NOT P 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 o. 04- 4195 HI GHW AY M ATE RI ALS , I NC, A ppel l ant v. W HI TE M ARS H TOW NSHI P , M ONTGOM ERY COUNTY, P A; THE BOARD OF S UPE RVI S ORS OF WHI TE M ARS H, TOWN S HI P , M ONTGOM ERY CO UN TY, PA; AN N D . YO UN GLO VE, I ND I VI DU ALLY AN D I N H ER CA PA CI TY A S CH A I RM A N O F TH E B O A RD O F SU PER V I SO RS; RO NAL D J . DE RO S A, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND IN HI S CA P AC I T Y AS S U P E R V IS O R ; W IL L IA M P . R IM E L , III , IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D IN HI S CAPAC I TY A S S UPERV I SOR; PETE R B. CO RN OG , I ND I VI DU ALLY AND IN HI S CA P AC I T Y AS S UP E RV I S OR ; M I CH AE L A. Z E OC K, I N D I V I D U A LLY A N D I N H I S CA PA CI TY A S SU PER V I SO R; TH O M A S F. ZARKO, I NDI VI DUA LL Y AN D I N HI S CAP ACI TY AS TOWN S HI P ENGI NEE R; DONAL D C OHAN; T RINA C OHAN; P AUL HEN KELS; BA RBA RA HEN KELS (In ter v e n o rs in D istric t C o u rt)

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 03212) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le R o b e rt F . K e lly Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 3, 2010D efe ndant s i ncl ude W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p, the W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p B oar d of 1 S u p e rv iso rs, in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs o f th e B o a rd , an d T h o m a s Z a rk o (th e T o w n sh ip en g inee r). 2 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge H i gh w ayM at eri al s, Inc. (“H M I”) app eal s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof d efen dan t s’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton H M I ’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m s . H M I ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourterr ed by : 1) fai l i ng t o cons i deral l the fa ct s on

1 the r ecor d, as w el l as r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n H M I ’ s favor , i n appl y i ng the “s hocks the c o n s c i e n c e ” s t a n d a r d t o H MI ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m ; a n d 2 ) f i n d i n g th a tH MI h a d n o t sh o w n th a t d e f

e n d a n ts’ b e h a v io r la c k e d a n yra tio n a l b a sis a s n e e d e d to su sta in its e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we d i s a g r e e a n d th u s a f f i rm. I . F act ual and P roce dural H i s t ory H M I pur chas ed w hatw as know n as the C or s on L i m es t one Q uarryi n 1997. T he pr opertycompri s es 309 acr es overthr ee pa r cel s of l and i n W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p, M on t go m eryC ou nty , P enn sy l van i a (the “T ow nship”) . T he subj ectof thi s l and use di s put e i s a 54 ac r e par cel t erm ed “Par cel O ne. ” U nt i l l at e 2001, the maj or i tyof thi s l and w as z o n ed H V Y -X Ind u str ial , w ith a sm all sec ti o n zo n ed fo r reside n ti al us e. T h e H V Y -X zone pe rm i tt ed off

i ce de vel opm ent , among ot herus es , butpr ohi bi t ed r es i dent i alH M I al t ernat el ycoul d have s oughta var i ance fr om the Tow ns hi p’ s Z oni ng 2 H ear i ng B oar d. T he M ont gom eryC ountyPl anni ng C om m i s s i on act s i n an advi s oryr ol e forthe 3 T o w n sh ip , w h ich h a s th e p o w e r to a p p ro v e o r re jec t d e v e lo p m e n t p ro p o sa ls w ith in its j ur i s di ct i on. T h e W h it em arsh P lann ing C o m m issi o n ac ts i n an ad v isoryrole f o r th e B o ard 4 ( defi ned bel ow i n t ext ) , w hi ch ul t i m at el ydeci des l and us e r eques t s and pr opos al s forthe T ow ns hi p. 3 devel opm ent . N ear l yal l of the l and i n the ar ea a r ound H M I ’ s pr opertyi s zoned f or r es i dent i al us e, w i th the exc ept i on of a 15 a cr e par cel adj ace ntt o H M I ’ s l and zone d H V Y - X , ow ned byK Y W ( a l ocal r adi o br oadca s t er ) , upon w hi ch s i t s a r adi o tr ans m i tt i ng to w e r a n d a s m a ll b u ild in g . T he curr entdi s put e ar os e fr om H M I ’ s eff ort s t o devel op Par cel O ne. N earthe end of N ovember2000, H M I s ubm i tt ed a s ket ch pl an pr opos i ng a mi xed- us e deve l opm ent thati ncl uded 450, 000 s quar e fe etof off i ce s pace and 600 apa rtm entuni t s . T hi s pl an r equi r ed thatthe Tow ns hi p r e- zone the pr opertyt o perm i tthe r es i dent i al devel opm ent pr ohi bi t ed i n an H V Y - X zone. T he M ont gom eryC ountyPl anni ng C om m i s s i on, i n a 2 J anuary29, 2001, m eet i ng, det erm i ned thatthe pr opos al w as t oo dens e r el at i ve t o the surr ou nd i ng area. T he W hit em ars h T ow nship Planning C om m i ssi on (the “W hit em ars h 3 Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on”) then conve ned on February21, 2001, ata meet i ng open t o the publ i c. M anyatt endee s , fr om both the gene r al publ i c and the W hi t emar s h Pl anni ng

4 C om m i s s i on, w er e s i m i l ar l ycr i t i cal of the pr opos al . I n M ay2001, H M I pr es ent ed the pr opos al t o the B oar d of Supervi s or s of W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p ( the “Boar d”) atan open4

m eet i ng . M anynearbyres i den t s, i den t i fy i ng them sel ves as m em bers of the W hit em ars h T o w n s h ip R e s id e n ts A s s o c ia tio n (th e “ R e s id e n ts A s s o c ia tio n ” ), a tte n d e d th is m e e tin g . T heys poke aga i ns tthe pr opos al , and voi ced agener al oppos i t i on t o furtherdevel opm ent i n the Tow ns hi p. T he part i es do notdi s put e thatthe pr opos ed deve l opm entw oul d have l ed t o tr aff

i c and c onges t i on pr obl ems i n the ar ea. N oti ng the T ow nship’ s r esi st ance to re- zon i ng t o acco m m od at e i t s m i xed use p ro p o s a l, H M I s e t o u t to d e v e lo p th e la n d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith H V Y -X re g u la tio n s . M eanw hi l e, i n J ul y2001 one r es i dent , D onal d C ohan, on behal f of as ubs t ant i al num ber o f c o -sig n in g re sid e n ts, su b m itt e d a p riv a te r e -z o n in g p e tit io n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith W h item a rsh ’s z o n in g re g u latio n s. T h e p e tit io n so u g h t to re -z o n e H M I’s p ro p e rty ( pr evi ous l yzoned H V Y - X ) t o E X - E xtr act i on, w hi ch w oul d l i m i tacc ept abl e deve l opm ent t o s i ngl e fa m i l yr es i dence s on i ndi vi dual l ot s of atl eas tone ac r e. O n Sept ember10, 2001, befor e anyact i on w as t aken on thi s pr opos al , H M I s ubm i tt ed a pr el i m i narypl an for the deve l opm entof Par cel O ne thati ncl uded 500, 000 s quar e fe etof off i ce s pace , as al l ow ed i n an H V Y - X zone. T he W hi t emar s h Subdi vi s i on L and D evel opm entO r di nance ( the “Land D evel opm entO r di nance ”) r equi r es thata pr opos al be eva l uat ed underthe r el evantgui del i nes i n pl ace w hen i ti s s ubm i tt ed, s uch thatthe Tow ns hi p had t o cons i der H M I’ s proposal under H V Y -X regul at i on s. On Oc t o b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , th e Bo a r d v o t e d t o r e - z o n e HM I ’ s p r o p e rtyt o E XE xtr act i on, as pr opos ed i n the pr i vat e pet i t i on. H M I s ucce s s ful l ychal l enged thi s r ezoni ng as pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve, and the B oar d r e- enac t ed the cha nge on February28,5

2 0 0 2 . HM I a l l e g e s th a tth i s r e - z o n i n g wa s me r e l yth e f i r s ts t e p i n th e To wn s h i p ’ s s c h e me t o p r e v e n ti tf

r o m d e v e l o p i n g i t s p r o p e rty. T he Tow ns hi p w as r equi r ed t o act , vi a a Boar d vot e, on H M I ’ s pr opos al w i thi n 90 day s of the fir stW hit em ars h P l ann i ng C om m i ssi on m eet i ng aft er the fil i ng of the plans, orel s e i tw oul d be dee m ed appr oved. H M I offe r ed the Tow ns hi p r out i ne ext ens i ons of this dead l i ne, such thati tw as not a fact or. H M I al l eges that, from the ti m e i tfi rs t su b m itt e d its p ro p o sa l, th e B o a rd ’s b e h a v io r d isp layed in tra n sig e n c e a n d a c lea r e f f o rt to d e n yH M I th e o p p o rtu n ityto d e v e lo p P a rc e l O n e . T h e T o w n sh ip d istrib u ted th e p lan to i t s engi neer , T hom as Z arko, forr evi ew . T w o l ett er s fr om Z arko i n O ct ober2001 det ai l ed the def i ci enci es of H M I ’ s pr opos al r el at i ve t o the r equi r ement s s peci fi ed i n the Land D evelopm ent O rdi nan ce and otherT ow nship ordi nan ces. H M I al l eges that these o b jecti o n s w ere tr ivial and m isi n terpretati o n s o f th e o rdin an ce s. T h e M o n tgo m ery C ountyPl anni ng C om m i s s i on, i n a N ovember20, 2001, l ett ert o the Tow ns hi p, found the pr opos al t o be t oo dens e and t o pr opos e t oo i nt ens e a us e t o be compat i bl e w i th the s urr oundi ng ar ea. H M I al so st at es that throug ho ut N ov em ber 200 1 itm ade m ult i ple, bu tfrui t l ess, att empt s t o m eetw i th T ow ns hi p offi ci al s t o di s cus s the pr opos al and the def i ci enci es that Z arko had s peci fi ed. W i thoutfurthergui dance fr om the Tow ns hi p, H M I s ubm i tt ed a r evi s ed pr el i m i narypl an on D ece m ber21, 2001. Z arko r evi ew ed thi s pl an and f ound ther e r emai ned s i gni fi cantnon- compl i ance w i th T ow ns hi p or di nance s . H M I ar gues that thes e def i ci enci es r es ul t ed fr om i t s i nabi l i tyt o engage offi ci al s i n a di al ogue t o det erm i ne6

h o w to rem ed ythe p rop o sal’s i n ad eq u ac ies. Itfu rth er c o n tend s tha t th is si lenc e w as p art o f a n o v e rt e f

f o rt to p re v e n t itf

ro m d e v e lo p in g P a rc e l O n e . H M I su p p lem e n ts th is c laim w ith ref ere n ce to a F eb rua ry4 , 2 0 0 2 , letter fro m att o rne yM arc K ap li n (w h o se f irm repr esent ed C oh an an d the R esi den t s A ssoci at i on ) t o T ow nship So l i ci t or R oss W ei ss, r el at i ng K apl i n’ s r es ear ch i nt o l andow ner s ’ r i ght s t o s ubm i tr evi s ed pl ans aft era zoni ng change w i thouts ubj ect i ng the pl ans t o r evi ew underthe new zoni ng des i gnat i on. T ow ns hi p offi ci al s al ert ed H M I thatthe B oar d pl anned t o di s cus s H M I ’ s m i xedu se p ro p o sa l at a p u b lic m e e tin g o n M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , an d re q u e ste d th a t H M I su b m it a pl an. A tthi s m eet i ng, H M I out l i ned w hati tdes cr i bed as a l es s i nt ens e pr opos al cal l i ng f o r 3 0 8 ,0 0 0 sq u a re f

e e t o f o f f ice sp a c e (in f

o u r th re e -sto ryb u ild in g s) a n d 3 8 0 a p a rtm e n ts ( i n t en four - s t orybui l di ngs ) . A r ea r es i dent s , as w el l as m ember s of the B oar d, r emai ned s t aunchl yoppos ed t o devel opm ent , ci t i ng conce rns abouttr aff i c, dr ai nage, and conform i tyw i th the s urr oundi ng ar ea. T he nextday , the Tow ns hi p M anage rnot i fi ed H M I thatthe W hi t emar s h Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on w oul d r evi ew the r evi s ed pr el i m i narypl an forH M I ’ s al l - offi ce bui l di ng pr opos al ati t s m eet i ng on M ar ch 19, 2002, and thatthe B oar d w oul d then vot e on the pr opos al ati t s m eet i ng on M ar ch 21. T hes e meet i ngs w er e the l as ts chedul ed bef or e the 90- dayper i od foract i on expi r ed. H M I r es ponded w i th an off erof an e xt ens i on i n a M ar ch 12 l ett er , butthe B oar d r efus ed. B efor e the M ar ch 19 W hi t emar s h Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on m eet i ng, H M I s ubm i tt ed a s econd r evi s ed pl an fori t s al l - offi ce bui l di ng pr opos al thati tcl ai m ed addr es s ed the7

m aj or i tyof the def

i ci enci es thatZ arko had s peci fi ed. A ccor di ng t o the Tow ns hi p’ s L and D evel opm entO r di nance , thi s r evi s i on aut om at i cal l ys t art ed a ne w 90- dayper i od forthe B oar d t o act . A l though Z arko coul d notr evi ew the s econd r evi s ed pl an bef or e the W h item a rsh P lan n in g C o m m iss io n m e e tin g , the m e e tin g w e n t ah e a d , w ith m a n yre sid e n ts v o icin g stro n g o b

jec tio n s to th e p ro p o sa l. K a p lin a ler ted th e c o m m u n itym e m b e rs th a t h is r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e d th a tth e B o a r d w a s w i th i n i t s r i g h t s t o a c to n th e p r o p o s a l i m m e d i a t e l y, and coul d r ej ecti t . T he W hi t emar s h Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on vot ed t o r ecomm end thatthe B o a rd re jec t H M I’s p ro p o sa l. B efor e the M ar ch 21 B oar d m eet i ng, Z arko s ubm i tt ed hi s r eportr evi ew i ng the sec o n d rev ised p lan. H M I rece ived this repo rtap p rox im atelytw o h o u rs be fo re the B o ard m eet i ng. Z arko i dent i fi ed the def i ci enci es i n thi s pl an, m anyof w hi ch had a l r eadybeen s peci fi ed i n hi s r evi ew s of the pr i ors ubm i s s i ons . T hes e def i ci enci es i ncl uded, among other s , a l ack of

s peci fi ci tyconce rni ng the pr opos ed s ew age tr eatm entpl ant , and the l ack o f a b e rm a n d c h a i n l i n kf e n c e a r o u n d th e p e r i me t e ro f th e p r o p o s e d c o n s tru c t i o n . HM I all eg es th at W eiss g av e Z ark o sp ec ifi c ins tru cti o n s to a lt er the o rde r of it em s in h is r ep o rt s o thati tdi ffe r ed fr om hi s r eporti s s ued on J anuary24, 2002. A tthe B oar d m eet i ng on M ar ch 21, W ei s s had a c ourtr eport erdocumentthe pr ocee di ngs and had Tow ns hi p w i tnes s es s w orn. H M I ’ s att orneyJ ames G arr i tyr ei t er at ed H M I’ s r equ estfor an ex t ensi on befo re the B oard’s vo t e. T he B oard de nied this request a n d re jec ted th e p ro p o sa l. A t d e p o sitio n s, B o a rd m e m b e rs c ited th e lac k o f p ro g re ss in th e p la n a s in d ic a tin g th a t a n e x te n s io n w o u ld n o t le a d to a n im p ro v e m e n t in th e p ro p o s a l.8

T h e ya lso n o ted Z a rk o ’s r e p o rt sp e c if y in g a re a s o f

th e p ro p o sa l n o t in c o m p lian c e w ith T o w n sh ip o rdin an ce s as re aso n s fo r de n y ing the p lan. H M I all eg es th at th is B o ard m e e tin g w a s s im p lyth e f in a l ch a ra d e in th e T o w n sh ip ’s e f f o rt to d e n yH M I its devel opm entr i ght s . W i th the deni al of the pl an, al l futur e pr opos al s w oul d be tr eat ed as n ew p lans (an d thu s rev iew ed u n d er the am en d ed zo n ing o rdin an ce en ac ted in F eb rua ry 2 0 0 2 ). O n A pr i l 19, 2002, H M I fi l ed a N ot i ce of A ppeal fr om the B oar d’ s deci s i on i n the M o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyC o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s. T h e c a se w a s a ss ig n e d to Ju d g e A lb rig h t, w h o rem an d ed the m att er to the B o ard to co n d u ct a “ g o o d fa ith ” re v iew o f H M I’s pr opos al as r equi r ed underPenns y l vani a l aw , pr i nci pal l yi n l i ghtof R aum v. B oard of Su p e rv iso rs o

f T re d y ffrin T o w n sh ip , 370 A . 2d 777, 798 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1977) (re q u irin g th a t a m u n icip a lity , as p a rt o f a g o o d f a ith re v iew o f

ad e v e lo p m e n t p ro p o sa l, “di s cus s [] m att er s i nvol vi ng t echni cal r equi r ement s oror di nance i nt erpr et at i on w i th an appl i cant , and pr ovi d[e] an appl i canta r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o r es pond t o obj ect i ons or t o m odi fypl ans w her e ther e has been am i s under s t andi ng ordi ffe r ence of opi ni on”) . T he C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rta f f irm e d th is o rd e r o n M a y2 1 , 2 0 0 9 . Highw ay M ater i al s , I nc. v. B d. of Supervis ors of

W hi tem ars h Tw

p. , 9 7 4 A .2 d 5 3 9 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 2 0 0 9 ). T hr ee da y s l at er , H M I fi l ed the s ui tgener at i ng the appe al befor e us i n the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. H M I a lleg e d , p u rsu a n t to 42 U . S . C . §1 98 3, that the d efen dan t s vi olat ed it s procedu ral and subst anti ve d ue p rocessH M I d o e s n o t p u rsu e its p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim o n a p p e a l. 5 9 ri gh t s, and den i ed itequ al prot ect i on of the l aw . T he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ 5 m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton al l thr ee c l ai m s . I tfound thatther e w as no m at er i al fac ti n di s put e thatcoul d l ead ar eas onabl e j ur ort o concl ude thatdefe ndant s ’ behavi or

“ sh o c k e d th e c o n sc ien c e ” (n e c e ss a ryto th e su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim ) o r w a s “ w h o lly arbi tr aryand i rr at i onal ” ( forthe equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m ) . H M I t i m el yappea l ed. T he D istric t C o u rt h a d su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §1291. I I . D i s cus s i on A . St andard of R evi ew W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. L a w re n c e v . C ity o

f P h ila de lp h ia , 52 7 F . 3d 29 9, 31 0 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). A l l evidence m ust b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to H M I a n d a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s d ra w n in its f a v o r. I d. Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any ma t e r i a l f

a c t[ s u c h ] th a tth e mo v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma tt e ro f l a w. ” F e d . R. C iv . P . 5 6 (c )(2 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f irm e d if , in l i ghtof the fa ct s and r eas onabl e i nfer ence s dr aw n i n H M I ’ s favor , no r eas onabl e j ur or c o u ld f in d in th e irf

a v o r. Law r ence , 527 F. 3d at310. B . S u b st an tive D u e P rocess T o p revai l on i t s cl ai m that defend ants viol at ed it s subst anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh t s, H M I m us tpr ove thatdefe ndant s ’ behavi or“s hocks the cons ci ence . ” E i chenlaub v. Tw p.10

of I ndi ana , 3 8 5 F .3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni ted A r t is t

s Theatr e C i r cui t

, I nc. v. Tw p. of W ar r i ngton , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). “[ T ]h is te st is d e sig n e d to a v o id convert i ng fede r al court s i nt o s uperzoni ng tr i bunal s . ” E i chenlaub , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 2 8 5 .

“ [ O ]n ly th e m o s t e g re g io u s o f f ic ia l c o n d u c t” q u a lif

ie s . C o u n ty o

f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 523 U . S. 833, 846 ( 1998) . M or eover , “[l ] and- us e dec i s i ons ar e mat t er s of l ocal conce rn. ” U n itedA rtists , 3 1 6 F .3 d a t 4 0 2 ; s ee al s o C lark v. B os cher , 5 1 4 F . 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 3 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (“ In th e v a st m a

jo rityo f in sta n c e s, lo c a l an d sta te a g e n c ies a n d c o u rts a re c lo se r to the s itu ati o n an d b ett er e q u ipp ed to p rov ide re li ef. ” (c it ati o n o m itted)). I n s u p p o rto f

i t s c l a i m th a td e f

e n d a n t s ’ b e h a v i o r“ s h o c k e d th e c o n s c i e n c e , ” HM I c ites th e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t d e f e n d a n ts w ill f

u llya n d in ten tio n a lly v io late d th e ir d u tyu n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w to p ro c e ss H M I’s d e v e lo p m e n t ap p lica tio n in “good fa i th. ” Hig h w a

y M a ter ia ls , 9 7 4 A. 2 d a t5 4 4

– 4 5 . T o th i s s t a t e c o u rtd e c i s i o n , HM I a d d s s p e c if

ic r e f e re n c e to S o licito r W e iss ’s s tate m e n t th a t “[ t]h e to w n sh ip is n o t g o in g to w ork w i th y ou and help y ou on a contr over s i al devel opm entfors uch a l ar ge pi ece of pr operty ” as evi dence thatthe Tow ns hi p offi ci al s r efus ed t o comm uni cat e w i th H M I and r ej ect ed “r epea t ed r eques t s t o di s cus s and r es ol ve thos e obj ect i ons . ” Fi nal l y , H M I al l eges thatthe def

i ci enci es Z arko i dent i fi ed w i th i t s pr opos al , and thatthe B oar d gave a s r eas ons forr ej ect i ng the appl i cat i on, w er e “s pur i ous . ” E ven i f def

endant s act ed exa ct l yas H M I cl ai m s , i tw oul d notamountt o behavi or that“s hocks the cons ci ence . ” A s i n E i chenlaub , the T o w n sh ip ’s a lleg e d b e h a v io r in th is cas e “doe s notr i s e s uffi ci ent l yabove thatati s s ue i n a norm al zoni ng di s put e t o pas s the11

‘sh o c k s th e c o n sc ien c e tes t.’” 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 2 8 6 . E v e n if th e p u rp o rte d d e f

icie n c ies in its p rop o sal w ere “sp u ri o u s, ” a n d the T o w n sh ip inten ti o n all yref u sed to co o p era te w ith H M I, the mostthatcan be pr oven i s a bad- fai th vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw , w hi ch does notm eetthe s ta n d a rd . Se e U

n itedA rtists , 316 F. 3d at402. “[T] her e i s no al l egat i on of corrupt i on or s el f- deal i ng her e. ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at286 ( expl ai ni ng corrupt i on as “hamper [i ng] devel opm enti n or dert o i nt er fer e w i th otherw i s e cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyatthe p rojec t site, o r b e c a u se o f so m e b ias a g a in st a n e th n ic g ro u p ” ). F u rth e r, an yc laim br oughtbya deve l opert o appea l an “a dver s e rul i ng of the l ocal pl anni ng boar d i nvol ves s om e cl ai m of abus e of l egal author i ty . ” U n itedA rtists , 316 F. 3d at402. I n the end, th e s e a lle g a tio n s d o n o t s ta te a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . Id . T hi s deci s i on fi t s w i th thos e of ours i s t erci r cui tcourt s appl y i ng the “s hocks the c o n s c ie n c e ” te s t. Se e T ri-C o u n ty P a v in g, In c . v. A sh e C o u n ty , 2 8 1 F .3 d 4 3 0 , 4 4 1 (4 th C i r . 2002) ( “[T] he fa ctthats t at e court s ar e ava i l abl e t o r edr es s and corr ectvi ol at i ons of stat e law b eli es th e e x ist en ce o f a su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess c lai m . ” (q u o tat ion o m itted)); C h e ste rfie ld

D e v . C o rp . v. C ity o

f Ch e ste rfie ld , 963 F. 2d 1102, 1105 ( 8th C i r . 1992) ( “A b ad -fa ith v iolati o n o f state law rem ains o n lya v iolati o n o f state law . ”); PF Z P r ops . v. R odr iguez , 928 F. 2d 28, 32 ( 1s tC i r . 1991) ( “[A ] m er e bad f ai th r efus al t o fol l ow s t at e l aw i n such l ocal adm i nis trat i ve m att ers do es not am ou nt t o a d epri vati on of d ue p rocess

. . . . ”). T h e T o w n sh ip ’s a c tio n s a re n o m o re e g re g io u s th a n th o se o f th e d e f e n d a n ts in thes e o ther lan d d ispu te ca ses, no n e o f w h ich w as h eld to “sh o ck the c o n scien ce . ” InH M I s ubs t ant i at es i t s cl ai m w i th r efe r ence t o the K Y W - ow ned l and, w hi ch w as 6 notr e- zoned f

r om i t s H V Y - X des i gnat i on. 12 E i chenlaub , the a lleg a tio n s in c lu d e d o v e rlystric t ap p lica tio n o f o rd in a n c e s re lativ e to otherdevel oper s , del ay s i n i s s ui ng perm i t s and appr oval s , unannounce d i ns pect i ons , and im p ro p e r t a x a s s e s s m e n ts . 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 2 8 6 . C h e ste rfie ld in v o lv e d th e d e f

e n d a n t city e n f o rc in g “ a n in v a lid z o n in g p la n a n d o rd in a n c e ” a g a in s t a d e v e lo p e r. 9 6 3 F .2 d a t 1 1 0 3 . I n PFZ , al l egat i ons of “de l ay i ng t act i cs and r efus [i ng] t o i s s ue perm i t s . . . bas ed on con si derat i on s outs i de the scope o f [the P uert o R i co R egu l at i on s and P erm i t s A uthori ty ’s ] ju risd ictio n ” d idn o t sh o c kth e c o n sc ien c e e n o u g h to p re v a il o n a n a p p e a l o f a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s the s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m . 928 F. 2d at32. “[T] he r evoca t i on of bui l di ng perm i t s , the unauthor i zed i s s uance of enf or cementor der s , and the del ay s i n the pr oces s i ng and appr oval of [adevel oper ’ s ] appl i cat i on foran amended p e rm it,” d o n o t s h o c kth e c o n s c ie n c e . L i cariv. Ferruzz i , 2 2 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 9

– 5 0 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). M o re re c e n tly , the F irst C irc u it C o u rt h e ldth a t a c ity ’s d e n ial o f b u ild in g p e rm its

“ in f u rth e ra n c e o f

its o w n in te re s ts ” d o e s n o t s h o c k th e c o n s c ie n c e . C lark , 514 F. 3d at 1 1 3 . H M I c laim s th a t d e f e n d a n ts in ten tio n a llyre f u se d to c o o p e ra te w ith it, im p ro p e rly a p p lied T o w n sh ip o rd in a n c e s, tre a ted it d if f e re n tlyf ro m n e a rb yo w n e rs, a n d a c tiv e ly 6 s oughtr eas ons t o denyi tthe opportuni tyt o devel op i t s l and. L ooki ng atthe t ot al i tyof th e f a c ts o n th e re c o rd , an d th e re a so n a b le in f e re n c e s th a t ca n b e d ra w n th e re f ro m in H M I ’ s favor , defe ndant s ’ act i ons , cry s t al i zi ng i n the r e- zoni ng of H M I ’ s pr opertyand13

su b seq u en t den ial o f H M I’s prelim inaryp rop o sal, sim p lyd o n o t sho ck the c o n scien ce . If defe ndant s i nt ent i onal l ym i s appl i ed the or di nance s and di s r egar ded thei rdutyunder Penns y l vani a l aw t o conducta good- fai th eval uat i on of H M I ’ s pr opos al , that“r emai ns onl ya vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw . ” U n itedA rtists , 316 F. 3d at402 ( quot i ng C h e ste rfie ld , 963 F .2 d a t 1 1 0 5 ); s e e a l

s o PFZ , 9 2 8 F .2 d a t 3 2 . F inally , H M I ha s fa il ed to d em o n str ate tha t th e B o ard ’s re-zo n ing o f H M I’s p ro p e rtya n d d e n y in g its p ro p o s a l w e re u n re la te d to a n yle g itim a te g o v e rn m e n t in te re s t. A ct i vi t i es of the B oar d thatdo not“tr ans gr es s the ‘ out erl i m i t ’ of l egi t i m at e governm ent al act i on . . . do notgi ve r i s e t o a fe der al s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m . ” H ar l en Ass ocs . v. In c . V ill. o f Min e o la , 2 7 3 F .3 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 5 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); se e a lso L e w is , 523 U . S. at849 (“ [ C ]o n d u c t in ten d e d to in ju re in so m e w a yu n

ju stif iab le b ya n yg o v e rn m e n t in ter e st is th e s o rto f

o f f ic ia l a c tio n m o s t lik e ly to ri s e to th e c o n s c ie n c e -s h o c k in g le v e l.” ). A lth o u g h H M I in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g its c laim th a t d e f e n d a n ts in ten tio n a lly s ubvert ed i t s att empt s t o devel op Par cel O ne, i tw as uncont es t ed thatH M I ’ s pr opos al w o u ldsig n if

ica n tlyin c re a se tra f

f ic in th e T o w n sh ip . S u c h c o n sid e ra tio n s a re leg iti m a te c o n c e rn s o f

lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts . A s H M I fai l ed t o demonstr at e anydi s put ed fa ctthatcoul d l ead ar eas onabl e j ur or to f in d th a t d e f

e n d a n ts’ a c tio n s “ sh o c k e d th e c o n sc ien c e ,” th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly grant ed d efen dan t s’ m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent on H M I’ s subst anti ve d ue p rocess c la im . C . E qual P rot ect i on14

W h e n “ d e ter m in in g th e v a lid ityo f sta te le g isla tio n o r o th e r o f f icia l ac tio n th a t is chal l enged a s deny i ng equal pr ot ect i on[, ] [t ] he gene r al rul e i s thatl egi s l at i on i s pr es um ed to b e v a lida n d w ill b e su sta in e d if th e c las sif

ica tio n d ra w n b yth e sta tu te is ra tio n a lly r el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e s t at e i nt er es t . ” C i t y of C l ebu rne v. C l ebu rne L i vi ngC tr. , 47 3 U. S. 4 3 2 , 4 4 0 (1 9 8 5 ). A lth o u g h a n e x c e p tio n a rise s w h e n a sta tu te d if f e re n tiallytre a ts i ndi vi dual s bas ed on a pr ot ect ed cl as s i fi cat i on ( e. g. , ra c e , a lie n a g e , o r n a tio n a l o ri g in ), i d. , H M I b a s e s its e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la im o n a “ c la s s o f o n e ” th e o ry. See Vi l l . of W i l low br ook v. O lech , 528 U . S. 562, 564 ( 2000) ( percur i am) ( al l ow i ng i ndi vi dual s t o br i ng equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m s , notas m ember s of a pr ot ect ed cl as s , t o guar d agai ns t“i nt ent i onal and a rb itraryd isc rim in a tio n , w h e th e r o c c a sio n e d b ye x p re ss ter m s o f a sta tu te o r b yits im p rop er e x ec u ti o n thro u g h d u lyco n sti tuted ag en ts”). A su c c e ss f

u l “c las s o f

o n e ” c laim h a s tw o p ro n g s: a p lain tiff m u st d e m o n stra te b o th th a t 1 ) i t “ h a s b e e n in te n tio n a lly tre a te d d if f e re n tly f ro m o th e rs s im ila rl ys itu a te d ,” and 2) “ther e i s no r at i onal bas i s forthe di ffe r ence i n tr eatm ent . ” I d. T he s econd pr ong i n part i cul ari m pos es a hi gh bur den, r equi r i ng “di ffe r enttr eatm ent[that ] i s ‘ i rr at i onal and w hol l yarbi tr ary . ’ ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at286 ( quot i ng V i l l . of W i l low br ook , 52 8 U. S. a t 5 6 4 ). T h e se c h a llen g e s f a il w h e n “ th e re is a n yre a so n a b lyc o n c e iv a b le s tate o f f a c ts thatcoul d pr ovi de a r at i onal bas i s forthe cl as s i fi cat i on. ” Hel l erv. D oe , 509 U . S. 312, 320 ( 1993) . A ddi t i onal l y , w e have expl ai ned that“w e do notvi ew an equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m as a devi ce t o di l ut e the s tr i ngentr equi r ement s neede d t o s how a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on. ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at287.15

Forthe fi r s tpr ong, r equi r i ng a s how i ng thati tw as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om other s i m i l a r l y s i tu a t e d l a n d o w n e r s , H M I p o i n t s t o th e K Y W p a r c e l a d j a c e n tt o i t s p r o p e rty, w hi ch w as al s o zoned H V Y - X , butw as notr e- zoned a l ong w i th H M I ’ s l and. A s s um i ng thatH M I and K Y W ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, H M I fai l s on the s econd pr ong. H M I ar gues that it s d iffe ren t trea tm en t un d erm ines the T o w n sh ip’s claim that itre-zo n ed H M I’s pr opertyt o br i ng i ti nt o conform i tyw i th the s urr oundi ng ar ea. T h is a lleg a tio n d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te th a t th e T o w n sh ip ’s a c tio n s w e re “ w h o lly arbi tr ary . ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at286. L ocal governm ent s can r e- zone l and as partof a det erm i nat i on as t o “how m uch i ndus tr i al devel opm enti s i n the bes ti nt er es tof the T ow ns hi p and how thatquantum of i ndus tr i al devel opm ents houl d be ac hi eved. ” P ace R es . , I nc. v. Shr ew s bur

y Tw p. , 808 F. 2d 1023, 1035 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . H M I ’ s cont ent i on thatthe Tow ns hi p r e- zoned H M I ’ s l and w i thoutanyi nputfr om l and us e expe rt s does not change the mat t er . L and us e expe rt s m ayoffe rhel pful as s i s t ance , buttheyar e not m andat ory . H M I ’ s evi dence m er el yi dent i fi es a di s put e r egar di ng the mer i t s of the T ow ns hi p’ s choi ce, notw hetherther e w as a r at i onal bas i s forr e- zoni ng H M I ’ s l and. F u rth e r, alth o u g h H M I h a s in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t th e T o w n sh ip in ten tio n a lly r efus ed t o w ork w i th H M I , i tfai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe Tow ns hi p had “no r at i onal b a s is ” f o r d e n y in g H M I’ s p ro p o s a l. V i l l . of W i l low br ook , 528 U . S. at564. A s not ed above, the Tow ns hi p had a numberof val i d r eas ons fordeny i ng the pr opos al , i ncl udi ng the def i ci enci es r el at i ve t o T ow ns hi p or di nance s thatZ arko i dent i fi ed, conce rns aboutthe i ncr eas ed tr aff

i c bur den thatthe pr opos ed deve l opm entw oul d pr oduce, and conc erns16

abo ut how the p roj ectw ou l d co nfo rm w i th the surround i ng area. H M I al l eges that these r eas ons s houl d be vi ew ed as “mer e pr et ext ” forthe Tow ns hi p’ s al l eged goa l of “bl ock[i ng] H M I ’ s ves t ed r i ghtt o devel op” i t s pr operty . T he part i es , how ever , do not d is p u te th a t H M I’ s p ro p o s a l w o u ld in c re a s e th e tr a f f ic b u rd e n in th e s u rr o u n d in g a re a . A lso , Z a rk o re p o rte d to th e B o a rd th a t H M I’s p ro p o sa l d idn o t co m p lyw ith T o w n sh ip or di nance s . E ven i f the or di nance s w er e i ncorr ect l yi nt erpr et ed, defi ci enci es i n the pr opos al pr ovi ded a r at i onal bas i s fordeny i ng i t . H M I perhaps has demonstr at ed a di s put e as t o w hetherthe or di nance s w er e corr ect l yappl i ed, buts uch a di s put e i s not m at er i al t o H M I ’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m , forw hi ch H M I m us ts how thatthe B oar d had n o ra tio n a l b a sis f

o r d e n y in g H M I’s p ro p o sa l. H M I ha s n o t carri ed it s b u rde n o f d em o n str ati n g that d ef en d an ts’ ac ti o n s w ere “i rr at i onal and w hol l yarbi tr ary . ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at286. T her efor e, i t s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m does notr ai s e a di s put ed i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatcoul d l ead a r eas onabl e j ur ort o fi nd thatH M I w as deni ed equa l pr ot ect i on underthe l aw . T he D i s tr i ct C ourtpr oper l ygr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton H M I ’ s equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. * * * * * I n thi s cont ext , w e af

fi rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on.