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
3-31-2006 

# C ty C oncrete C orp v

. Rox bury P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1680

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

" C ty C oncr e t e C orp v

. Rox bury " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1331. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1331P 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

N os . 05- 1680 and 05- 1865
CO UNT Y C ONC RE T E CO RP OR AT I ON; J. C
. S O IL & G R A V E L , L L C ; JO H N C
. C R IM I, A ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees
v. T O W N SH I P O F R O X B U R Y , a muni ci pal corpor at i on o f th e S t a t e o f

Ne w J e r s e y ; S ANDY U RG O; J I M RI L E E ; M AR S HAL L GAT E S ; CA RO L S CH E NE CK ; RI CHARD HERZOG; F RED HALL ; P LANNI NG BOA RD OF T HE T OWNS HI P OF RO XB UR Y; RI CH AR D Z OS CH AK; J OHN CI ARAM EL LA; BARBARA DAW S ON; ROBER T BA DI NI ; L AWRE NC E S WEE NE Y; L I S A VOYC E ; RA Y S CANLON; P ATRI CI A DA VENP ORT; P
. S COTT M EYE R; RU S S E L L S T E RN ; T HOMAS J
. BO L ODS KY; M AYOR AND COUNCI L OF THE TOWN S HI P OF R OXBURY T ow ns hi p of R oxbury ; SandyU r go; J i m R i l ee; M a rsh a ll G a tes ; C a ro l S c h e n e c k ; F re d H a ll; P l a n n i n g B o a r d o f

th e T o w n s h i p o f

R o x b u ry; R i char d Z os chak; J ohn C i ar amel l a; B arbar a D aw s on; R obertB adi ni ; L aw r ence Sw eene y ; L i s a V oy ce; R ayS ca n lon ; Pa tr ici a D av en p o rt ; P. S co ttM ey er; R us s el l St ern; M ay orand C ounci l of the T o w n s h i p o f

R o x b u ry, A p p e llee s/C ro ss -A p p e llan ts
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D
. C
. C i vi l 03- cv- 01445 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e D enni s M
. C avana ugh2 A r gued J anuary17, 2006

B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2006)

E r n e s tW. S c h o e l l k o p f

f , E s q . ( AR GUE D) C onnel l Fol ey 85 L i vi ngs t on A venue R os el and, N J 07068 C ouns el forA ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees
Ri c h a r d P
. Cu s h i n g , E s q . ( AR GUE D) G ebhar dt& K i efe r 1 3 1 8 R o u te 3 1 N o rth P. O
. B ox 4001 C l i nt on, N J 08809

- ANDA nthonyM
. B ucco, E s q. J ohns on, M urphy , H ubner , M cK eon W u b b e n h o rst & A p p e lt 5 1 R o u te 2 3 S o u th P. O
. B ox 70 R i ver dal e, N J 07457 C o u n s e l f

o rA p p e l l e e s / C r o s s - A p p e l l a n t s T o w n s h i p o f R o x b u ry, e t al.3 P e t e rA. P i r o , E s q . ( AR GUE D) H ac k , P ir o , O ’D ay , M erk li n g er, W al l ace & M cK enna 30 C ol um bi a Turnpi ke P. O
. B ox 941 Fl orham P ark, N J 07932 C ouns el forA ppel l ee Thom as J
. B odol s ky

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge Fortw el ve y ear s , C ountyC oncr et e C orp. , J C S& G , and Jo h n C
. C ri m i ( co ll ec ti v ely“a p p ell an ts” o r “C o u n tyC o n cre te”), a n d th e T o wn s h i p o f

Ro x b u ry , i t s P l a n n i n g Bo a r d , T o wn C ounci l , and var i ous i ndi vi dual s ( col l ect i vel y“appe l l ees ”) , have been l ocked i n a di s put e overa 1994 appl i cat i on fors ubdi vi s i on and s i t e pl an appr oval forpurpos es of ext endi ng appel l ant s ’ s and a n d g ra v e l re m o v a l o p e ra tio n s, a n d th e T o w n sh ip ’s a d o p tio n , in 2001, of a Zoni ng O r di nance ( the “O r di nance ”) w hi ch eff ect i vel ypr event ed j us tthat
. I n A pr i l , 2003, appel l ant s fi l ed a s even- countcompl ai ntchar gi ng appel l ees w i th ( 1) vi ol at i ons of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ( “SD P”) under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983; ( 2) vi ol at i ons of the equa l pr ot ect i on cl aus e ( “EP C ”) under§ 1983; ( 3) a r egul at oryt aki ng/ i nver s e conde m nat i on i n vi ol at i on of the F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts; (4 ) to rtio u s in ter f e re n c e w ith contr actual r i ght s and pr os pect i ve ec onom i c adva nt age; ( 5) defa m at i on; ( 6) br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fai rdeal i ng; and ( 7) ci vi l cons pi r acyt o depr i ve appe l l ant s of theiraforem enti on ed ri gh t s. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed m ost of the c ou nt s fo rfa i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m unde rF. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) and gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton the r emai ni ng count s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al and cr os s - appea l under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291, and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe d ism issals un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ) an d the g ran ts of su m m ary4 ju d g m e n t. See G a lla s v . Su p r e m e C o u r t o

f P a ., 211 F. 3d 760, 7 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (R u le 1 2 (b )(6 )); P a. P r ot
. & Advocac y, I nc. v. P a. D ep’tof Pu b. W

el f are , 402 F. 3d 374, 379 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( R ul e 56)
. W e w i l l r ever s e i n partand af fi r m i n partand r emand f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . I . D i s cus s i on A ppel l ant s att ack the O r di nance and appe l l ees ’ conduct preceding t he p assi ng of thatO rdi nan ce w i th fo ur federal cl ai m s: ( 1 ) a f a c i a l F i f th Ame n d me n tJ u s tCo mp e n s a t i o n Ta k i n g s c l a i m, (2 ) a f a c ial S D P c laim a g a in st th e O rd in a n c e , (3 ) a S D P c laim a ga i ns ta pp e l l e e s ’ pr e - O r di na nc e c on du c t , a nd ( 4) a fa c i a l EPC cl ai m agai ns tthe O r di nance . T he D i s tr i ctC our tonl yeval uat ed the r i penes s of the J us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs cl ai m . N ei ther the part i es northe D i s tr i ctC our tques t i oned w hetherthe SD P or E PC cl ai m s w er e r i pe. W e as ked the part i es t o addr es s thi s i s s ue at ora l argu m en t bec au se “ co n side rati o n s o f ripe n ess a re s uffi ci ent l yi m por t antthatw e ar e r equi r ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue s ua sp o n te even though t he part i es do not
. ” Felm eis t erv. O f f i ce of A t t or ney Ethi cs , 8 5 6 F .2 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). A . R i p en ess “T h e ripe n ess d o ctri n e se rve s ‘t o d eterm ine w h ethe r a partyhas br oughtan ac t i on pr ematur el yand couns el s abs t ent i on unt i l s uch t i m e as a di s put e i s s uffi ci ent l yconcr et e t o s at i s fythe cons t i tut i onal and prudent i al r equi r ement s of the doctr i ne. ’ ” Khodar a E nvt l

. , I

nc. v. B lakey , 376 F. 3d 187, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng P each l um v. C i t y of Y ork , 3 3 3 F
. 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 3 (3d C ir
. 2003) )
. I n W

i l l i am s on C ount

y Regi onalP lanni ng C om . v. H am i l t on B ank , 4 7 3 U. S
. 1 7 2 , 1 8 6 , 1 9 4
- 9 5 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , th e S u p r e me C ou rtheld that an as- app l i ed F i ft h A m end m ent J ust C o m p en sati o n T ak ing s claim ag ains t a m u n ici p ali ty ’s enfor cementof a z oni ng or di nance i s notr i pe unt i l ( 1) “the governm entent i tychar ged w i th i m pl ement i ng the r egul at i ons has r eac hed a f

i nal deci s i on r egar di ng the appl i cat i on of the r egul at i ons t o t he pr opertyati s s ue” ( the “f i nal i tyrul e”) , and ( 2) the pl ai nt i ff ha s uns ucce s s ful l yexhaus t ed the s t at e’ s pr ocedur es5 fors eeki ng “j us tcompensa t i on, ” s o l ong as the pr ocedur es pr ovi ded bythe s t at e w er e ade quat e. 1 . W il liam s on P r o n g O n e : T h e F in a lity R u le W e h a v e sa id th a t W

i l l i am s on ’s f

in a lityru le b a rs n o t o n ly as- app l i ed JustC om pen sat i on T akings cl ai m s, bu tal so asappl i ed s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on “cl ai m s by pr opertyow ner s ort enant s w ho have c hal l enged the deni al of a perm i tbyan i ni t i al deci s i on- m akerbutfai l ed t o t ake a dvant age of ava i l abl e, s ubs equentpr ocedur es . ” L a u d e rb a u g h v . H o p e w e ll T wp ., 3 1 9 F .3 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); s e e a ls o T a y lo rIn v ., L td
. v . Up

p e rDa r b

y T wp . , 9 8 3 F
. 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) ( b a r r i n g p l a i n t i f

f ’ s a s - a p p l i e d S DP a n d EP C c l a i ms agai ns tm uni ci pal l and us e dec i s i on as unr i pe)
. O nl yonce a “dec i s i on m akerhas arr i ved ata def i ni t i ve pos i t i on on the i s s ue” h a s a p ro p e rtyo w n e r b e e n in f licte d w ith “ a n a c tu a l, co n c re te i nj ury . ” W

i l l i am s on , 4 7 3 U
. S
. a t1 9 2
. T h i s ru l e d o e s n o ta p p l y, how ever , t o f

aci ala ttac k s o n a z o n in g o rd in a n c e , i. e ., a c laim that the m ere enact m ent of a regul at i on ei ther con st i tutes a t aki ng w i thoutj us tcompensa t i on, ora s ubs t ant i ve vi ol at i on of d u e p ro c e s s o r e q u a l p ro te c tio n . See, e. g. , Tayl orI nv . , 983 F. 3d at1294 n. 15 ( fi nal deci s i on notnece s s aryforfac i al SD P and E P C c laim s); SinclairO i lC orp. v. C ou nty of Sa nta B arba ra , 96 F. 3d 401, 406 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( fi nal deci s i on notnece s s aryfor f a c ial T a k in g s c laim s). A “ f in a l d e c isio n ” is n o t n e c e ss a ryin thatcont extbeca us e “w hen a l andow nerm akes a fa ci al c h a llen g e , h e o r sh e a rg u e s th a t any appl i cat i on of the r egul at i on is u n c o n stitu tio n a l; fo r a n a s-a p p lied c h a llen g e , the lan d o w n e r is onl yatt acki ng the dec i s i on thatappl i ed the r egul at i on t o hi s or herpr operty , notthe r egul at i on i n gener al
. ” E ide v . Sa ra so ta C o u n ty , 9 0 8 F .2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 4 n .1 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). W e w ill a p p ly th e f in a lityru le to e a c h o f

a p p e llan ts’ c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s in tu rn .
a. F i ft h A m end m ent J ustC om pen sat i on T akings

C laim T he Fi fth A m endment , m ade appl i cabl e t o the s t at es by th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, pr o sc rib e s th e tak in g o f p riv a te6 p ro p e rtyf

o r p u b lic u se w ith o u t ju st c o m p e n sa tio n . U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V , X IV ; C ow el lv. P alm erTw p. , 263 F. 3d 286, 290 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. C ountT hr ee of the compl ai ntal l eges that“the O r di nance and otheract i ons of the def endant s ” r egul at ed appel l ant s ’ pr operty“i nt o a s t at e of e conomi c i nut i l i ty ” w i thout ju st c o m p e n sa tio n in v io latio n o f th e F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thi s cl ai m on rip e n e ss g ro u n d s b e c a u se a p p e llan ts f a iled to c o m p lyw ith b o th pr ongs of the W

i l l i am s on ri p e n e s s te s t. A p p e llan ts c o rre c tlya rg u e th a t th e f in a lityru le o n ly a p p lies to a s-a p p lied T a k in g s c laim s, a n d th a t th e yo n ly chal l enge the O r di nance on i t s fac e. I n W i l l i am s on , the pl ai nt i ff l andow neral l eged thata l ocal pl anni ng comm i s s i on’ s r ej ect i on o f its d e v e lo p m e n t p lat u n d e r lo c a l re g u latio n s w a s a F if th A m endmentT aki ng w i thoutj us tcompensa t i on beca us e the d e c isio n d e n ied th e p lain tiff a ll ec o n o m ica llyv iab le u se s o f its p ro p e rty . 4 7 3 U .S . at 1 7 7 -8 2 , 1 8 5 . In c o n tra st h e re , ap p e llan ts do notchal l enge a nypart i cul ardeci s i on of the Tow ns hi p or P l a n n i n g B o a r d a p p l yi n g th e O r d i n a n c e t o th e i rp r o p e r ty; i ns t ead, theyal l ege thatthe mer e ena ctm entof the O r di nance has d e n ie d th e m a ll e c o n o m ic a lly v ia b le u s e o f th e irp ro p e rt y , i.e ., a f a c ial a ttac k o n th e O rd in a n c e . T h u s, th e ir f a c ial F if th A m e n d m e n t Ju st C o m p e n sa tio n T a k in g s c laim n e e d n o t co m p ly w ith th e f

in a lity ru le
. See Sui t um v. Tahoe R eg’ lP lanni ng A gency , 520 U
. S. 725, 736 & 736 n. 10 ( 1997) ( “[F] aci al chal l enges t o r egul at i on ar e gene r al l yr i pe the mom entthe c h a llen g e d re g u latio n o r o rd in a n c e is p a ss e d , b u t f a c e a n u p h ill batt l e, s i nce i ti s di ffi cul tt o demonstr at e thatm er e ena ctm entof a p iec e o f

leg isla tio n d e p riv e d [ th e o w n e r] o f e c o n o m ica lly vi abl e us e of [ hi s ] pr operty . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itte d ))
. T h e c o m p la in t a ls o a lle g e s th a t a p p e lle e s ’ “ o th e r a c tio n s ,” i n addi t i on t o t he pas s age of the O r di nance , vi ol at ed the Taki ngs C l aus e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tonl yaddr es s ed the Taki ngs al l egat i ons w i th r egar d t o a fa ci al att ack on the O r di nance , and thi s has notbeen c hal l enged byappel l ant s . A nyar gum entthey m ig h t m a k e a t th is p o in t h a s b e e n w a iv e d
.7 b
. S u b s t a n t i v e Du e P r o c e s s Cl a i ms T h e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s th a t n o S tate sh a ll “depr i ve anyper s on of l i fe, l i berty , orpr opertyw i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw . ” U
. S. C ons t
. amend. X I V
. “To pre vai l on a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that an arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous actdepr i ved them of a pr ot ect ed pr opertyi nt er es t
. ” Tayl orI nv . , 983 F. 2d at1292. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tonl yr ecogni zed one SD P cl ai m , w e r ead the compl ai ntas al l egi ng tw o: the fi r s taddr es s ed t o the fa ce of the O rd in a n c e , an d th e se c o n d a d d re ss e d to a p p e llee s’ a lleg e d ly o b stru cti v e c o n d u ct du ri n g the tim e p rec ed ing the O rdin an ce ’s e n a c tm e n t. i. SD P C lai m as t o the O r di nance I n Tayl orI

nves tm ent , w e h e ld th a t W i l l i am s on ’s f

in a lity rul e appl i es t o due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on chal l enges t o the appl i cat i on of a l and- us e or di nance . 983 F. 2d at1292. I n that c a s e , the pl a i nt i ff

l a nd ownerbr ou gh ta s - a pp l i e d SDP and EPC c h a llen g e s a g a in st a to w n sh ip a n d its o f f icia ls a f ter a to w n sh ip z o n in g o f

f ice r re v o k e d a ten a n t’s u se p e rm it fo r a lleg e d ly su p p ly in g f

a lse o r m isle a d in g in f

o rm a tio n in h is p e rm it appl i cat i on. T he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s w er e notr i pe underthe fi nal i tyrul e, w e hel d, beca us e pl ai nt i ff f ai l ed t o appea l the zoni ng offi cer ’ s deci s i on t o the zoni ng hear i ng boar d, w hi ch had the exc l us i ve author i tyt o r endera fi nal adj udi cat i on underthe t e r m s o f th e P e n n s yl v a n i a M u n i c i p a l P l a n n i n g C o d e . O n l y a deci s i on bythe boar d coul d r epr es enta fi nal r evoca t i on of the pl ai nt i ff’ s perm i tand unt i l then the “i m pactof the zoni ng o rd in a n c e s o n p la in tif

f ’s p ro p e rt y ” w o u ld n o t b e c le a r. I d. at 1 2 9 0
. A p p e llee s c laim th a t ap p e llan ts w e re sim ilarlyre q u ire d to se e k a v a ria n c e u n d e r N .J. S tat. A n n . § 4 0 :5 5 D -7 0 d f o r th e ir non- conform i ng us e bef or e thei rSD P and E PC cl ai m s w oul d be ri p e u n d er Tayl orI

nves tm ent . Justas w i th thei r J ust C om pens at i on T aki ngs cl ai m , how ever , appel l ant s att ack the O rd in a n c e f

a c ially , i. e ., th e ya lleg e th a t, i n a ll o f its p o ss ib le appl i cat i ons the O r di nance “l ack[ s ] anyl egi t i m at e r eas on and8 [i s ] arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , [and] notr at i onal l yr el at ed t o any l egi t i m at e governm enti nt er es t
. ” ( A pp. 72. ) W e s t at ed i n Tayl or I nves tm ent

th a t W i l l i am s on ’s fi nali tyrul e on l yapp l i es t o asappl i ed cha l l enges , s uch as the one a s s ert ed i n thatcas e, and not to f a c ial d u e p ro c e ss c laim s. 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 1 2 9 4 n .1 5
. O th e r c o u rts h a v e a lso h e ld th a t se e k in g a v a ria n c e (i.e., co m p ly in g w ith W i l l i am s on ’s fina li tytest ) i s n o t a pre req u isi te t o a p lai n ti ff ’s cl ai m thatthe ena ctm entof a z oni ng or di nance , i n and of i t s el f, v io la te s th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . See, e. g. , P ears on v. G r and B lanc , 9 6 1 F .2 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 5 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); E xec ut i ve 100, I

nc. v . M a rtin C o u n ty , 9 2 2 F .2 d 1 5 3 6 , 1 5 4 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); So. P aci f i c Tr ans p. C o. v. Los Angel es , 9 2 2 F
. 2 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 7 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ); E i de v. Sar as ota C t y. , 9 0 8 F
. 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 4 n . 1 4 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ); Sm ith

fieldC o n c e rn e d

C iti ze n s v . T o w n o f Sm ith field , 907 F .2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). A ppel l ant s s ei ze upon Tayl orI nves tm ent ’s asappl i ed/ fac i al

- chal l enge di s t i nct i on, and ar gue thatthei ratt ack o n th e O rd in a n c e is a f

a c ial o n e o n lya n d th a t w e sh o u ld h o ld thata fa ci al s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s chal l enge t o a zoni ng o rd in a n c e – a ss e rte d o n th e th e o ryth a t th e law a s a w h o le is arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous and unr eas onabl e – i s r i pe eve n i f the p la in tif f d id n o t s e e k a v a ri a n c e f ro m th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e . We s o h o ld
. ii

. SD P C lai m as t o Appel l ees ’C onduct A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt g a v e a n u n d u ly narr ow cons truct i on t o thei rSD P and E PC cl ai m s byi nt erpr et i ng them on l yas at t acks on the O rdi nan ce, becau se theyhav e al so “al l eged thatthe def

endant s abus ed the zoni ng pr oces s i n the T ow ns hi p of R oxbur yt o depr i ve the pl ai nt i ffs of l aw ful us e of thei rpr operty , outof i m perm i s s i bl e per s onal and pol i t i cal a n im u s.” (A p p e llan ts’ L e tter B r. 3 .) A p p e llan ts c laim th a t th is “otherconduct ” does nothave t o compl yw i th W i l l i am s on ’s fi nal i tyrul e underourdeci s i on i n B lanche Road C or p. v. B ens al em Tw

p. , 5 7 F .3 d 2 5 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). I n B lanche Road , w e hel d thata pl ai nt i ff l andow nerneed notcompl yw i th t he fi nal i tyrul e w her e, i ns t ead of “appe al i ng9 fr om an adve r s e dec i s i on on a perm i tappl i cat i on, ” the pl ai nt i ff cl ai m ed thatthe def

endantT ow ns hi p offi cer s “del i ber at el yand im p ro p e rlyin ter f

e re d w ith th e p ro c e ss b yw h ich th e T o w n sh ip i s s ued perm i t s , i n or dert o bl ock ort o del aythe i s s uance of pl ai nt i ff’ s perm i t s , and thatdefe ndant s di d s o forr eas ons unr el at ed t o t he mer i t s t o the appl i cat i on forthe perm i t s . ” 57 F. 3d at267- 68. I tw as as s ert ed bythe pl ai nt i ff thatthe T o w n sh ip “ e n g a g e d in a c a m p a ig n o f h a ra ss m e n t d e sig n e d to for ce [ i t ] t o abandon i t s devel opm entof [a n] i ndus tr i al park. ” Id
. a t 2 5 8 . W e e x p lain e d th a t th is typ e o f S D P c laim is “subst anti velydiffer ent” fr om “t hat pr esent ed in the ri pen ess c a se s” a n d th a t “[ s]u c h a c tio n s, if p ro v e n , are su f

f icie n t to es t abl i s h a [SD P] vi ol at i on, act i onabl e under§ 1983, even i f the ul t i m at e out come of pl ai nt i ff’ s perm i tappl i cat i ons w as favor abl e. ” Id
. at 26 8
. T h u s, n o fu rth er a p p ea ls w ere n ec essa ry in o rd e r to h a v e a rip e , fin a l d e ter m in a tio n f o r a f e d e ra l co u rt to re v ie w . A ppel l ant s appl i ed t o the Pl anni ng B oar d i n 1994 for appr oval t o m er ge tw o tr act s i n or dert o ext end thei rs and and gr avel extr act i on oper at i ons . T heyal l ege i n thei rcompl ai ntthat appel l ees att empt ed t o “i m pos e unr eas onabl e and unl aw ful r es tr i ct i ons ” on thei rus e of thei rpr opertyi n vi ol at i on of a 1993 a g re e m e n t, t o c o n d iti o n a p p ro v a l o f th e ir a p p lica tio n o n ter m s in vi ol at i on of the 1993 agr eement , t o defe atthei rappl i cat i on by err oneous l yattr i but i ng envi r onm ent al cont ami nat i on fr om other so u rc e s to th e ir e x tra c tio n o p e ra tio n s, a n d m a d e f a lse p u b lic a c c u s a tio n s a g a in s t a p p e lla n ts d u ri n g th e a p p lic a tio n p ro c e s s . A ddi t i onal l y , theycl ai m thatthe 1999 B odol s kyi nves t i gat i on and hi s s ubs equentl ett ert o the Tow ns hi p m ade f al s e ac cus at i ons aboutappel l ant s ’ extr act i on oper at i ons i n or dert o “r es tr i ctand i m pede s oi l extr act i on and r el at ed ac t i vi tyw hi ch pr evi ous l yhad been a gr eed, appr oved, and/ orr eques t ed byR oxbury . ” ( A pp. 6 7 -6 8 .) T hes e al l egat i ons ar e s i m i l art o thos e as s ert ed bythe pl ai nt i ff i n B lanche Road
. As we h e l d i n th a tc a s e , s u c h c l a i ms ar e s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a r i pe SD P cl ai m , r egar dl es s of the out come of subs equentappea l s forr el i ef t o m uni ci pal zoni ng boar ds
. T hus , appel l ant s ’ cl ai m thatappel l ees ’ cour s e of10 conduct , s epar at e and apartfr om the ena ctm entof the O r di nance , vi ol at ed thei rSD P r i ght s i s r i pe forfede r al a d ju d ic a tio n .
c . E q u a l P ro tec tio n C laim T he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ohi bi t s a s t at e fr om “deny [i ng] t o anyper s on w i thi n i t s j ur i s di ct i on the equa l pr ot ect i on of the l aw s . ” U
. S. C ons t
. amend X I V
. I n C ountT w o, appel l ant s al l ege thatthe ena ctm entof the O r di nance w as “dis cri m i natory , arbi trary , capri ci ou s, un reas on able, m al i ci ou s, im p ro p e rlym o tiv a ted a n d c o n sc io u s-s h o c k in g , an d so u g h t to depr i ve the pl ai nt i ffs of the us e of thei rpr operty , w her eas other pr oxi m at e and/ ors i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed pr opert i es w er e notr ezone d i n t he s ame m anner , ” i n vi ol at i on of the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e. (A p p . 7 3 .) T hes e al l egat i ons cons t i tut e a f aci al chal l enge t o the O r di nance , and, acc or di ngl y , appel l ant s ’ E PC cl ai m i s r i pe. T he es s ence of thi s cl ai m i s thatthe mer e ena ctm entof the O r di nance v io late s th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se b e c a u se it arb itrar ilytre a ts a p p e llan ts d if

f e re n tlyth a n o th e r sim ilarlysitu a ted p ro p e rty ow ner s . T hi s i s nota ca s e w her e a muni ci pal i tyhas enac t ed a gener al or di nance and a homeow nerobj ect s t o the appl i cat i on of the or di nance t o hi s orherpr operty . H er e, the Tow ns hi p knew exac t l yhow appel l ant s i nt ended t o us e thei rl and and pa s s ed the O rd in a n c e s p e c if

ic a lly ta ilo re d to p re v e n t th a t u s e . W i l l i am s on ’s fi nal i tyrul e “r es ponds t o the hi gh degr ee of di s cr et i on char act er i s t i cal l ypos s es s ed byl and- us e boar ds i n s oft eni ng the s tr i ctur es of the gene r al r egul at i ons theyadmi ni s t er . ” Sui t um , 5 2 0 U .S . at 7 3 8 . It h a s n o a p p lica tio n w h e re , as h e re , the re is
“ n o q u e stio n . . . ab o u t h o w th e ‘re g u latio n s a t issu e [ a p p ly ] to the part i cul arl and i n ques t i on. ’ ” Id
. at738- 39 ( quot i ng W i l l i am s on , 4 7 3 U .S . at 1 9 1 ); s ee al s o P alaz z ol o v. R hode I s land , 533 U
. S. 606, 620 ( 2001) ( “W hi l e a l andow nerm us tgi ve a l and- us e author i tyan opportuni tyt o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on, o n c e it b e c o m e s c lea r th a t th e a g e n c ylac k s th e d isc re tio n to p e rm it an yd e v e lo p m e n t, or th e p e rm iss ib le u se s o f th e p ro p e rty a re k n o w n to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f c e rta in ty , a ta k in g s c laim is lik e lyto h a v e rip e n e d .”). It w o u ld b e a n e x e rc ise in f u til ityto11 r equi r e appe l l ant s t o s eek a var i ance fr om an or di nance s peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed atthei rpr opert i es . A ccor di ngl y , thei rfac i al c h a lle n g e is ri p e . S e e H a c ien da V

a lley Mo b ile v . Mo rg a n Hill , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 5 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) (“F ac ial ch all en g es a re exemptfr om the fi r s tpr ong of the W i l l i am s on rip e n e ss a n a ly sis beca us e a f

aci al chal l enge byi t s natur e does noti nvol ve a d e c is io n a p p lyin g th e s ta tu te o r r e g u la tio n .” ). 2 . W il liam s on P ron g T w o: E x h au st i on of Ju st C om pensat i on P roce dures T he s econd pr ong of the W i l l i am s on r i penes s t es ts t at es that “i f a S t at e provides an ad equ at e proced ure for seeki ng j ust co m p en sati o n , ” the p lai n ti ff m u st ha v e e x h au sted this pro ce d u re i n or derforhi s orherT aki ngs cl ai m t o be r i pe forfede r al a d ju d ic a tio n . W

i l l i am s on , 4 7 3 U
. S
. at 19 4 -95
. O f c o u rse, “there 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 § 1983 ac t i on. ” I d. at192 ( ci t i ng P at

s y v. F lo rida B o a rdo

f R eg e n ts , 457 U
. S. 496 ( 1982) )
. I ns t ead of b e in g a tru e “ e x h a u stio n o f sta te r e m e d ies ” re q u ire m e n t, how ever , the s econd pr ong of W i l l i am s on ’s r ip e n e ss tes t m e re ly a d d re s s e s a u n iq u e a s p e c t o f J u s t C o m p e n s a tio n T a k in g s c la im s . B eca us e the Fi fth A m endmentbar s notj us tthe “t aki ng” of p ro p e rt y , b u t th e ta k in g o f p ro p e rt y“ w ith o u t ju s t c o m p e n s a tio n ,” a pl ai nt i ff “ cannotcl ai m a vi ol at i on of the J us tC om pens at i on C l aus e unt i l ” he ors he has exhaus t ed a s t at e’ s “pr ocedur e for s eeki ng j us tcompensa t i on. ” Id . at 1 9 4 -9 5 & 1 9 4 n .1 3 . O n ly th e n c a n a T a k in g s c laim a n t alle g e th a t h e o r sh e h a s a c tu a lly been de ni ed j us tcompensa t i on, and, thus , onl ythen i s hi s orher T a k in g s c la im ri p e . Id

. at195. W e, ther efor e, w i l l appl ythe s econd pr ong of W

il li a m ’s r i penes s t es tt o appel l ant s ’ var i ous c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s .

a. Fi fth A m endmentJ us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs C laim A s s t at ed above , the D i s tr i ctC our terr oneous l yfound that ap p ell an ts’ T ak ing s claim fa il ed to sa ti sfythe f inalityrule. It corr ect l yhel d, how ever , atthe t i m e of the mot i on t o di s m i s s , that th e T a k in g s c laim w a s n e v e rth e les s u n rip e b e c a u se a p p e llan tsW e exp res s no v i ew on the m eri t s of ap pell ants ’ J ust 1 C om pens at i on T aki ngs cl ai m , as t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notr eac h th e is s u e a n d m u s t a d d re s s it in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e u p o n re m a n d
. 12 fa il ed to ex h au st st ate just co m p en sati o n p roc ed u res. ( A p p . 1 6
. ) W hi l e the fa ctthatappel l ant s al l ege a f aci alJ us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs cl ai m agai ns tthe O r di nance m ays ave them from t he fi nali tyrul e, i tdo es not r el i eve them from the d utyt o seek just c o m p e n sa tio n f

ro m th e sta te b e f

o re c laim in g th a t th e ir rig h t to ju s t c o m p e n s a tio n u n d e r t h e F if th A m e n d m e n t h a s b e e n v io la te d
. T hi s i s true r egar dl es s of w hethera pr operty - ow nercl ai m s that he w as depr i ved of a l l of hi s pr operty ’ s economi cal l yvi abl e us es b y th e m e r e e n a c t m e n to f a z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , o rb y a m uni ci pal i ty ’ s appl i cat i on of a f aci al l y - neutr al zoni ng or di nance to th a t la n d
. See S i nclai r O i lC orp. v. C ou nty of Sa nta B arba ra , 9 6 F .3 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 5 -0 6 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A l though t he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatthe fac i al J us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs cl ai m fai l ed t o s at i s fythe s econd W

i l l i am s on prong atthe ti m e of the m oti on t o d i sm i ss, the S up rem e C ou rtof N ew Jer seyden i ed revi ew of ap pell ants ’ s ta te c o u rt a p p e a l w h ile th is a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g b e f o re u s . See C ou nty C on cret e C orp. v. T ow nship of

R oxb ury , 884 A
. 2d 1260 ( N
. J
. O ct
. 7, 2005)
. A ccor di ngl y , the s econd W i l l i am s on pr ong n o lon g er p rev en ts ap p ell an ts from asse rt ing that the m ere e n a c tm e n t o f

th e O rd in a n c e d e p riv e d th e m o f th e e c o n o m ica lly vi abl e us e of thei rpr operty , and, thus , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe cl ai m w as unr i pe. 1

b. Subst ant i ve D ue Pr oces s C l ai m and Equal P ro tec tio n C laim I n contr as tt o a J us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs C l ai m , the r emedi es fora s ucce s s ful s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s orequal pr ot ect i on cl ai m as t o t he fa ce of a zoni ng or di nance ar e the i nval i dat i on of the r egul at i on and ac tual damages
. T he abs ence of “j us tcompensa t i on” i s notpartof a due pr oces s orequal p ro te c tio n in

ju ry. See W

i l l i am s on , 473 U
. S. at197. T hus , gi ven that the “ex hau st i on of justcom pen sat i on proced ures”13 requi rem ent onl yexis t s due to the “spe ci al natur e of the Just C om pens at i on C l aus e, ” i ti s i nappl i cabl e t o appel l ant s ’ fac i al S D P a n d E P C c laim s. B e c a u se b o th c laim s s a tisf yth e f in a lity ru le , th e ya re ri p e f

o r a d ju d ic a tio n . Id
. at195 n. 14. B. M e r i t s o f

t h e S u b s t a n t i v e Du e P r o c e s s Cl a i ms 1. SD P C l ai m as t o t he O rdi nance T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed appe l l ant s ’ SD P faci al chal l enge t o t he O r di nance on the gr ound that“[s ] el ect i ng a r ecogni zed us e of l and and s ett i ng l ots i zes of thr ee a cr es on the f a c e o f a z o n in g o rd in a n c e is ra tio n a llyre late d to a leg iti m a te s t at e i nt er es t , and i s notegr egi ous governm ent al abus e oroffi ci al conductagai ns tl i bertyorpr opertyr i ght s thats hock the co n scien ce . ” (A p p . 1 3
. ) T he fa ci al chall eng e being ri pe, w e fi rs trej ectapp el l ees’ cont ent i on, w i th w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, thatunder U ni t ed Art is t

s Theat erC i r cui t

, I nc. v. Tw p. O f W ar r i ngt on, P a. , 316 F. 3d 392, 400 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , governm entact i on does not vi ol at e s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s w hen mer el ym ot i vat ed byan “i m proper m oti ve, ” as w e had form erl yheld, bu tno w m ustri se t o t he hi gherl evel of “s hock[i ng] the cons ci ence , ” a s t andar d, appel l ees al l ege, w i th “the s ame pr act i cal eff ect ” as a “t aki ng. ” (A p p e llee s’ L e tter B r. 7 .) B u t U n itedA rtists di d notappl ythe “s hocks the cons ci ence ” s t andar d t o l egis lat i ve a c t i o n ; r a th e r , we cl ear l yhel d i n U

n itedA rtists th a t “ exe cut i ve ac t i on vi ol at es s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s onl yw hen i ts hocks the cons ci ence . ” U n itedA rtists , 3 1 6 F .3 d a t 3 9 9 -4 0 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re is a di s t i nct i on i n t he s t andar d of r evi ew forl egi s l at i ve and e x e c u t i v e a c t s th a ta l l e g e d l yv i o l a t e s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s . As J udge, now J us t i ce, A l i t o expl ai ned i n Nich o la s v . P e n n sy lva n ia S ta te U n iv ., 2 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), “ typ ic a lly, a l egi s l at i ve ac tw i l l w i ths t and s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s chal l enge i f the governm ent‘ i dent i fi es the l egi t i m at e s t at e i nt er es tthatthe l egi s l atur e coul d r at i onal l yconcl ude w as s erved bythe s t atut e. ’ ” Id . (cita tio n o m itt e d ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , n o n -le g isla tiv e sta te act i on vi ol at es s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s i f “a rbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , or14 t ai nt ed byi m pr operm ot i ve, ” ori f “s o egr egi ous thati t‘ s hocks the cons ci ence . ’ ” Id
. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) W hen a muni ci pal bodyi n N ew J er s eyact s t o “ei ther r ecomm end[] orvot [e] fora cha nge i n the perm i t t ed us es i n a z o n in g d is tr ic t,” th e a c t is le g is la tiv e in c h a ra c te r. See Ti m ber P r oper t i es v. C hes t er , 500 A
. 2d 757, 763 ( N
. J
. Super
. C t
. L aw D iv . 1 9 8 4 ); s ee al

s o B ow & Arr ow Manor, I nc. v. W es tO r ange , 3 0 7 A .2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 7 (N .J. 1 9 7 3 ) (“ It is f u n d a m e n tal th a t zo n in g is a muni ci pal l egi s l at i ve func t i on. ”)
. “‘ [F] eder al j udi ci al i nt er fer ence w i th a s t at e zoni ng boar d’ s quas i

- l egi s l at i ve deci s i ons , l i ke i nval i dat i on of l egi s l at i on for‘ i rr at i onal i ty ’ or ‘arb itrarines s, ’ i s p rop er o n ly if th e g o v e rn m e n ta l b o d y c o u ld have had no legi t i m at e r eas on f ori t s decis i on . ’ ” P hi l l i

ps v. B d. of Keypo rt , 1 0 7 F .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 8 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( A lito , J ., concurr i ng and di s s ent i ng) ( quot i ng P ace Res our ces , I nc. , v. Shr ew s bur

y Tw p. , 8 0 8 F
. 2 d 1 0 2 3 , 1 0 3 4 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 7 )) ( emphasi s added i n P ace ); see al so Ni cholas , 2 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 9
. T h u s, f o r a p p e llan ts’ f

a c ial s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c h a llen g e to the O r di nance t o be s ucce s s ful , theym us t“al l ege f act s that w oul d s uppor ta fi ndi ng of arbi tr aryori rr at i onal l egi s l at i ve act i on bythe Tow ns hi p. ” P ace , 8 0 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 5
. I n P ace , we a f

f i r me d th e d i s mi s s a l o f

a l a n d o wn e r ’ s S DP chal l enge t o t he fa ci al val i di tyof a z oni ng or di nance beca us e the “compl ai ntfai l [ed] t o m ake a nyfac tual al l egat i ons that i ndi cat e[d] i r r at i onal i ty , ” and mer el yal l eged thatthe zoni ng change i n ques t i on “di d notconform t o the s pi r i tand gene r al gui del i nes of the compr ehens i ve pl an w hi ch enc our aged i ndus tr i al devel opm ent
. ” Id
. W e expl ai ned thats uch an al l egat i on onl yi ndi cat ed thatpol i t i cal compromi s e and d if f e re n c e o f o p in io n w e re m o tiv a tin g th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e . T hi ngs w oul d have be en di ffe r ent , w e s ugges t ed, had the p lain tiff “ p re se n t[ e d ] a c a se in v o lv in g a c tio n s a im e d a t th is devel operforr eas ons unr el at ed t o l and us e pl anni ng. ” Id
. A p p e llan ts h a v e a lleg e d f a c ts th a t in d ica te irr a tio n a lity and arbi tr ar i nes s , and “pr es enta ca s e i nvol vi ng act i ons ai m ed at [appe l l ant s ] forr eas ons unr el at ed t o l and us e pl anni ng. ” S e e id
. T he compl ai ntchar ges appel l ees w i th att empt i ng t o i m pede15 a p p e llan ts’ s a n d a n d g ra v e l ex tra c tio n o p e ra tio n s o n o n e tra c t, and theirat t em pts t o ex pan d to another tract , throug h fals e acc us at i ons , verbal di s par agementand the i m pos i t i on of i l l egal condi t i ons and r es tr i ct i ons on thei rbus i nes s i n vi ol at i on a 1993 a g re e m e n t. O n th e h e e ls o f th is a lleg e d a n im u s, th e T o w n sh ip enac t ed the O r di nance , w hi ch r ezone d appel l ant s ’ l and fr om I ndus tr i al t o ei therR ur al R es i dent i al orO pen Space
. W hi l e the l and i n ques t i on i s of an i ndus tr i al natur e and ha s been z oned for in d u stria l u se s f

o r c lo se to f

if tyy e a rs, th e n e w d e sig n a tio n s o n ly perm i ts i ngl e- fami l ydet ache d dw el l i ngs and a mi ni m um l ots i ze o f th re e a c re s. A lleg e d ly , this a c tio n w a s ta k e n k n o w in g th a t it v io late d a p p e llan ts’ le g a l an d c o n tra c tu a l rig h ts. T h e re is n o th in g in th e c o m p lain t th a t w o u ld in d ica te a n yp o ss ib le m ot i vat i on forthe ena ctm entof the O r di nance otherthan a des i r e t o pr eventappel l ant s fr om cont i nui ng t o oper at e and e x p a n d th e ir e x tra c tio n b u sin e ss . S u c h a n im u s is n o t a le g itim a te re a s o n f

o r e n a c tin g a z o n in g o rd in a n c e , s ee Brady v. Tow n of C ol ches t er , 8 6 3 F .2 d 2 0 5 , 2 1 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ), an d is u n re la te d to la n d u s e p la n n in g . See P ace , 8 0 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 5
. T h u s, a p p e llan ts h a v e a lleg e d f a c ts w h ich , if tru e , sta te a c laim th a t th e O rd in a n c e , o n its f a c e , v io la te s s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . W hi l e thei rcl ai m m aybe ul t i m at el yuns ucce s s ful i f the T ow ns hi p i s abl e t o demonstr at e a l egi t i m at e r eas on forthe O rd in a n c e , th e re w a s n o b a s is f o r a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d is m is s a l. 2. SD P C l ai m as t o A ppel l ees ’ C ondu ct A s w e not ed above , appel l ant s ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tr educe d C ountO ne “t o bal d al l egat i ons of a ‘ s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on forenac t i ng a zoni ng or di nance , ’ ” butthat
“ th e [ i r ] c o m p l a i n tu n d e n i a b l ye n t a i l s m u c h m o r e th a n th i s . ” We agr eed w i th t hatchar act er i zat i on, and di s cus s ed B lanche Road , w h ere the S D P claim w as th at th e d ef en d an t T o w n sh ip o ff

icers
“ e n g a g e d in a c a m p a ig n o f h a ra ss m e n t d e sig n e d to f o rc e [ it] to abandon i t s devel opm entof [a n] i ndus tr i al park. ” 57 F. 3d at 258. I n B lanche Road , w e “r ej ect [ed] defe ndant s ’ ar gum entthat [ th e p lain tiff

] f a iled to a ss e rt a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im b e c a u se it has no ves t ed pr opertyr i ghtthatcoul d be s ubj ectt o a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, ” i nas m uch as the pl ai nt i ff “ had the r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om har as s m enti n [i t s ] l and deve l opm enteff or t s . ” Id
. at16 268 n. 15. A ppel l ant s have l evel ed s i m i l aral l egat i ons of har as s m entand obs truct i on and have , ther efor e, s t at ed a s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im
. C . M e r its o f th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la im T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed appe l l ant s ’ E qual Pr ot ect i on ch all en g e to th e O rdin an ce , su m m aril yh o lding that “R o x b u ry ’s change s t o t he zoni ng or di nance do notpr es enta bas i s foran equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m . ” ( A pp. 15. ) A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bec aus e “[ e] ven though the or di nance d o e sn ’t c las sif

yb yra c e , alie n a g e o r n a tio n a l o rig in , itis unr eas onabl e, arbi tr aryand bea r s no r at i onal r el at i ons hi p t o a p erm issi b le st ate o b

jecti v e.” (A p p ell an ts’ B r. 2 3
. ) U nl i ke a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s chal l enge, w her e the ques t i on i s w hetheri tw as i rr at i onal fora Tow ns hi p t o have pas s ed a z oni ng l aw atal l , i n an equa l pr ot ect i on chal l enge the ques t i on i s w hether“the Tow ns hi p has i rr at i onal l ydi s t i ngui s hed betw een s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed cl as s es . ” Ro g i n v . Be n s a l e m Tw p ., 6 1 6 F
. 2 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 9 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 0 )
. T h u s , th e “ f i r s ti n q u i ry a courtm us tm ake i n an equa l pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o a zoni ng o rd in a n c e is to e x a m in e w h e th e r th e c o m p lain in g p a rtyis s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o otherus es thatar e ei therperm i t t ed as of r i ght , orbys peci al perm i t , i n a ce r t ai n zone. ” C ongr egat i on Kol Amiv . Ab i n g t o n T

wp . , 309 F. 3d 120, 137 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. I f “the ent i t i es ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, then the [Tow ns hi p] m us tj us t i fy i t s di ffe r enttr eatm entof the tw o, ” id
. , bydemonstr at i ng thatthe or di nance i s r at i onal l yr el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e governm ent p u rp o s e . R o g in , 616 F. 2d at688. T he compl ai ntchar ges appel l ees w i th t aki ng “di s cr i m i nat ory ” ac t i ons , and w i th s eeki ng “t o depr i ve the p lain tiff s o f th e u se o f

th e ir p ro p e rty , w h e re a s o th e r p ro x im a te and/ ors i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed pr opert i es w er e notr ezone d i n the m annerof the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr operty ; norw er e theyacc or ded the tr eatm ents uffe r ed bythe pl ai nt i ffs and compl ai ned of he r ei n. ” ( A pp. 73. ) T hes e conc l us oryal l egat i ons do nots ugges tw hat
“ s i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e d p r o p e r ty ” wa s n o tr e z o n e d i n th e s a me m ann er, no r do t heyoff er anyfact s dem on strat i ng ho w tho se17 p ro p e rt ie s w e re s im ila rl ys itu a te d
. See V e n tu r a Mo b i l e h o me C m t ys. O w ners A ss’ n v. C i t y of San B uen aven t ura , 371 F. 3d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 4 -5 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (d ism iss in g f a c ial E P C c laim ag ains t zon ing o rdin an ce , in p art, b ec au se th e p lai n ti ff ’s
“ c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n s” o f b e in g “ sin g led o u t, fro m a ll p ro p e rty o w n e rs in D e f

e n d a n t C ity ” d id “ n o t id e n tif[ y ] o th e r sim ilarly s i tuat ed pr opertyow ner s oral l eged[ ] how theyar e tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y . ”)
. T o s t at e a c l ai m , the compl ai ntm us tal l ege fa c ts s uppor t i ng a fi ndi ng of i rr at i onal orarbi tr aryl egi s l at i ve ac t i on b yth e T o w n s h ip
. See P ace , 808 F. 2d at1035. W i thoutany fac t s , w e have no w ayof det erm i ni ng w hetherthe O r di nance di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tappel l ant s ’ pr opert i es , and i f s o, w hether th e re w a s a p o s s ib le ra tio n a l b a s is f o r t h a t d is c ri m in a tio n . See, e .g ., Co n g r eg a t i o n Ko lA mi , 309 F. 3d at140- 43 ( anal y zi ng w hethercountr ycl ubs , w hi ch w er e exe m pt ed fr om a zoni ng or di nance , ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o pl ai nt i ff’ s s ynagogue, w hi ch w as deni ed an e xempt i on)
. T he compl ai nti s s i m i l ar l yber eftof anyi ndi cat i on of how appel l ees ’ “otherconduct ” vi ol at ed appel l ant s ’ equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s . W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f

C o u n t T w o . A t lea st a s c u rre n tlyp led , it d o e s n o t s ta te a c la im
. D . L eg isl a ti v e Im m u n it y I n addi t i on t o di s m i s s i ng appel l ant s ’ SD P, E PC and T aki ngs cl ai m s i n C ount s O ne, T w o and Thre e forl ack of ri p en ess a n d /or fa il u re to state a c lai m , the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed thos e cl ai m s agai ns tal l s event een i ndi vi dual d ef en d an ts on the g rou n d o f a b so lute legislat ive im m u n ity . It d ism iss e d a p p e llan ts’ c laim f o r to rtio u s in ter f

e re n c e w ith contr actual r i ght s and pr os pect i ve ec onom i c damage i n C ount Fouron t hi s gr ound as w el l as t o al l i ndi vi dual defe ndant s exce pt B odol s ky
. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts i m pl yconcl uded thatthe “2001 O r di nance w as adopt ed bythe D efe ndant s fol l ow i ng the D e f e n d a n t p la n n in g b o a rd ’s p re p a ra tio n o f a M a s te r P la n . . . . T hus al l of the D efe ndant s w er e i nvol ved i n the l ocal l egi s l at i ve pr oces s i n adopt i on of zoni ng or di nance s [of] w hi ch Pl ai nt i ffs co m p lai n . . . . ” (A p p . 1 1
. ) A s fo r B o d o lsky , the D istri ct C o u rt w ron g ly“a ssu m e[ d ]” tha t he “ is a m em b er o f th e T o w n sh ip’s le g is la tiv e b o d y. . . .” (A p p . 3 5 .)U nl i ke A ci er no , in w h ich w e re v iew ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2 gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , the D i s tr i ctC our ther e di s m i s s ed C ou nts O ne thr ou gh F ou r on a R ule 12(b)( 6) m oti on t o d i sm i ss, 18 M ember s of l ocal l egi s l at i ve bodi es , s uch as m uni ci pal pl anni ng boar ds , ar e ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e l egi s l at i ve i m m uni tyfor a c tio n s ta k e n in a p u re ly le g is la tiv e c a p a c ity. A ci er no v. C l out i er , 4 0 F
. 3 d 5 9 7 , 6 1 0 & 6 1 0 n . 1 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) ( en banc ). T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a c tio n s a re “ leg isla tiv e ” f o r im m u n ity purpos es , w e have s etouta tw o- partt es t : “( 1) the ac t i on m us tbe
‘ s ubs t ant i vel y ’ l egi s l at i ve, w hi ch r equi r es thati ti nvol ve a po l i cym aking or l i ne-draw i ng decis i on ; and (2) the acti on m ust be ‘ pr ocedur al l y ’ l egi s l at i ve, w hi ch r equi r es thati tbe undert aken thr ough es t abl i s hed l egi s l at i ve pr ocedur es . ” Id
. at610 ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). A s to th e f

irst p ro n g o f

th e tes t, w e h a v e e x p lain e d th a t, w hen zoni ng offi ci al s ar e ena ct i ng oramendi ng zoni ng l egi s l at i on, thei ract s ar e s ubs t ant i vel yl egi s l at i ve, and w hen they are en fo rcing alread yex ist ing zo n ing law s, their ac ts are a d m in is tr a tiv e , e x e c u tiv e , o r m in is te ri a l. Id . at 6 1 1 . A id in g th is an aly sis sho u ld b e a n ev alua ti o n o f h o w m an yp eo p le are af fe cted b ythe o ff

ici al co n d u ct. A cts af

fe cti n g the e n ti re c o m m u n ityten d to b e su b sta n tiv e lyleg isla tiv e , w h ile a c ts a f f e c tin g o n lyo n e o r a sm a ll n u m b e r o f in d iv id u a ls im p lica te e x e c u tiv e o r a d m in is tr a tiv e a c tio n . I d. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe “r ezoni ng ai m s s ol el yand di s cr i m i nat or i l yatthe pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr opertyi n the s ubj ect nei ghbor hood. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 29. ) I n A ci er no , w e hel d that w her e a c ountycounci l enac t ed an or di nance r ezoni ng the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr opertypur s uantt o l egi s l at i ve pow er s del egat ed unders t at e l aw , and w her e thatr ezoni ng w as per form ed vi a the or di nance pr ocedur e, the ac t i on w as s ubs t ant i vel yl egi s l at i ve, even w her e the r ezoni ng w as di r ect ed atone part i cul arpar cel of pr operty . 40 F. 3d at612- 13. I ti s notcl earfr om the fa ce of the compl ai ntthatthe O r di nance o n ly aff

ect s appel l ant s ’ pr operty . A ppel l ant s al l eged 2and, thus , ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n the c o m p la in t. 19 thatthe O r di nance change d the zoni ng of thei rtr act s of l and, but d i d n o tc l a i m th a tth i s w a s a l l th a ti td i d
. T h i s s e e m s u n l i k e l y, s i nce, acc or di ng t o t he compl ai nt , the O r di nance r epea l ed and r evi s ed R oxburyT ow ns hi p’ s ent i r e Land D evel opm ent O r di nance . ( A pp. 69, par a. 54. ) I n anyevent , even i f the O r di nance onl yaff

ect ed appe l l ant s ’ tr act s of l and, the T ow ns hi p’ s act i on w as the ena ctm entof a z oni ng or di nance as oppos ed t o t he enf

or cementof an a l r eadyexi s t i ng zoni ng l aw a n d , th u s , th e a c tio n w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly le g is la tiv e . U nderthe s econd pr ong of the t es tfordet erm i ni ng w hetheran ac t i on i s “l egi s l at i ve” i n natur e, the O r di nance w as “pr ocedur al l yl egi s l at i ve i f i tw as undert aken thr ough es t abl i s hed l egi s l at i ve pr ocedur es . ” A ci er no , 4 0 F .3 d a t 6 1 3 . A p p e llan ts have notal l eged thatthe O r di nance w as enac t ed i n a manner contr aryt o “s t atut orypr ocedur es s peci fi ed fors uch ac t i on, ” s ee id ., e ith e r i n th e irc o m p la in t o r n o w o n a p p e a l. T hus , underthe t es tw e announc ed i n A ci er no , the enac t m entof the O r di nance w as a “l egi s l at i ve” a ct , w hi ch ent i t l es thos e def

endant s w ho enac t ed i tt o abs ol ut e l egi s l at i ve i m m uni tyforthe ac t
. I ts ur el ydoes notent i t l e the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w ho w er e notin v o lv e d in e n a c tin g th e O rd in a n c e to i m m uni ty , butthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ade no f i ndi ng as t o w ho w as a n d w h o w a s n o t in v o lv e d , ins tea d lu m p in g a ll d e f e n d a n ts to g e th e r in so m e so rt o f a m o rp h o u s le g isla tiv e “ p ro c e ss .” T h is w a s s im p ly n o t e n o u g h
. W e w i l l vaca t e the di s m i s s al s of C ount s O ne, T w o, T hr ee, and Fouron the gr ound of abs ol ut e l egi s l at i ve i m m uni tyand r emand fora det erm i nat i on of w hi ch of the manyi ndi vi dual d ef en d an ts, if an y , are en ti tl ed to leg isl ati v e im m u n ity . If the re are t o b e dis m i ssal s on thi s ground , the D i stri ctC ou rtm ustal so det erm i ne w hetherthe di s m i s s al s ar e i n the def endant ’ s orT he compl ai nt , i n thi s r egar d, i s defi ci enti n thati tnames the 3 i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w i thoutr egar d t o w hethertheyw er e bei ng s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l o r o f f ic ia l c a p a c itie s . 20 d e f e n d a n ts ’ i n d iv id u a l o r o f f ic ia l c a p a c itie s . See B as s v. A tar di , 8 6 8 F
. 2 d 4 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ). 3 I m pl i ci ti n t he for egoi ng i s the fa ctthatthe i ndi vi dual d e f e n d a n t s wo u l d n o tb e i mmu n e f o rth e i rc o n d u c tf

r o m th e t i me o f C o u n tyC o n c re te’ s 1 9 9 4 a p p lica tio n f o r su b d iv isio n a n d site p lan a p p rov al un ti l th e O rdin an ce w as e n ac ted in 2 0 0 1
. In C ar verv. Foers t er , w e sta ted th a t “th e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te im m u n ity , as it p e rta in s to lo c a l leg isla to rs, d o e s n o t sh ield exec ut i ve off

i ci al s fr om l i abi l i tyfora cour s e of c onductt aken pri or t o an d indepe nd ent of l egis l at i ve acti on , even i f t ho se offi ci al s w er e s i m ul t aneous l ym ember s of the l ocal l egi s l at i ve b o d yth a t r a tif

ie d th e c o n d u c t.” 1 0 2 F .3 d 9 6 , 1 0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A ddi t i onal l y , “[a ] n uncons t i tut i onal ori l l egal cour s e of c onduct bycountygovernm entdoes notfal l w i thi n the doctr i ne of abs ol ut e i m m uni tym er el ybeca us e i ti s connec t ed t o orfol l ow ed bya vot e of a countyboar d. ” Id . at 1 0 1 . T h u s, w e f o u n d in C ar verthata countycomm i s s i onerw as notabs ol ut el yi m m une i n a § 1983 ac t i on forhi s al l eged “ har as s m ent , thr eat s , and retali ati o n ” d esig n ed to p ersu ad e c o u n tyd ep artm en t hea d s to f ir e th e p lain tiff

s f ro m th e ir jo b s e v e n th o u g h th o se a c ts p re c e d e d h is legislat ive a ct of

v o ti n g as a m em b er o f th e c o u n tysalaryb o ard t o ul t i m at el yel i m i nat e pl ai nt i ffs ’ pos i t i ons . T hatthe def endant w a s a m e m b e r o f

th e c o u n ty sa la ry b o a rd w a s n o t d is p o s itiv e . H is pre-v o te ac ti o n s w ere ex ec u ti v e o r ad m inistrati v e in n ature and, thus , he w as notent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni tyi n an ac t i on f o r d a m a g e s . I

d. a t 1 0 0
. A ppel l ant s al l ege “ s peci fi c ef for t s on the partof B o d o lsk y , S ter n a n d in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs o f th e R o x b u ryC o u n c il a n d p lan n in g b o a rd , to h a ra ss th e p lain tiff s a n d f ru stra te th e ir eff or t s t o conductand expa nd thei rs and and gr avel extr act i on oper at i ons . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 28. ) T hes e ac t s , w hi ch on a m ot i on t o di s m i s s m us tbe ac cept ed as true, ar e non- l egi s l at i ve21 act s , w hi ch do notent i t l e the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s t o l egi s l at i ve i m m u n i ty. E. To r t i o u s I n t e r f

e r e n c e a n d Ci v i l Co n s p i r a c y Cl a i ms C ountFoural l eges thatthe “de fenda nt s ’ act i ons as afor es ai d cons t i tut e an i nt ent i onal and mal i ci ous i nt er fer ence w i th pl ai nt i ffs ’ r i ght s underthe 1993 D evel oper ’ s A gr eement and w i th t hei rpr os pect i ve ec onom i c adva nt age. ” C ountSeven a lleg e s th a t ap p e llee s c o n sp ire d to d e p riv e a p p e llan ts o f th e ir fe d era l and stat e c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rt g ra n ted a p p e llee s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n b o th C o u n ts on the gr ound t hatappel l ant s fai l ed t o s erve a t i m el ynot i ce of cl ai m un der the N ew Jer seyT ortC l ai m s A ct(“N JT C A ”), N
. J. S t at
. A nn . § 5 9:8- 8, befo re br i ng i ng these t ortcl ai m s agai nst p u b li c e n ti ti es a n d p u b li c o ff ici als. T o b ri n g an ac ti o n in tort agai ns ta “publ i c ent i tyorpubl i c empl oy ee” i n N ew J er s ey , the c laim a n t m u st f

ile a n o tice o f

c laim w ith th e e n tityw ith in n in e ty day s of the ac crual of the cl ai m orel s e be “ for everbarr ed” f r om as s ert i ng thatcaus e of a ct i on. N
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 59: 8- 3 and - 8; Mo o n v . Wa r r e n Ha v e n Nu rs i n gHo me , 867 A
. 2d 1174, 1176 (N
. J. 2 0 0 5 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatappel l ant s fai l ed t o fi l e a not i ce of cl ai m w i th anyof the def endant s , and appe l l ant s do not a rg u e to th e c o n tra ry . T h e ya rg u e , ins tea d , tha t th e ysu b sta n tially compl i ed w i th t he N J T C A byfi l i ng thei rcompl ai ntagai ns tthe T ow ns hi p i n s t at e courton M ay24, 2001, “w el l w i thi n the n inety -da yn o ti ce p eriod o f [ the N JT C A ]. ” (A p p ell an ts’ B r. 3 7
. ) T he N J T C A r equi r es thata not i ce of cl ai m i ncl ude the “dat e, pl ace and otherci r cumst ance s of the occ urr ence or tr ans act i on w hi ch gave r i s e t o the cl ai m as s ert ed, ” a “ gener al des cr i pt i on of the i nj ury , damage orl os s i ncurr ed, ” the “na m e or names of the publ i c ent i ty , empl oy ee orempl oy ees caus i ng the in ju ry,” a n d th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s c la im e d . N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 59: 8- 4. A ppl y i ng thi s r equi r ement , the Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s ey , i n W

u n sc h e l v. J

e rs e y C ity , hel d thata w oul d- be cl ai m ant h a d n o t su b sta n tiallyc o m p lied w ith th e n o tice o f c laim requi rem ent byfi l i ng a w orkers ’ com pen sat i on peti t i on becau se22 th e p e tit io n f

a iled to g iv e n o tice o f

a n in ten tio n to su e th e p u b lic ent i tydefe ndantforthe part i cul art or tof w r ongful death. 477 A .2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 8 (N .J . 1 9 9 4 ). A pp el l ants ’ s t at e cou rtcom plai nt w as onlyfi l ed ag ai nst the T o w n sh ip o f R o x b u ry , w h il e h ere theysee k to b ri n g tort claim s ag ains t al l or v irtuallyall o f th e a p p ell ee s, inclu d ing S tern and B odol s ky
. A ddi t i onal l y , the s t at e courtcompl ai ntm akes no m ent i on of the pos s i bi l i tyof a t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th contr act cl ai m ora ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m . T hus , thatcompl ai ntdi d not s ubs t ant i al l ycompl yw i th the r equi r ement s of the N J T C A forthe t or t i ous i nt er fer ence and ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m s br oughther e. N e x t, ap p e llan ts c laim th a t to th e e x ten t th e ir c iv il cons pi r acycl ai m i s pr edi cat ed on fe der al and s t at e cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons , the N J T C A does notappl y . I ti s true thatthe N JT C A ’s no t i ce requir em ents do no tapp l yt o fed eral cl ai m s, in c lu d in g § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s , Fuchi l la v. Laym an , 537 A
. 2d 652, 6 5 8 (N .J . 1 9 8 8 ), o r t o s ta te c o n s titu tio n a l to rt s , s ee G ar langerv. V er beke , 2 2 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 3 -0 4 (D .N .J . 2 0 0 2 ). A ppel l ant s , how ever , poi ntt o no author i tyes t abl i s hi ng thatthe N J T C A does notappl yt o a s t at e l aw ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m . “A ci vi l act i on forcons pi r acyi s es s ent i al l ya t or tact i on. ” Far r is v. C ount y of C am den , 61 F. Supp. 2d 307, 330 ( D
. N
. J
. 1999) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). “ U n lik e a c la im u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 . . . a c o n sp ira c yis n o t ac tu a llya n e lem e n t o f a § 1 9 8 3 c laim . It i s r ecogni zed, how ever , thatci vi l cons pi r acyi s a vehi cl e byw hi ch § 1 9 8 3 liab ili tym a yb e im p u ted to th o se w h o h a v e n o t ac tu a lly per form ed the ac tdeny i ng cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” PBA LocalN o. 3 8 v. W o o db ridg e P o li ce D ep ’t , 832 F. Supp. 808, 832 n. 23 ( D
. N
. J
. 1993) ( ci t i ng P

f ans t i el v. C i t y of Mar i on , 918 F. 2d 1178, 1 1 8 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 )). T h is d o e s n o t m e a n , h o w e v e r, th a t a s tate to rt law c iv il co n sp ira c yc laim is c o n v e rte d in to a f e d e ra l cla im ora s t at e cons t i tut i onal t or tm er el ybeca us e i ti s pr edi cat ed upon v i o l a t i o n s o f

th e f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c o n s t i tu t i o n s . Th e NJ TCA do es not applyt o fed eral and st at e con st i tuti on al cl ai m s becau se a s t at e s t atut e maynotabr ogat e an i ndi vi dual ’ s cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts
. G r eenway D ev. C o. v. B or ough of P ar am us , 750 A
. 2d 764, 770 ( N
. J
. 2000)
. A ppl y i ng the N J T C A t o a ci vi l cons pi r acy cl ai m w i l l onl yhi nderthats t at e t or tcl ai m ; i tw i l l notadd23 a n o th e r h u rd le f

o r b rin g in g a d istin c t § 1 9 8 3 o r sta te cons t i tut i onal cl ai m beca us e a c ons pi r acyi s notan el ementof s uch cl ai m s . T hus , w e hol d thatappel l ant s w er e notexempt fr om the N J T C A not i ce r equi r ement s forthei rci vi l cons pi r acy cl ai m i n C ountSeven. A p p e llan ts a rg u e , fin a lly , tha t ev e n if th e yf a iled to compl y , s ubs t ant i al l yorotherw i s e, w i th the N J T C A ’ s not i ce of claim req u ir em en t, at l ea st as to S tern a n d B o d o lskytheyw ere n o t r eq u ir ed to co m p ly
. T h eyclaim that S tern a n d B o d o lskyare notpubl i c empl oy ees underthe N J T C A , butar e i ndepende nt c o n tr a c to rs . See N
. J
. St at
. A nn. §§ 59: 1- 3 and 8- 3. A s part i es m ovi ng fors um m aryj udgm ent , St ern and B odol s kyhad the i ni t i al bur den t o “demonstr at e thatthe evi dence cr eat es no g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t” a s to th e ir sta tu s a s p u b lic e m p lo y e e s p ro te c te d b yth e N J T C A n o tic e p ro v is io n s . See Ske rs k iv . T

i me Wa r n e rCa b l e Co
. , 2 5 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ).S ter n a n d B o d o lsk ya rg u e th a t th e ir sta tu s a s p u b lic empl oy ees of the Tow ns hi p w as aff i r m at i vel yes t abl i s hed bythe fac tual admi s s i ons i n appel l ant s ’ compl ai nt
. T he compl ai nt stat es th at “a t al l r elev an t t im es [ S tern] ac ted a s the R o x b u ry T ow ns hi p Pl annerand/ orcons ul tantt o R oxbury ” and Bodol s ky “ac t ed as the R oxbur yT ow ns hi p E ngi neerand/ or cons ul tantto R oxbury . ” ( A pp. 63 ( emphase s added)
. ) “To be bi ndi ng, j udi ci al admi s s i ons m us tbe unequi vocal
. ” G l i ck v

. W hi t e Mot or Co
. , 458 F2d 1287, 1291 ( 3d C i r . 1972)
. T he compl ai nt equi vocat es as t o w hetherSt ern and B odol s kyw er e empl oy ed by the T ow nship or w hethertheyw ere onl y“con sul t ants
. ” B ecause i ti s notcl earthata cons ul t anti s a “publ i c empl oy ee” of the T ow ns hi p forpurpos es of the N J T C A , the al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntar e notj udi ci al admi s s i ons s uch thatSt ern and B odol s kyw oul d be r el i eved of thei rbur den of “ demonstr at [i ng] thatthe evi dence cr eat es no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t
. ” See Sker s ki , 257 F. 3d at278. S ter n p o in ts to n o e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g th e sta tu s o f h is r el at i ons hi p w i th t he Tow ns hi p, and the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not a d d re s s th e is s u e . ( See A pp. 16- 18. ) B eca us e St ern, as the24 m ovi ng party , fai l ed t o “demonstr at e thatthe evi dence cr eat es no iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t” r e g a rd in g w h e th e r h e is a “ p u b lic empl oy ee” forw hom not i ce unde rthe N J T C A i s r equi r ed, appel l ant s m etthei rbur den of de m ons tr at i ng a genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al factfor tri al m erel ybypo i nti ng ou this fai l ure. T hu s, w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent in S te rn ’s f

a v o r. B o d o lsk y , o n th e o th e r h a n d , su b m itt e d a d e c lar a tio n to the D i s tr i ctC our ton A ugus t19, 2004 w i th hi s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ents t at i ng:

I a c ted in th e c a p a c ityo f in ter im T o w n sh ip E n g in e e r f

o r th e T o w n sh ip o f

R o x b u ryf

ro m to [s i c] J ul y6 t o D ece m ber29, 1999. I have s erved as Pl anni ng B oar d E ngi neers i nce 1993. D ur i ng m yt enur e as T ow ns hi p E ngi neer a n d P lan n in g B o a rd E n g in e e r, I w a s re q u e ste d to p re p a re re p o rts a n d re n d e r o p in io n s re lev a n t to th is c a se . T h e T o w n sh ip a n d P lan n in g B o a rd w o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d a n d re lied u p o n th e se p ro d u c ts in ta k in g a c tio n in th is m a tte r. (A p p . 2 4 6 .) B o d o lsk y ’s c laim th a t h e is, o r w a s, th e T o w n sh ip and Pl anni ng B oar d E ngi neeri s es s ent i al l ythe equi val ent of an a l l egat i on thathe i s a “publ i c empl oy ee” underthe N J T C A
. I n B or ough of D unel l en v. F

. Mont ecalvo C ontr act i ng , 640 A
. 2d 1185 ( N
. J
. Super
. C t
. A pp. D i v. 1 9 9 4 ), th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f N e w Je rse y , A p p e llate D i vis i on , stronglyi m pli ed thata m un i ci pal engi neer i s a p u b li c e m p loy ee an d n o t an in d ep en d en t con tr ac tor. In B or ough of

D unel l en , the issu e w as w h ethe r a m uni ci pal i tyhad t o pr ovi de a de fens e and i ndemni fi cat i on fori t s bor ough engi neer , St et l er , forcl ai m s as s ert ed a g a in s t S te tle r b ya th ir d p a rt y . Id
. at1186. T he m uni ci pal i tyconce ded “thati tw oul d be obl i ged t o pay St et l er ’ s att orney s fee s and expe ns es had theybeen25 i ncurr ed i n defe ns e of c l ai m s ar i s i ng outof i t s s ervi ces as the b o rou g h en g inee r, ” b ec au se N
. J. S tat
. A n n . § 5 9 :10 -4 r equi r es i tt o pays uch expe ns es for“publ i c empl oy ees . ” Id
. T her efor e, the muni ci pal i tyar gued “thatSt et l erw as act i ng as an i ndepende ntcontr act or , notas the bor ough e n g in e e r, w ith re s p e c t to th e ” th ir d p a rt y ’s c la im s . Id
. T hi s s ugges t s that“i ndepende ntcontr act or ” and “ bor ough engi neer ” ar e mut ual l yexcl us i ve. I ndeed, underN ew J er s eyl aw , a “bor ough engi neer ” appe ar s t o be, by defi ni t i on, a publ i c empl oy ee. N ew J er s eySt atut es A nnot at ed § 40A : 9- 140, ci t ed i n D unel l en , r equi r es N ew J e rs e ym u n ic ip a litie s to a p p o in t a “ m u n ic ip a l e n g in e e r,” and t o payhi m on “an a nnual s al aryorfi xed fe e bas i s or atan hour l yr at e. ” The m uni ci pal i tyappoi nt ed St et l er p u rsu a n t to th is la w , an d b e c a u se it fa iled to d e m o n stra te thatSt et l erw as everact i ng as an i ndepende ntcontr act or (i .e ., nota s th e m u n icip a l en g in e e r), th e c o u rt o rd e re d it t o p ro v id e h im a d e f

e n se a n d in d e m n if

ica tio n a s a p u b lic e m p lo y e e u n d e r N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 5 9 :1 0 -4
. Id
. at1186- 89. T hus , beca us e underN ew J er s eyl aw a muni ci pal engi neeri s a publ i c empl oy ee, and B odol s kyal l eges that h e w as th e T o w n sh ip E n g inee r an d /or P lann ing B o ard E ngi neerdur i ng al l r el evantt i m es , he has m ethi s bur den t o “ demonstr at e thatthe evi dence cr eat es no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t
. ” See Skers ki , 257 F. 3d at278. T he bu rden t hen shi ft ed to app el l ants , the n on m ov i ng part i es, to id e n tify , b ya f

f id a v its o r o th e rw ise , sp e c if ic f a c ts s h o w in g a g e n u in e is s u e f o r t ri a l. Lexi ngt on I

ns . C o. v. W

. P a. H osp ., 4 2 3 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A ppel l ant s fai l ed t o m eetthatbur den. T heyhave not expl ai ned w hyB odol s kyi s an i ndepende ntcontr act orand ar gue onl ythat“[t ] her e w as nothi ng t o s how that B odol s kydi d notactas an i ndepende ntcontr act or . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 35. ) T hus , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o B odol s kyon C o u n ts F o u r a n d S e v e n .S i mi l a r l y , g i v e n o u re x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n o f a l l o f th e c l a i ms 4 and ou r di sposi t i on thereof, w e need no tadd res s appell ants ’ c o n te n tio n s a d d re s s e d to th e S e p te m b e r 1 4 th o rd e r. 26 F . C ros s - A ppeal A ppel l ees , exce ptB odol s ky , cr os s - appea l the D istric t C o u rt’s S e p tem b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 A m e n d e d O rd e r to the ex t ent i tdis m i ssed the S D P and E P C cl ai m s w i thout pr ej udi ce. B eca us e w e ar e r ever s i ng the di s m i s s al of thos e cl ai m s , w e nee d notr eac h the i s s ue of w hetherthe di s m i s s al s s houl d have be en w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce, a n d w ill d ism iss th e c ro ss -a p p e a l. 4 G . S u p p lem e n ta l C la im T he fe der al cl ai m s havi ng been di s m i s s ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed appe l l ant s ’ C ountSi x cl ai m for b re a c h o f

th e im p lied c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir deal i ng forl ack of

s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on under42 U. S
. C. § 1 3 6 7 ( c )
. Be c a u s e c e r t a i n o f th e f e d e r a l c l a i ms w er e i m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed and that , ther efor e, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt re tain s ju risd ictio n o v e r th o se c laim s, w e w ill v a c a te th e d ism iss a l o f

C o u n t S ix a n d re m a n d C o u n t S ix f o r c o n s id e ra tio n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt
.

I I . C oncl usi on In sum m ary , the fa ci al F i ft h A m end m ent J ust C om pens at i on C l ai m al l eged i n C ountT hr ee i s r i pe for fede r al adj udi cat i on, and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al on thi s gr ound w i l l be r ever s ed. W e r es erve j udgm enton w hethera cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed has been s t at ed. T he fa ci al SD P and E PC chal l enges t o the O rdi nan ce and the S D P chall eng e t o ap pell ees’ obs truct i ve cour s e of c onductpr i ort o the ena ctm entof the O rdi nan ce are r i pe fo r r eview
. T he co m plai nt s t at es a f a c ial S D P c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c a n b e g ra n ted a s to the O rdi nan ce, and a S D P cl ai m as t o ap pell ees’A ppel l ant s have notar gued thatthe di s m i s s al on C ountFi ve 5 s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d
. 27 obs truct i ve cour s e of c onduct , and the or derof the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss in g th o se c laim s o n th is g ro u n d w ill b e r e v e r s e d
. Th e c o mp l a i n tf a i l s t o s t a t e a n EP C c l a i m, a n d th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss in g o n th is gr ound w i l l be af

fi r m ed. T o the ext entthatthe D i s tr i ct C our tdi s m i s s ed the SD P, E PC , T aki ngs and Tort i ous Int erfer ence c l ai m s ( C ou nts O ne thr ou gh F ou r) against th e in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts o n th e g ro u n d o f a b so lu te leg isla tiv e im m u n ity , the o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt w ill be vac at ed, and w e w i l l r emand forfi ndi ngs cons i s t ent w ith this op inion
. T o the e x tent the D istri ct C o u rt a c c o rd e d th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts le g isla tiv e im m u n ity as t o appel l ant s ’ SD P cl ai m att acki ng defe ndant s ’ pr eO rdin an ce co n d u ct un d er B lanche Road , the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be r ever s ed. T he or derof the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton C ount s Fourand Seven w i l l be af

fi r m ed as t o al l appel l ees , exce ptSt ern, w i th r es pectt o w hom the or derw i l l be r ever s ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of C ountFi ve on s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons gr ounds w i l l be af fi r m ed, and the or der

5 di s m i s s i ng C ountSi x w i l l be vac at ed. T he cr os s - appea l w ill b e d is m is s e d
. I n s um , the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s s ur vi ve: a s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss f

a c ial c h a llen g e to th e O rd in a n c e ; a subst anti ve d ue p rocess chall eng e t o ap pell ees’ obs truct i ve cour s e of c onductl eadi ng up t o the ena ctm ent of the O r di nance ; a Fi fth A m endmentJ us tC om pens at i on T aki ngs chal l enge t o t he fa ce of the O r di nance ; br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng; and the t or t i ous i nt er fer ence and ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m s , but o n ly ag a in s t S te rn .