12-2134-cv Easton LLC v. Inc. Village of Muttontown



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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 .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 13 th** **day of December, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 8 **Circuit Judge ,**  9 **LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN,** 10 **District Judge**

**.** ***** 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 **EASTON LLC, doing business in New** 14 **York as Shillelagh Holdings LLC,** 15 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  16 17 **-v.- 12-2134** 18 19 **INC. VILLAGE OF MUTTONTOWN,** 20 **Defendant-Appellee ,**  21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22 23

* Judge Laura Taylor Swain, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** STEPHEN P. CONLON, Law Office of 1 Stephen P. Conlon, Cold Spring 2 Harbor, New York. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEE:** STEVEN G. LEVENTHAL, Leventhal, 5 Cursio, Mullaney & Sliney, LLP, 6 Roslyn, New York. 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 9 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Boyle, M.J. ). 10 11 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 12 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 13
**AFFIRMED**in part, **VACATED**and **REMANDED** in part. 14 15 Plaintiff Easton LLC (“Easton”) appeals from the 16 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 17 District of New York (Boyle, M.J. ), dismissing the 18 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 22 1. Easton did not obtain a final determination regarding 23 its application for a hardship exemption from the 24 moratorium, therefore, its federal takings, substantive due 25 process, and equal protection claims are not ripe. 26 Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank , 473 27 U.S. 172, 194-95 (1985); see also Dougherty v. Town of N. 28 Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 282 F.3d 83, 88-89 (2d Cir. 29 2002). 30 31 2. Because Easton cannot show that the moratorium bears no 32 rational relationship to any government purpose, Easton’s 33 facial challenges under federal law to the moratorium must 34 also fail. Natale v. Town of Ridgefield , 170 F.3d 258, 263 35 (2d Cir. 1999); Orange Lake Assocs., Inc. v. Kirkpatrick , 21 36 F.3d 1214, 1225 (2d Cir. 1994). 37 38 3. The district court, however, did not explain why it was 39 dismissing Easton’s state law claims. We therefore vacate 40 the dismissal of Easton’s state law claims and remand to the 41 district court for further consideration. We express no 42 view as to the merits of Easton’s state law claims. 43 44 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 45 Easton’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 46 the district court to the extent it dismissed Easton’s 47

2federal claims, **VACATE** the judgment to the extent it 1 dismissed Easton’s state law claims, and **REMAND** for further 2 consideration of the state law claims. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 6 7 8

3