12-2134-cv

Easton LLC v. Inc. Village of Muttontown

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 13th 4 day of December, two thousand twelve.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 Chief Judge,

8 RALPH K. WINTER,

9 Circuit Judge,

10 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN,

District Judge.* 11

12

13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

14 EASTON LLC, doing business in New

15 York as Shillelagh Holdings LLC, 

16 Plaintiff-Appellant,

17

18 -v.- 12-2134

19

20 INC. VILLAGE OF MUTTONTOWN, 

21 Defendant-Appellee,

22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

23

* Judge Laura Taylor Swain, of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York,

sitting by designation.

1
1 FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN P. CONLON, Law Office of

2 Stephen P. Conlon, Cold Spring

3 Harbor, New York.

4

5 FOR APPELLEE: STEVEN G. LEVENTHAL, Leventhal,

6 Cursio, Mullaney & Sliney, LLP,

7 Roslyn, New York.

8

9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

10 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Boyle, M.J.).

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

14 AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part. 

15

16 Plaintiff Easton LLC (“Easton”) appeals from the

17 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern

18 District of New York (Boyle, M.J.), dismissing the

19 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

21 presented for review. 

22

23 1. Easton did not obtain a final determination regarding

24 its application for a hardship exemption from the

25 moratorium, therefore, its federal takings, substantive due

26 process, and equal protection claims are not ripe. 

27 Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473

28 U.S. 172, 194-95 (1985); see also Dougherty v. Town of N.

29 Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88-89 (2d Cir.

30 2002).

31

32 2. Because Easton cannot show that the moratorium bears no

33 rational relationship to any government purpose, Easton’s

34 facial challenges under federal law to the moratorium must

35 also fail. Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258, 263

36 (2d Cir. 1999); Orange Lake Assocs., Inc. v. Kirkpatrick, 21

37 F.3d 1214, 1225 (2d Cir. 1994).

38

39 3. The district court, however, did not explain why it was

40 dismissing Easton’s state law claims. We therefore vacate

41 the dismissal of Easton’s state law claims and remand to the

42 district court for further consideration. We express no

43 view as to the merits of Easton’s state law claims.

44

45 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

46 Easton’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

47 the district court to the extent it dismissed Easton’s

2
1 federal claims, VACATE the judgment to the extent it

2 dismissed Easton’s state law claims, and REMAND for further

3 consideration of the state law claims.

4

5 FOR THE COURT:

6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

7

8

3