7 was built as a Planned Unit Development without requiringapplication or c oncept plan. F ur the rm or e , Pl a int if

fs po int out th at th e int e nt o f a

Pla nn e d Unit De ve lop me nt i s a

mixe d- us e d ev el o p m en tan d

th atth e R ege n cy

P o i n td ev el o p m en th as o n l y re s i d en t i al h o u s i n g. 17 the Cam pbells’ proj ect. T his ob viou s conclusio n elim inates both the Etow ah Steelw orkers Cre dit Union and th e W allace M edical Center . N ex t, be ca

use P la int if

fs a re a sse rt ing that the ir

dam ag es w er e the r es ult

of the Planning Comm issio n’ s denial of tentative approval for their proj ect, for a proje ct to be pri m a fa ci e ide nti ca l t o P la int if fs ’ de ve lop m en t i n a ll re le vant re spe ct s, P la int if

fs m ust have sho w n th at

the oth er de ve lop m en t so ught

a nd re ce ive d te ntativ e ap pr ova l of it s si te f ro m the Ci ty . W ith out

asho w ing that a de ve lop m en t so ught

a nd r ec ei ve d te ntativ e ap pr ova l, aj ur y c oul d no t c onc lud e that the de ve lop m en t w as sim ilarl y sit ua te d to P la int if

fs ’ de ve lop m en t, nor

c oul d a j ur y c onc lud e that the part ie s w er e tr eate d di ff er en tly . W ithr eg ar d to thr ee of the de ve lop m en ts tha t the P la int if fs c ont en d w er e sim ilarl y sit ua te d, P la int if

fs did not provide su fficient evidence showing that the developm ents sou ght and o btained te nt at iv e ap pr ov al . Plaintiffs w ent to great lengths to show that the area on which the Regency Park developm ent was to be built had been rezoned without the proper docum entation. H owever , P laintiffs did no t show that the Regency Par k 7 de ve lop m en t e ve r soug ht and w as gr an te d te ntativ e ap pr ova l. A s st at ed above , f or18

a de ve lop m en t t o be sim ilarl y sit ua te d, it m ust have sou ght

te ntativ e ap pr ova l. Be ca use the tw o pr oj ec ts s ough t di ff er en t a ct ionf

ro m the P lanni ng C om

m iss ion , we cannot find that th e developm ents wer e sim ilarly situated. W e find such ev id en ce al so lac ki ng wit h re sp ectto th e St . Chr is to ph er Ap art m en ts . Mor eo ve r, f

or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to fi nd the de ve lop m en t t o be sim ilarl y sit ua te d to P la int if

fs ’ de ve lop m en t, P la int if

fs w oul d ne ed

to pr ovi de ar ec or d of what the developer had brought before the Planning Comm issio n when it w as granted tentative approval. W ithou t such inform ation, neither a j ury nor the court would be able to determ ine whether the Planning Comm issio n had a rational reason for the diff

erent tre atm ent. B ecause P laintiffs provided n o such inf orm at ion , no r ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d f ind the S t. Ch ri sto phe r Apartm en ts t o be sim ilarly situated to Plaintiffs’ developm ent so as to warr ant a finding of an equal pr ot ect io n v io la ti on . Plaintiffs point to the Hidden Cre ek developm ent as a sim ilarly situated developm ent that rece ived treatm ent differe nt from Plaintiffs’ proposed de ve lo pm en t. Pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t t hi s t reat m en t was wit ho ut a rat io na l b as is . Whil e Pl ai nti ff

s have pr ovi de d a

bund an t e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e vari ous vio la tio ns of z oni ng o rd inanc es by

the H idd enCr ee k de ve lop m en t, a ga in, a s inthe c as e of the S t. Ch ri sto phe r Apartm en ts, P la int if fs have not

pr ovi de d e vid en ce sho w ingMoreove r, the sixt een- unit Hidden Creek de velopment ca n hardly be conside red 8 simil arly situated to the Plaintiffs’ 144 -180 unit projec t. The impact on a community

of a six teen- unit apartment c omplex that violates a zoning r equire ment is quite differe nt from a 144 - 18 0 unit a pa rtme nt c omp le x. I t is ratio na l th at a zon ingbo ard

wo uld be le ss l ike ly

to gra nt a varia nce to a development that would violate a zoning ordinanc e like the de nsity require ment to a g reater de g ree . 19 that the de ve lop er

of the H idd enCr ee k de ve lop m en t so ught a nd r ec ei ve d tentative appr ov al f or the pr oj ec t. A nd e ve n a ssu m ing that the H idd enCr ee k de ve lop er did seek tentative approval, Plaintiffs did not sub m it evidence to sho w what doc um en ta tio n th e de ve lop er br ough t be fo re the P lanni ng C om m iss ionw he n it wa s seeking tentativ e approval. As stated above, such evidence is m andatory for a showing th at the developm ent was sim ilarly situated to th e Cam

pbells’ proposed de ve lop m en t f

or e qua l pr ote ct ionpur

pose s. 8 U nli ke Re ge nc y

P oin t, the S t. Ch ri sto phe r Apartm en ts, a nd H idd enCr ee k, Pl ai nti ff s have sho w n th at

som e of the de ve lop m en ts whic h P la int if fs c ont en d
w er e sim ilarl y

sit ua te d, sou ght

a nd r ec ei ve d te ntativ e ap pr ova l. N ev er the le ss, the se de ve lop m en ts d o no t j ust if y se ndi ng the P la int if

fs ’ e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im to t h e ju ry. Pl ai nti ff s c ont en d th at

Me ad owO ak s w as sim ilarl y sit ua te d to the ir pr opos ed de ve lop m en t. T he y

state that the Ci ty

gr an te d M ea dowO ak s te ntativ e ap pr ova l de spi te the de ve lop m en t ne ed ing avari an ce f ro m abuf fe r zo ne re qui re m en t. H ow ev er , the tw o de ve lop m en ts c an not be c onsi de re d si m ilarl yAs no te d a bo ve , Pl a int if

fs so ught a

va ri anc e wi th r e g ard

to a pa rtme nt d e ns ity

so a s to 9 allow them to build twenty -one units per acr e as oppose d to six teen. The y soug ht varianc es fr om the setbac k require ment for building s, from the re quirement for the mandator

y spacingbetwee n buildings, and f

rom the mandatory

front and ba ck yard spa ce r equire ments.

20 si tu at ed . Whi le th e la nd an d t he m ul ti fam il y ho us in g p ro po se d u se of t he se two d e v e l o p men t s we r e th e s a me, M e a d o wOa k s d i dn o tr e qu i r e t h e s a me, o r a s man y, vari an ce s a s w er e soug ht w ithr es pe ct to Pl ai nti ff

s’ pr opos ed

pr oj ec t. T he onl y

9 alleged violatio n m ade in the Meadow Oaks develop m ent was a violatio n of a buf fe r zo ne r equir em en t. A s st at ed above , de ve lop m en ts s ee kin g di ff er en t vari an ce s c an not

be c onsi de re d si m ilarl y

sit ua te d. Mo re ove r, pr ior

to ge tti ng ap pr ova l t o de ve lop the pr ope rty , the de ve lop er s of the Me ad owO ak s developm ent subm itted a com pleted site m ap for 13.02 units per acre which m et de nsi ty r equir em en ts. T hus, the tw o de ve lop m en ts w er e not sim ilarl y sit ua te d, a nd the re w er e m at er ia l di ff

er en ce s w hic h c oul d pr ovi de r at ion al r ea sons f or the dif fe re nt tre atm en t of

the tw o de ve lop m en ts. T he Cam pbe lls a lso poi nt t o T er

ry E ch ols ’ Apartm en ts o n B ro w n and S ixth Stree t as developm ents that were sim ilarly situated to th eir developm ent and that
w er e tr eate d di ff

er en tly w ithno r at ion al ba sis . T he re is ev ide nc e that the de ve lop er of both of tho se apartm en t c om

ple xe s c am e be fo re the P lanni ng Co m m iss iona nd w as gr an te d te ntativ e ap pr ova l. C am pbe ll co nte nds that the de ve lop m en ts w er e co nstru ct ed in vio la tio n of

the Ci ty ’ s de nsi ty

r equir em en t. T hePlaintiffs cite to pag e 456 of the rec ord. Ne ither that pag e nor the surroundingpag es 10 mention the density

of these units, and w e ar e unaw are of any other infor

mation in the rec ord that supports this contention. 21 record, however, is silent on this po int. Further, unlik e the Cam pbells, Mr. 10 E ch ols state d th at

e ve ry ti m e he appe ar ed

be fo re the P lanni ng C om m iss ion , he br ough t a lon g pl an s f

or the pr opos ed

de ve lop m en t. S om et im es he br ough t a lon g ane ngi ne er

a nd an arc hit ec t t o answ er que sti ons w ithr es pe ct

to zo nin g req ui rem en ts . T he Ci ty ha s a lw ay s m ai nta ine d th at the Cam pbe lls did not c om ply w iththe re qui re m en ts f

or te ntativ e ap pr ova l. O ne of the r equir em en ts f

or part ie s se ek ing te ntativ e ap pr ova l ( unde r ei the r the f our -r equir em en t or

f ive -r equir em en t ap pr oa ch ) is a

ske tc h of the pr ope rty

w ithbui ldi ng l oc at ion s. T he Ci ty c ont en ds that P la int if

fs did not pr ovi de a n a de qua te ske tc h ina ll of the ir m ee tin gs w iththe Planning Comm issio n and ind icated that the sketch brough t by Plaintiffs w as dr awn inpe nc il w hic h w oul d have a llo w ed a ny of the pr opos ed

bui ldi ng l oc at ion s to be ch an ge d e as il y . T he re is no d oubt

that the de ve lop er

of E ch ols ’ pr oj ec ts p ro vid ed ske tc he s – at every m eeting the developers produ ced site plans and cam e w ith an architect an d a n e ng in eer t o e xp la in th e p la ns to th e Co m m is si on . Thu s, ev en if t he two de ve lop m en ts w er e co nsi de re d si m ilarl y sit ua te d i n th at

the y both so ught

te ntativ e22

ap pr ova l, the re is no e vid en ce that the E ch ols pr oj ec ts v iol at ed de nsi ty req ui rem en ts , and th ere was a rat io na l b as is forth e d iff eren t t reat m en t t ha t t he two de ve lop m en ts r ec ei ve d. T he re is ev ide nc e that the tw o de ve lop m en ts w er e not sim ilarly situated in th at T erry

Ec hols’ a

partm ents on Brown and Sixth Streets ar e sm al le r than P la int if

fs ’ m uc h gr an de r de sig n, c om

pr isi ng o nly

te n and e igh t un its , respectively , and the nature of the presentations Echols m ade w ouldinspire m ore co nf id en ce t ha n t he Cam

pb el ls ’ rat he r no nc ha la nt ap pr oa ch . Furthe r, statin g th at

Mr . E ch ols a nd the Cam pbe lls w er e tr eate d di ff

er en tly is not enti rely

accur ate. While the developer of the Ec hols d evelopm ents was ev en tua lly

gr an te d te ntativ e ap pr ova l and the Cam pbe lls w er e not , the tw o part ie s’ treatm ent by

the Planning Comm issio n wa s quite sim ilar. Mr. Ec hols test ified that f or his de ve lop m en t onS ixth S tr ee t he ha d to a tte nd “ six or se ve n” P lanni ng Com m issio n m eetings prior to gettin g approval. In r egard to his Brown Str eet de ve lo pm en t, Mr . Echo ls st at edth athe th ou gh t h e at te nd edm or e th an two Planning Comm issio n m eetings. A t those m eetings in which he did n ot get ap pr ova l, Mr . E ch ols w as not de nie d te ntativ e ap pr ova l; rathe r, the board did not take a ct iona nd t ab le d th e m atte r fo r m or e dis cu ssi on. Mr . E ch ols w as r equir ed to co m e ba ck

to subs eque nt m ee tin gs and e ve ntu al ly the iss ue s w er e re sol ve d. T his tr eatm en t of

Mr . E ch ols is qui te sim ilar to the tr eatm en t tha t P la int if fs r ec ei ve d.23

Thus, the e vidence presented leads us to believe that th e Cam pbells were treated sim ilarl y to an oth er

de ve lop m en t tha t ha d c om e be fo re the P lanni ng C om m iss ion . Be ca use P la int if

fs have not

giv ena ny

e vid en ce of

D ef en dant’ s di ff

er en t treatm ent of a developm ent that was sim ilarly situated to th eir proposed de ve lop m en t, the y

have not m et the ir e vid en tiary

bur de n inbr ing ing asuc ce ssf ul equa l pr ote ct ionc la im . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have f ound that no reasonable j ury

could find for the Plaintiffs on this claim and shou ld have granted Defen da nt ’s Rul e 5 0 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. III. Conc lusion Having found that Plaintiffs didnot proffer suffic ient evidence for a reasonable j ury

to find that the final pol icym aker a cted with a discrim inatory pur pose a ga ins t P la int if

fs in vio la tio n of

the ir F ir st A m en dm en t r igh ts, a nd h av ing found th at Plaintiffs did not proffer suffic ient evidence for a j ury to find that Pl ai nti ff s w er e tr eate d di ff

er en tly than si m ilarl y

sit ua te d in div idu al s invio la tio n of the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se , w e fi nd tha t the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing D ef en dant’ s R

ule 50 m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law . T hus, the opi nio n of the tr ia l c ourt i s R E V E RS E D , a nd the tr ia l c ourt i s di re ct ed to en te r j udgm en t f

or the appe llants .