# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 22 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Els ie Beck Gli ck ert , an i nd iv id ua l; Jen Riv en es Jen se n, an in di vi du al ; Ir en e

Fran kl in , an i nd iv id ua l; Pet er Sa ran do s, an in di vi du al

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

The Loo p Tro ll ey

Tran sp or ta ti on Deve lo pm en t Di st ric t, a p ur po rte d p ol it ic al

su bd iv io n o f th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri; The Lo op Trol le y Co m pa ny, a Mis so ur i

no n- pr of it co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Bi -St at e Dev el op m en t Ag en cy of t he Mi ss ou ri- Ill in oi s M et ro po li ta n Di st ric t, do in g b us in es s as Met ro ; CB 54 21 -5 97 5 Tra ns po rta ti on Deve lo pm en t Di st ric t, a

po li ti cal su bd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ci ty of St . Lou is , Mis so ur i, a p ol it ic al su bd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri; Cit y of Uni ve rs it y

Cit y , Mis so ur i

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

St . Lou is Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri; Mi ss ou ri Hi gh way an d Tra ns po rta ti on Co m m is si on ; Ch arl ie A. Doo le y , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Bo ard of Di rect or s of th e p ur po rte d l oo p Tro ll ey

Tran sp or ta ti on Deve lo pm en t Di st ric t; Jo e Edwa rd s, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Bo ard of Di rect or s o f th e p ur po rte d l oo p Trol le y Tran sp or ta ti on Deve lo pm en t Di st ric t; Jo hn M. Nati on s, i n h is off ic ia l

cap aci ty as a m em

be r of th e Bo ard of Di rect or s o f th e p ur po rte d Lo op Trol le y Tran sp or ta ti on Deve lo pm en t Di st ric t; Fran ci s G. Sl ay , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as am em

be r of th e Bo ard of Di rect or s o f th e p ur po rte d Lo op Trol le y

Tran sp or ta ti on Dev el op m en t Di st ric t; Sh el le y W el sc h, i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Bo ar d of D ir ec to rs of th e pu rp or te d lo op Trol le y Tran sp or ta ti on Dev el op m en t D ist ri ct

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ann e S. Car ls on , in he r cap aci ty as a p ur po rte d Tru st ee o f th e Cat li n Tra ct Su bd iv is io n o f th e Ci ty of St . Lou is ; J oh n Dan ie l, i n h is cap aci ty as a Tru st ee o f th e Cat li n Tra ct Su bd iv is io n o f th e Ci ty of St . Lou is ; Se an Gann on , in hi s ca pa ci ty

as a Trus te e o f th e Cat li n Tra ct Su bd iv is io n o f th e Ci ty of St . Lou is ; Ca tl in Tract

Bo ard of Tru st ees , a Mi ss ou ri n on pr of it co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

1, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d B ROOKS, Dis tri ct 1
Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

In 20 13

, fo ur in di vi du al s— Els ie Bec k Gli ck ert
, Je n Ri ve ne s Je ns en , Iren e
Fr an kli n, an d Pet er Sara nd os —fi le d a fiv e-co un t co m pl ai nt (“ th e Co m

pl ai nt ”) agai nst

a nu m be r of de fen da nt s se ek in g de c l a r a t or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f fro m th e

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

-2

-or ga ni zat io n an d op erat io n of th e Loo p Trol le y Tran sp or ta ti on Dev el op m en t Dis tri ct

(“ th e Dis tri ct ”) in Uni v e r s i t y Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. Co un t 1 al le ge d fed eral an d st at e

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s, whi le Co un ts 2 to 5 rai se d st at e la w ch al le ng es

. The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt -ap pe ll ees ’ (h er ei na ft er al so refe rred to co ll ect iv el y as th e 2

“ Dis tri ct ”) m ot io n to di sm is s Co un t 1 as to Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in fo r la ck of

st an di ng ; g r a n t e d th e Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on Co un t 1 as to
Sara nd os be cau se hi s cl ai m s were pr ecl ud ed by a s t a t e ju dg m en t; an d de cl in ed to

ex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er t h e r e mai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s. On ap pe al

, Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in arg ue th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in fin di ng th ey lac k s ta nd in g and

in fai li ng to al lo w th em to am en d th ei r co m pl ai nt t o i n c l ud e m or e pa rti cu la riz ed

al le ga ti on s to es ta bl is h th ei r st an di ng

. Sar a n d o s a r g ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

ap pl y in g cl ai m pr ecl us io n be cau se he di d no t rece iv e co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e st at e la wsu it , den y in g h im du e p ro ces s o f la w. W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

T he Mi ssou ri Tran sp or ta ti on Dev el op m en t Dis tri ct A ct (“ T D D A ct ”)

, Mo. Re v.
St at

. §§ 23 8.2 00 -.27 5, au th or iz es th e cre at ion of tr an sport at io n de ve lo pm en t di st ric ts 3

to fu nd an d ex ecu te tra ns po rta ti on an d in fr a s t r u c t u re pr ojec ts

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 23 8.2 02

, .20 5. A tra ns po rta ti on de ve lo pm en t di st ric t is a po li ti cal su bd iv is io n of

th e st at e. Id

. § 23 8.2 05

. In 20 07

, th e go ve rn in g bo di es of St

. Lou i s C it y an d

Uni ve rs it y Ci ty, bo th lo cal tra ns po rta ti on au th or it ie s wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e TDD Act, pa ss ed res ol ut io ns cal li ng fo r th e joi nt es ta bl is hm e n t o f t h e pr op os ed Dis tri ct

. See id

. § 23 8.2 02 .1(4 ). Pu rs ua nt to th e TDD Act’s req ui rem en ts
, Uni ve rs it y Ci ty th en fil ed a pe ti ti on in t h e C i r cu it Co ur t of St

. Lou is Co un ty (th e “ Fo rm at io n Lawsu it ”)

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2
East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

St at ut or y ci ta ti on s refe r to th e 20 08 ed it io n of th e Rev is ed St at ut es of Mi ss ou ri 3

un le ss ot he rwis e in di cat ed

.

-3

-se ek in g to crea te th e pr op os ed Dis tri ct to fu nd an d bu il d a tro ll ey -car rai l syste m

. See

id

. § 23 8.2 07 .5. The pe ti ti on pr op os ed to fu nd th e tro ll ey -car pr ojec t by im po si ng up

to a on e pe rcen t sa le s ta x on ret ai l sa le s in th e pr op os ed Dis tri ct

. See id

. § 23 8.2 35

. Not ic e of th e pr op os al was pu bl is he d in two ne wsp ap ers , Th e St

. Lo ui s Dai ly Reco rd

an d Th e Co un ti an , f

or fo ur week s, in vi ti ng pe rs on s wh o re si de d o r own ed pro pe rty
wit hi n t he pr op os ed Dis tri ct to joi n th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it

. See id . § 23 8.2 12

. No

on e op po se d t h e pr op os al or so ug ht to joi n th e su it

. In Decem be r 20 07

, th e ci rcu it

c o u r t en te red an or de r de cl ari ng th e pr op os ed Dis tri ct an d sa le s ta x were ne i t h e r il le ga l no r un co ns ti tu ti on al an d cert ifyin g a si ng le ba ll ot qu es ti on fo r vo te r ap pr ov al

reg ard in g crea ti on of th e pr op os ed Dis tri ct
, ap pr ov al of th e pr op os ed tro ll ey -car

pr ojec t, an d au th or iz at io n of a on e pe rcen t sa le s ta x on ret a i l sa le s wit hi n th e

pr op os ed Dis tri ct to fu nd th e pr ojec t. See id

. § 23 8.2 15 -.21 6. At th e ti m e, qu al ifi ed

vo te rs in cl ud ed reg is te red vo te rs who res id ed wit hi n th e bo un da rie s of th e pr op os ed

Dis tri ct an d pe rs on s who own ed real pr op ert y wit hi n th o s e bo un da rie s. Id

. § 23 8.2 02 .2(2 ) (2 00 7)

. Vot ers ap pr ov ed th e ba ll ot q u e s t io n an d, in Ju ly 2 00 8, th e 4

ci rcu it co ur t en te red a fin al jud gm en t crea ti ng th e Dis tri ct
, ap pr ov in g th e tro ll ey -car

pr ojec t, an d au th or iz in g th e Dis tri ct to le vy an d co ll ect a sa le s ta x to fu nd th e pr ojec t (“ th e TDD Ju dg m en t” ). See id

. § 23 8.2 15

. The sa le s ta x was im po se d in th e Dis tri ct
in Aug us t 2 00 8 a nd ha s b een pa id an d c ol le ct ed si nc e th at ti m e.

In 20 13

, Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , Fran kl in

, an d Sara nd os fil ed a fiv e-co un t Co m pl ai nt
in fed eral di st ric t co ur t, s eek in g a de cl arat or y jud gm en t st at in g th e Dis tri ct was no t
la wfu ll y crea te d an d a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n ba rri ng th e Dis tri ct fro m b u i l d i n g an d

op erat in g th e tro ll ey -car syste m

. Co un t 1 al le ge d th at cert ai n vo ti ng pr ov is io ns of th e
TDD Act vi ol at ed th e Equ al Pro te ct io n an d Due Pro ces s Cl au se s of th e Uni te d St at es

an d Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on s. Co un ts 2 t o 5 rai se d st at e la w ch al le ng es

. The

Co m pl ai nt no te d th at Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in do no t res id e in or own pr op ert y wit hi n th e Dis tri ct
, bu t are res id en ts an d ta xp ay ers of Uni ve rs it y Ci ty an d th e Ci ty of

The de fin it io n of “ qu al ifi ed vo te rs ” in th e TDD Act ha s si nc e be en am en de d. 4

-4

-St

. Lou is an d reg ul ar b us in es s p at ro ns , ped es tri an s, an d m ot or is ts in th e Dis tri ct

. It

al so st at ed th at Sara nd os is a res id en t of St

. Ch arl es Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, an d own s real

pr op ert y in th e Dis tri ct

.

The Dis tri ct fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s an d fo r su m m ary jud gm en t wit h res pe ct

to al l co un ts of th e Co m

pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Co un t 1 as to Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , fin di n g th es e th ree pl ai nt iff s la ck ed st an di ng to br in g th ei r fed eral cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n fo r su m mar y ju dg m en t on Co un t 1 as to Sara nd os on pr ecl us io n

gr ou nd s, fin di ng th at hi s fai lu re to in te rv en e an d ob ject in t h e F o rm at io n Lawsu it

pr ecl ud ed hi m fro m br in gi ng hi s cl ai m s in Co un t 1. The di st ric t co u r t d e c l i n e d to

ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w cl ai m s an d di sm is se d

Co un ts 2 t o 5 as t o a ll ap pe ll an ts , pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 7( c)(3 ).

Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , Fran kl in

, an d Sara nd os no w ap pe al

, arg ui ng : (1 ) th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in di sm is si ng Fran kl in

, Gli ck ert
, an d Je n s e n’s cl ai m s wit ho ut gi vi ng th em an op po rtu ni ty to am en d t h e C o mp l ai nt to ad d m or e

pa rti cu la riz ed al le ga ti on s to es ta bl is h t h e i r s t an di ng ; (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

fin di ng Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in la ck s t a n d i n g be cau se th ey li ve ne ar an d

reg ul arl y freq ue nt th e Dis tri ct ; an d (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g c la im

pr ecl us io n ag ai ns t Sara nd os be cau se he di d no t rece iv e ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e
Fo rm at io n Laws ui t, i n v io la ti on of d ue pro ces s.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Mot io n t o Am en d

Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in arg ue th e di st ric t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n in

di sm is si ng th ei r cl ai m s in Co un t 1 wit ho ut affo rd in g t he m an op po rtu ni ty to am en d

th e Co m pl ai nt to su pp ly m or e pa rti cu la riz ed al le ga ti o n s t o e s ta bl is h th ei r st an di ng

.

-5

-“ A de ci si on whe th er to al lo w a p a rty to am en d he r co m pl ai nt is le ft to th e so un d

di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t an d s h o u l d b e ov erru le d on ly if th ere is an ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” Pop oa li i v . Cor r. Med . Serv s., 5 12 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Gli ck e r t
, J e ns en , an d Fran kl in di d no t m ov e to am en d or fil e a pr op os ed

am en d e d p l e a d i ng wit h th e di st ric t co ur t. Rat he r, in th ei r m em or an du m of la w in

op po si ti on to th e Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n to di sm is s, th ey in cl ud ed a br ie f se ct io n no ti ng th at

“ [b ]ecaus e th e Dis tri ct co mb i n e d i t s m ot io n to di sm is s wit h a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, fil ed ve ry earl y in th e co ur se of th is su it

, it was no t pr act ic al fo r Pl ai nt iff s

to av ai l th em se lv es of th ei r rig ht to am en d th ei r Co m pl ai nt as a m at te r of co ur se ” an d

req ue st in g “ pe rm is si on to am en d th ei r Co m pl ai nt sh ou ld th is C o u r t f in d an y in su ffi ci en ci es in it s al le ga ti on s.” R. Doc

. 91

, at 18

. W e ha ve he ld th at “ to pr es erv e th e rig ht to am en d a co m

pl ai nt a pa rty m

us t su bm it a pr op os ed am en dm en t al on g wit h

it s m ot io n.” W ol gi n v. Si m on , 72 2 F.2 d 38 9, 39 5 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 83 ); se e al so Uni te d

St at es v. Mas k of Ka-Nefe r-Nefe r, 75 2 F

. 3d 73 7, 74 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (rejec ti ng

go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d fro m “ typic al pr act ic e” whe n it di sm is se d go ve rn m en t’s co m pl ai nt wit ho u t i nv it in g am en dm en t be cau se Eig ht h

Ci rcu it la w req ui res pl ai nt iff s to su b mi t a m ot io n an d pr op os ed am en dm en t to

pr es erv e th ei r rig ht to am en d an d do es no t req ui re th e di st ric t co ur t to in vi te a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d if pl ai nt iff s di d no t fil e on e). App el la nt s di d no t su bm it a m ot io n

to am en d or a pr op os ed am en dm en t, no r di d th ey in di cat e wha t a pr op os ed am en de d pl ead in g m ig ht ha ve co nt ai ne d. Acco rd in g l y, t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to gr an t Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in le av e to a mend th ei r
Co m pl ai nt . See, e.g ., Clayto n v . W hi te Hall Sch

. Dis t., 7 78 F.2d 45 7, 4 60 (8t h C ir.

19 85 ) (h ol di ng di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fai li ng to gr an t le av e to

am en d whe re ap pe ll an t di d no t su bm it a m ot io n or pr op os ed am en dm en t bu t m erel y

co nc lu de d h er re sp on se to th e ap pe ll ee’s m ot io n t o d is m is s wi th a req ue st fo r le av e

to am en d)

.

-6

-B. Sta nd in g

The di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d Gl ic ke rt, J en se n, an d F ran kl in ’s cla im s i n C ou nt
1 bec au se it fo un d th ey la ck ed st an di ng to br in g th ei r fed eral cl ai m s. “ W e rev ie w a de ci si on d is m is si ng a co m pl ai nt fo r la ck of st an di ng de no vo , ‘con st ru in g th e al le ga ti on s of th e co m

pl ai nt
, an d th e reas on ab le in fere nc es dr awn th e r e f r o m, m os t
fav or ab ly to t he pl ai nt iff

.’ ” Tars ne y

v. O’Keefe, 2 25 F.3d 92 9, 9 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) (q uo ti ng Bu rto n v. Cen t. In te rs ta te Low-Lev el Rad io act iv e W as te Co m pa ct Co m m ’n,

23 F.3d 20 8, 2 09 (8t h C ir. 1 99 4) ).

“ In es se nc e th e q ue st io n o f st an di ng is whe th er the li ti ga nt is en ti tl ed to ha ve th e co ur t de ci de th e m eri ts of th e di sp ut e o r o f p art ic ul ar is su es

. Thi s in qu iry

in vo lv es bo th co ns ti tu ti on al li m it at io ns on fed eral -co ur t juri sd ic ti on an d p ru de nt ia l

li m it at i o n s on it s ex erci se .” W art h v. Sel di n, 42 2 U.S. 49 0, 49 8 (1 97 5)

. Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in

, as th e pa rti es as se rti ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on , ha ve th e bu rd en of

es ta bl is hi ng th ei r st an di ng

. See Daim le rCh ry sl er Corp

. v. Cun o, 54 7 U.S. 33 2, 34 2 (2 00 6)

. To sa ti sf

y co ns ti tu ti on al st an di ng req ui rem en ts
, th e pl ai nt iff m us t m ak e ou t

a “ cas e or co nt ro ve rs y ” be twee n hi m se lf an d th e de fen da nt
, whi ch req ui res he al le ge
“‘su ch a pe rs on al st ak e in th e ou tc om e of th e co nt ro ve rs y ’ as to warra nt hi s in vo cat io n of fed eral -co ur t juri sd ic ti on an d to jus ti fy ex erci se of th e co ur t’s rem ed ia l

po wers on hi s beh al f.” W art h, 42 2 U.S. at 49 8- 99 (q uo ti ng Bak er v. Carr

, 36 9 U.S.

18 6, 20 4 (1 96 2) ). “ Fro m Arti cl e III’s li m it at io n of th e jud ic ia l po wer to res ol vi ng
‘Cases ’ an d ‘Con tro ve rs ie s,’ an d th e se pa rat io n- of -p owe rs pr in ci pl es un de rlyin g th at
li m it at io n, we h a v e d e d uc ed a se t of req ui rem en ts th at to ge th er m ak e up th e ‘irred uc ib le co ns ti tu ti on al m in im um of st an di ng .’ ” Lex m ark In t’l, I n c. v. St at ic

Co nt ro l Co m

po ne nt s, In c., 13 4 S. Ct

. 13 77

, 13 86 (2 01 4) (q uo ti ng Lujan v. Defen de rs of W il d l i f

e, 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 56 0 (1 99 2) ). “ The pl ai nt iff m us t ha ve su ffer ed or be

im m in en tl y th reat en ed wit h a co nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ‘inju ry in fact ’ th at is fai rly

tra ceab le to th e ch al le ng ed act io n of th e de f e n d a n t an d li ke ly to be red res se d by a

-7

-fav or ab le jud ic ia l de ci si on .” Id

. In ad di ti on to th e m in im um Ar t i c l e III “ cas e or

co nt ro ve rs y ” req ui rem en t, th e Su pr em e Co ur t “ ha s reco gn iz ed o t h e r li m it s on th e cl as s of pe rs on s who m ay in vo ke th e co ur ts ’ de ci si on al a n d r e m ed ia l po wers ,”

in cl ud in g th e li m it at io n th at “ th e pl ai nt iff ge ne ral ly m us t ass ert hi s own le ga l rig ht s

an d in te res ts
, an d can no t res t hi s cl ai m to rel ie f on th e le ga l rig ht s or in te res ts of th ird

pa rti es .” W art h, 4 22 U.S. at 4 99

.

Co un t 1 of ap pe ll an ts ’ Co m pl ai nt is ba se d up on th e al le ge d un co ns ti tu ti on al it y of cert ai n vo ti ng pr ov is io ns of th e TDD Act. App el la nt s al le ge th at th e TDD Act, on it s face or as ap pl ie d in th is el ect io n, is u n c o n s t i t u ti on al be cau se it : (1 ) vi ol at es

vo te rs ’ rig ht to eq ua l pr ot ect io n by crea ti ng di sc riminat or y vo ti ng cl as si fic at i o n s; (2 ) vi ol at es vo te rs ’ rig ht to eq ua l p r o t e c t i o n a nd du e pr oc es s by fai li ng to as su re ba ll ot se crec y ; an d (3 ) vi ol at es vo te rs ’ ri gh t to eq ua l pr ot ect io n an d du e pr oc es s by

un du ly bu rd en in g vo te rs ’ ab il it y to ex erci se th ei r rig ht to vo te in a va rie ty of way s. 5 App el la nt s al le ge th at
, as a co ns eq ue nc e of th e st at ut e’s un co ns ti tu ti on al it y , th e TDD

Ju dg m en t crea ti ng th e Dis tri ct is vo id an d th us th e Dis tri ct ha s no au th or it y to co ll ect

ta xe s or un de rta ke th e tro ll ey pr ojec t. App el la nt s al le ge th ey are in jure d be cau se th e Dis tri ct is co ll e c t i n g sa le s ta x on pu rch as es of go od s an d se rv ic es in th e Dis tri ct
, whe re th ey reg ul arl y sh op , an d un de rta ki ng th e tro ll ey pr ojec t in an are a t h e y l i v e

ne ar an d freq ue nt

. The y as ke d th e di st ric t cou rt to de cl are th at th e Dis tri ct do es no t

ex is t an d p erm an en tl y

en joi n t he Dis tri ct fro m

pu rs ui ng th e tr ol le y

pro ject.

W e co nc lu de Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d F r a n kl in la ck st an di ng to as se rt eq ua l

pr ot ect io n an d du e p r o c e s s cl ai m s in th is cas e be cau se th es e cl ai m s are no t an

as se rti on of th ei r o w n l e g a l rig ht s. “ A fed eral co ur t m us t as k ‘w he th er th e

co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y pr ov is io n on whi ch t he cl ai m res ts pr op erl y can be

The Co m pl ai nt al so al le ge d th at th e TDD Act’s fai lu re to as su re ba ll ot se crec y 5
vi ol at es Arti cl e 8 , Sect io n 3 of th e Mi ss ou ri co ns ti tu ti on , wh ic h ad dr es se s m et ho ds of vo ti ng an d s ecre cy

of t he ba ll ot

.

-8

-un de rs to od as gr an ti ng pe rs on s in th e pl ai nt iff ’s p os it io n a rig ht to jud ic ia l re li ef.’”

Ro be rts v. W am se r, 88 3 F.2 d 61 7, 62 0 (8 th C i r. 19 89 ) (q uo ti ng W art h, 42 2 U.S. a t
50 0)

. Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in are no t en ti tl ed to vo te in th e Dis tri ct
, as th ey do

no t res id e in or own pr op ert y wit hi n th e Dis tri ct
, an d th ey do no t as se rt an y pe rs on al rig ht un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on or an y st at ut e th at is vi ol at ed by th e Dis tri ct ’s im po si ti on of th e sa le s ta x an d pu rs ui t of th e tro ll ey pr ojec t. Rat he r, th e on ly le ga l ba si s fo r th ei r cl ai m is th at th e TDD Act v io la te s t he co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of t hi rd pa rti es , nam el y , pe op le who were e n t i t l e d to vo te in th e TDD el ect io n. “ In sh or t th e cl ai m of th es e

pe ti t i on ers fal ls sq ua rel y wit hi n th e pr ud en ti al st an di ng ru le th at no rm al ly ba rs li ti ga nt s fro m as se rti ng th e rig ht s or leg al in te res ts of ot he rs in or de r to ob ta in rel ie f

fro m in jury to t he m se lv es .” W art h, 42 2 U.S. a t 50 9; cf. Uni te d St at es v. Hay s, 51 5

U.S. 73 7, 74 3- 44 (1 99 5) (ap pl y in g th e ru le ag ai ns t ge ne ral iz ed gr ie va nc es to no te
th at
, in th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n co nt ex t, th e res ul ti ng in jury fro m di sc riminat or y co nd uc t

“ acco rd s a ba si s fo r st an di ng on ly to th os e pe rs on s who are pe rs on al ly de ni ed eq ua l

tre at m en t by th e ch al le ng ed di sc riminat or y co nd uc t” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ). W hi le th i s p r ud en ti al ru le is su bjec t to ex cep ti on s, ap pe ll an ts do no t

pr es en t an y arg um en t th at an ex cep ti on sh ou ld ap pl y , no r do we fin d on e ap pl ic ab le

to th is cas e. See W art h, 42 2 U.S. at 50 9- 10

. Thu s we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l of Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in ’s cl ai m s in Co un t 1 fo r la ck of st an di ng

.

C. Not ic e

Sara nd os is di ffer en tl y si tu at ed fro m th e ot he r ap pe ll an ts be cau se he own ed

pr op ert y in th e Dis tri ct du rin g th e TDD el e c t i o n a n d vo te d in th e el ect io n. The

di st ric t co ur t fo un d it un ne ces s a r y t o de te rm in e whe th er th is fact es ta bl is he d

Sara nd os ’s st an di ng to b r i n g hi s cl ai m s in Co un t 1, in st ead gr an ti ng th e Dis tri ct ’s

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b y

co nc lu di ng Sara nd os ’s cla im s wer e p recl ud ed by

th e TDD Ju dg m en t. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. Bu tl er v. Ci ty of N. Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark

., 98 0 F.2 d 50 1, 50 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). W e wil l

affi rm th e gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e

-9

-di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of

la w.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a).

W e affo rd th e sa m e fu ll f a i th an d cred it to th e TDD Ju dg m en t, a st at e co ur t jud gm en t, th at wou ld ap pl y in Mi ss ou ri’s own co ur ts

. See 28 U.S.C. § 17 38 ; Krem er

v. Ch em

. Co ns tr. Co rp ., 45 6 U.S. 46 1, 46 6 (1 98 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at
Sara nd os co ul d ha ve in te rv en ed in th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it to br in g hi s cl ai m s an d th at

“ Mi ss ou ri la w is cl ear th at th e jud gm en t es ta bl i s h i ng a tra ns po rta ti on de ve lo pm en t
di st ric t is fin al an d gi ve n pre cl us iv e effe ct ov er tho se who co ul d hav e in te rv en ed in

th e Fo rm at io n Lit ig at io n.” Gli ck ert v

. Loo p Trol le y Tran sp

. Dev

. Dis t., No.

4: 13 cv 21 70 SNLJ, 20 1 4 WL 1 6 72 00 5, at *6 (E.D. Mo

. Apr

. 28

, 20 14 ). Sara nd os do es no t ch al le ng e th es e fin di ng s on ap pe al

. Rat he r he arg ue s on ly th at th e pr ecl us iv e effe ct o f t h e TDD Ju dg m en t co ul d no t be ap pl ie d ag ai ns t hi m be cau se he di d no t

rece iv e ad eq ua te no ti ce o f th e Fo rm at io n Laws ui t, i n v io la ti on of d ue pro ces s.

The TDD Act ha s a no ti ce pr ov is io n, req ui rin g th e ci rcu it cl erk in who se of fic e

a pe ti ti on is fil ed to pu bl is h no ti ce in “ on e or m or e ne wsp ap ers of ge ne ral ci rcu la ti on

se rv in g th e co un ti es or po rti on s th ereo f co nt ai ne d in th e pr op os ed di st ric t to pu bl is h

on ce a week fo r fo ur co ns ecu ti ve week s.” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 23 8.2 12

. The Co m pl ai nt
al le ge d th e Fo rm at io n La w s u i t f il e di d no t co nt ai n ev id en ce sh owi ng th e st at ut or y

no ti ce req ui rem en t was sa ti sf ie d. In it s m ot io n to di sm is s an d fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,
th e Dis tri ct arg ue d res jud ic at a ba rred ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m s, de ta il ed ho w ap pe ll an ts

rece iv ed no ti ce an d an op po rtu ni ty to be he ard in th e Fo r mat i o n Lawsu it

, an d

su bm it te d affi da vi ts sh owi ng no ti ce was pu bl is he d. In th ei r m e mo ran du m in

op po si ti on to th e m ot io n, ap pe ll an ts arg ue d Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in co ul d no t
be pr ecl ud ed by th e TDD Ju dg m en t be cau se th ey di d no t ha ve th e ri g h t t o joi n th e
Fo rm at io n Lawsu it

, st at in g: “ The Ci ty ne gl ect s to ex pl ai n ho w t h es e Pl ai nt iff s [Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in ], ev en ha d th ey be en gi ve n no ti ce, woul d hav e be en

en ti tl ed

. . . t o pa rti ci pa te in th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it .” R. Doc

. 91

, at 20

. Afte r th e

wor d “ no ti ce,” a pp el la nt s i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g fo ot no te :

-1 0-Pl ai nt iff s ack no wled ge th at
, aft er th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it was fil ed

, th e

co ur t or de red th at no ti ce of th e fil in g be pu bl is he d. Tho ug h th e Dis tri ct ha s pr es en te d a rece nt affi da vi t th a t t hi s was do ne , th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it fil e do es no t refl ect th is

. Tho ug h th e Co m pl ai nt do es no t rai se th e is su e, th e co ns ti tu ti on a l a d e qu acy of pu bl is he d no ti ce to Pl ai nt iff Sara nd os , th e reco rd own er of la nd wit hi n th e pr op os ed di st ric t, m eri ts

co ns id erat io n; Pl ai nt iff

s wil l se ek to de ve lo p th is is su e if th ey are al lo wed to am en d t he ir C om pl ai nt

.

R. Doc

. 91

, at 20

, n.4 3 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Sara nd os no w co nc ed es pu bl ic at io n no ti ce

was gi ve n bu t cl ai m s it was co ns ti tu ti on al ly i na de qu at e an d t h us arg ue s th e di st ric t

co u r t c o u ld no t ap pl y th e pr ecl us iv e effe ct of th e TDD J ud gm en t ag ai ns t hi m

. The

Dis tri ct arg ue s Sara nd os waiv ed th is arg um en t by fai li ng to rai se i t i n t he di st ric t

co ur t. We agre e.

App e l l a n t s a ll eg ed in th e Co m pl ai nt th at th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it fil e di d no t

pr ov e st at ut or il y req ui red no ti ce was pr ov id ed

. The Dis tri ct su bm it te d ev id en ce wit h

th ei r m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t sh owi ng th e st at ut e’s no ti ce req ui rem en t was

sa ti sf ie d. App e l la nt s di d no t co nt rad ic t or reb ut th at ev id en ce or arg ue th at res ju di cat a co ul d no t ap pl y be cau se pu bl ic at io n no ti ce was in ad eq ua te

. Acco rd i n g l y, whi le it is tru e th at st at e co ur t p r o c e e di ng s m us t m eet m in im

um du e pr oc es s

req ui rem e n t s to qu al ify fo r th e fu ll fai th an d cred it gu aran te ed by fed eral la w, se e
Krem er, 45 6 U.S. at 48 1, in th is cas e, th ere was no ge nu in e di sp ut e be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t as to th e co ns ti tu ti on al a d e q u a c y of no ti ce th at pr ecl ud ed it fro m gr an ti ng

s u m m ary jud gm en t on res jud ic at a gr ou nd s. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a); se e a l s o Abb ot t v. Mi ch ig an , 47 4 F.3 d 32 4, 33 1- 32 (6 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( f i n di ng su m

m ary jud gm en t on pr ecl us io n gr ou nd s pr op er whe re pl ai nt iff s cl ai m ed th ey di d no t ha ve a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te th ei r cl ai m s, de f e n d an ts m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud g men t a n d p res en te d ev id en ce on th is cl ai m , an d pl ai nt iff s di d no t ch al le ng e or

co me f o r t h w i t h ev id en ce to sh ow th ey di d no t ha ve a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to
li ti ga te ).

-1 1-In hi s rep ly br ie f, Sara nd os cl ai m s he di d rai se th e is su e of th e “ co ns ti tu ti on al

ad eq ua cy of th e pu bl is he d no ti ce” be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, refe rri ng to th e afo rem en ti on ed fo ot no te i n ap pe ll an ts ’ m em or an du m in op po si ti on to su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th us h e di d rai se a du e pr oc es s ch al le ng e. W hi le we ag ree th at th is

fo ot no te in cl ud ed th e wor ds “ co ns ti tu ti on al ad eq ua cy of pu bl is he d no ti ce,” ha vi ng

rev ie wed th e reco rd

, we di sa gr ee th at th is fo ot no te was su ffi ci en t to al ert th e di st ric t

co ur t th at Sara nd os was ass ert in g t ha t re s ju di cat a co ul d no t ba r hi s cl ai m s be cau se h e d i d no t rece iv e co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e Fo rm at io n Lawsu it

. A t

m os t, t h e f

o o t no te m ay ha ve si gn al ed th at Sara nd os m ig ht rai se a ch al le ng e to th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e TDD Act’s no ti ce pr ov is io n in th e fu tu re. Acco rd in gl y , th is

cl ai m was no t pl ed in th e di st ri c t c o u r t
, an d we no te th at no t on ly ha ve we al read y

c o n c l u d e d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by no t gr an ti ng ap pe ll an t s le av e to am en d th e Co m

pl ai nt
, bu t ap pe ll a n t s d o no t ev en arg ue on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t e rred in fai li ng to al lo w th em to am en d to de ve lo p Sara nd os ’s du e

pr oc es s arg um en t. W e co nc lu de

, th eref or e, th at th e du e pr oc es s arg um en t Sara nd os

m ak es on ap pe al was no t rai se d be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, an d th us we wil l no t ad dr es s it

. See Lark en , In c. v. W ray, 18 9 F.3 d 72 9, 73 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (d ecl in in g to ad dr es s

arg um en ts th at were no t m ad e be lo w “ wit h su ffi ci en t pa rti cu la rit y to pr es erv e th em ”).

As Sara nd os do es no t ot he rwis e ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co u r t ’s ap pl ic at io n of

pr ecl us io n, we a f

f i rm th e co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on Co un t 1 of th e
Co m pl ai nt as t o S aran do s. 6

As we co nc lu de th e TDD J ud gm en t pr ecl ud es Sara nd os ’s c la im s, we do no t 6

ne ed to ad dr es s hi s se co nd ary arg um en t, na m el y , th at he co ul d no t ha ve br ou gh t hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es in an ele ct io n c on te st

.

-1 2-III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th es e reas on s, we affi rm th e di s t r i c t c ou rt’s di sm is sa l of Co un t 1 of th e
Co m pl ai nt as to Gli ck ert
, Je ns en , an d Fran kl in an d it s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on
Co un t 1 as t o S aran do s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-