[PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 3-1238 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 8: 10-c v-0081 9-SDM-TB M
HILLC RE ST PROPERTY, LL C, Pla int iff-Appe lle e,
ve rsus PASCO C OUNTY, De fend ant-Appe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 18, 2014 ) Be fore T JOFLAT, FAY and AL ARC ÓN, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. * ALAR CÓN , C irc uit

Jud ge :

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 1 of 10In thi s c ivi l rig hts a ct ion , broug ht b y Hil lc res t Prope rty , LLC (“ Hil lc res t” ) pursu ant t o 42 U.S.C . § 1 983, Pas co Co unt y a ppe al s from

the Dis tric t C ourt’ s de ci sio n gra

nti ng a pa rtia l su m m ary jud gm ent on

Hil lc res t’ s m oti on a

nd i ssu inga pe rm an ent i nju

nc tio n a ga ins t e nforce m ent of t he Ri ght -of-Wa

y Prese rvat ion Ordina nc e (“ Ordina

nc e” ). TheDis tric t C ourt h el d th at theOrdin an ce fac ia lly vio la te s su bst antiv e due proc es s un de r the Fourte enth Am en dm ent, a nd t hat t his cl ai m wa s no t ba

rred b y the sta tut e of li m ita

tio ns. It a lso de nie d Pa sc o C ount y ’s
m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent on

Hil lc res t’ s a s-a

ppl ie d su bst antiv e due proc es s cl ai m . No fina l j udgm ent ha s be en e nte red in t

his m at te r be ca use Hil lc res t’ s a sap pli ed c la im is sti ll pe ndi ng b eforethe Dis tric t C ourt. W e have juri sdi ct ion ove r the Dis tric t C ourt’ s inte rloc uto ry orde r grantin g a

pe rm an ent i nju

nc tio n pu rsua nt t o 28 U. S.C. § 12 92(a)(1). W e al so h av e pe nde nt j urisd ic tio n ov er t he Dis tric t Co urt’ s orde r grantin g Hi llc res t’ s m oti on for p art ia l su m m ary jud gm ent ba se d on its c la im tha t t he Ordin an ce is a fac ia l su bst antiv e due proc es s vi olatio n. Se e Bay shore Ford

Truc ks Sales, Inc . v . For d Mot or C o. ( In reBay shore Ford

Truc ks Sales, Inc

. ), 471 F.3d 12 33, 1 260 (11th Ci r. 2006 ) (hold ingtha

t fe de ralc ourts have pe nde nt a ppe lla te juri sdi ct ion

ove r an “ oth erwi se non ap pe al ab le int erl oc uto ry orde r” i f it i s “ ‘i ne xtric ab ly int ert wine d’ wit

h or ‘ ne ce ssa

ry to en sure the
m ea nin gful re vie w’ of a

n in jun ct ive orde r.” (qu oti ng Huds on v . Hall , 231 F.3d

2 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 2 of 101289 , 129 4 (11t h C ir. 20 00))). W e va ca

te the pe rm an ent i nju

nc tio n a nd s um m ary jud gm ent on

Hil lc res t’ s fa ci alc ha lle nge be ca use we a re p ers ua de d th at

the sta tut e of li m ita tio ns b eg an

runni ng o n th e date the Ordin an cewa s e na ct ed
.

I The Pas co Co unt

y Bo ard of C ount

y Co m m iss ion ers (“ Co m

m iss ion ers ”)
en ac te d th e Ri ght -of-Wa

y Prese rvat ion

Ordin an ce on N ove m

be r 22, 2 005. It i s pa rt of a c om preh en siv e pla

n to e xpa nd p ubl ic hig hwa

y s in the c ount y by 202 5. (Doc . No. 36, E xh. E .) One of th e hig hwa y s se t for e xpa

nsi on wi thi n th is p la

n is State Ro ad

52 (“ SR 5 2” ). (Doc . No. 36, E xhs. B– D.) The Ordin an ce req

uire s la ndowne rs who se prope rty e nc roac he s on

SR 5 2 to c onve y

in fee sim

ple a porti on of the ir prop ert

y a s a c ondi tio n for re ce ivi ng a de ve lop m ent pe rm it from the Co unt y . (ER 125 ; Pa sc o C ount

y La nd De ve lop m ent C ode § 90 1.2(H).) Th e Ordina nc e al so c ont ai ns a

provi sio n a llo wingde ve lop ers to se ek a de dic at ion
wa ive r upon

a sho wingtha

t t he “ am ount

of la nd re qui red to b e de dic at ed to the Co unt y . . . ex ce ed s th e amount

of la nd t hat i s roug hly

propo rtion alto the transpo rtatio n im

pa ct s of t he propo se d de ve lop m ent si te .” (ER 126 –30; Pas co Co unt y La nd De ve lop m ent C ode § 90 1.2(I).) Hil lc res t, a

prope rty de ve lop m ent c om

pa ny , ha s own ed

prope rty
en croa ch ingon SR

52 s inc e April200 1. (Doc . No. 36, E xh. A .) On Oc tob er 2 1,

3 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 3 of 102003 , th e Co m m iss ion ers a

pprove d Hi llc res t’ s re que st t o m odi fy theprope rty ’s
zo nin g c ondi tio ns t o a llo w for it s c om m erc ia l de ve lop m ent. (ER 28; Doc . No. 96 at 2; Doc . No. 77-2 at 1. ) On De ce m be r 18, 2 006, Hil lc res t su bm itt ed a prel im ina ry sit e pla n se ek inga

de ve lop m ent pe rm it from Pas co Co unt

y to bui ld a
co m m erc ia l re ta il shop pin g c ente r. (ER 34; Doc . No. 96 a

t 4; Doc . 77-4 at

1.) Pasc o C ount

y inform ed Hil lc res t on

Feb ruary 3, 2 007, tha

t i t wo uld be req uire d to de dic at e a porti on o f its prope rty fronti ng SR

52 a s a c ondi tio n for a

pprova l of t

he pe rm it. (ER

35; Doc . No. 77-1 at 3; Doc . 77-4 at 1–2 .) Ne got ia

tio ns b et we en the pa rtie s to rea ch

a se ttl em ent a gree m ent fa ile d. (Doc . No. 36 at 12 –16. ) Hil lc res t file d su it in t

he Dis tric t C ourt o n Apri l 7, 201 0. (Doc . No. 1.) II Pasc o C ount

y c ont en ds t

ha t t he Dis tric t C ourt e rred i n ho ldi ng t hat Hil lc res t’ s fa ci aldue proc es s c la im did not a cc rue on No ve m

be r 22, 2 005, the date the Ordin an ce wa s e na ct ed . Inst ea d, t he Dis tric t C ourt h el d th at Hil lc res t’ s fa ci al cl ai m wa s ti m el y

file d wi thi n th e four-y ea

r statut e of li m ita

tio ns b ec au se it

did not be gin to run untilPas co Co unt

y sub je ct ed Hil lc res t t o th e Ordina

nc e, e ith er o n De ce m be r 18, 2 006, whe n Hi llc res t a ppl ie d for si te pla

n a pprova l, o r on Fe brua

ry 3, 20 07, whe n Pa sc o C ount y de nie d th e sit e pla

n. (ER 186 .)

4 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 4 of 10“ The de ci sio n to grant o r de ny an in jun ct ion is revi ew ed

for cl ea r ab use of dis cre tio n, but un de rly ingque sti ons of la w a re re vie we d de nov o.” FEC v . Re for m Part y of t heU.S. , 479 F.3d 13 02, 1 306 (11th Ci r. 2007 ). Thi s C ourt re vie ws de
novo a dis tric t c ourt’ s gra

nt o f sum m ary jud gm ent. Re

se rv e, Ltd. v . Tow n of Longbo at K

ey , 17 F.3d

137 4, 13 77 (11 th C ir. 19 94). Sec tio n 19 83 c la im s a

re s ubj ec t t o a

forum sta te ’s sta tut e of li m ita

tio ns for pe rsona l i nju

ry c la im s. Burt

on v . C ity of Be lleGla de , 178 F.3d 1 175, 118 8 (11t h Ci r. 1999 ). In Flori da , a

pe rsona l i nju

ry c la im m ust be file d wi thi n four y ea

rs. Id. This Co urt ha s he ld t

ha t a c au se of a ct ion

und er § 198 3 do es not

a cc rue unt il “ the pla int iffs kn ow or s houl d kn ow . . . th at the y have suffe red [an] inj ury tha t form s the ba sis of th ei r co m

pla int .” Ch appe ll v. Ric h , 340 F.3d 1 279, 128 3 (11t h C ir. 2003 ) (cit ing Mull ina

x v. Mc Elhe nny , 817 F.2d 7 11, 7 16 (11 th C ir. 19 87)). Th is Co urt ha s y et

to de te rm ine whe the r thi s “ knowor sh oul d kn ow of a n in jury ”
ac crua l rul e ap pli es to a fac ia l c onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to an

ordin an ce or a

sta tut e pursu ant t o § 1 983. Som e of our s ist er c irc uit s, ho we ve r, have a ppl ie d th is ru le to fac ia l subs ta nti ve due proc es s c la im s a lle gin g prop ert y de priva tio ns. Se e Ac tio n Apar tme nt A ss’n v . San ta Mo nic a Re nt C ont rol Bd. , 509 F.3d 1 020, 102 7 (9th Ci r. 2007 ) (app ly ingthi s a cc rualrule to a fac ia l su bst antiv e due proc es s c la im

5 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 5 of 10ch al le ngi ng a rent c ont rol ord ina nc e); Ku hnle Bros ., Inc . v . C nty . of Ge auga , 103 F.3d 51 6, 52 0–21 (6th Ci r. 1997 ) (app ly ingruleto a fac ia l su bst antiv e due proc es s cl ai m c ha lle ngi ng a

c ount y ordin an ce tha

t ba rred t hrough -truc k tra ffic o n c ert ai n road s). In d oin g so , bot

h th e Sixth

and t he Ninth C irc uit

rel ie d he av ily

upo n prio r prec ed ent ho ldi ng t

hat a fac ia l t ak ing s c la im

a cc rues upo n e na ct

m ent of t he sta tut e. W e al so fi nd t

his to be a

n a ppropri at e sta

rtingpoi nt i n ou

r an al y sis
. The Ninth C irc uit

dis tin gui she d be twe en

fac ia l t ak ing s c la im s a

nd o the r ty pe s of fa ci alc ha lle nge s in Lev ald , Inc . v . C ity of Palm De

se rt , 998 F.2d 6 80, 6 88 (9th C ir. 19 93). T he owne r of a m obi le -hom e pa rk file d a fac ia l t ak ing s c la im

lon g aft er t he c ha lle nge d c ity

ordin an ce wa s e na ct ed
. Id. He a rgue d th at he “ shou ld b e al lowe d to bringan a ct ion c ha lle ngi ng t

he e na ct m ent of a sta tut e as a ta kin g wit hout jus t c om pe nsatio n at a

ny poi nt.” Id. In re

je ct inghis c ont entio n, t

he Ninth Ci rcui t e xpl ai ne d: This argum ent m isa

ppre he nds the diffe renc es be twe en a sta tut e that effe ct s a takin g an d a sta tut e tha t infli ct s som e oth er kin d of ha rm . In oth er co nte xts , the ha

rm infli ct ed by the sta

tut e is co nti nui ng, or doe s not oc cu r unt il the sta

tut e is en force d—i n oth er words, unt il it is ap pli ed
. In the takin gs co nte xt, the ba sis of a fac ia l ch al le nge is that the ve ry en ac tm ent of the sta tut e ha s redu ce d th e va lue of the prope rty or ha s effe ct ed a tr an sf

er of a prope rty int ere st. This is a sin gle ha rm , m ea sura ble an d co m

pe nsa ble whe n the sta

tut e is pa sse d. Thus , it is not inc onsi ste nt to sa

y that diffe rent rule s ad

he re in the fac ia l ta

ki ngs co nte xt a nd o the r co nte xts .

6 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 6 of 10Id. The Ninth C irc uit rea sone d in Lev ald

tha t i n th e co nte xt o f a fa ci alta kin gs cl ai m , th e ha

rm oc cu rs im m ediate ly upo n, a nd b ec au se of, th e sta

tut e’ s e na ct

m ent: the prope rty

va lue de prec iate s a

nd a ta kin g oc cu rs a s so on a s th e sta

tut e goe s into effe ct . Id. Thu s, t

he inj ury ne ce ssa rily oc cu rs upo n th e sta

tut e’ s e na ct

m ent. Id. The Sixt h C irc uit sub se que ntl y

rel ie d up on Lev ald

in de te rm ini ng wh en

the ap pe lla nt’ s fa ci alta

kin gs a nd fa ci alsub sta

nti ve due proc es s c la im s a cc rued
. Ku hnle Bros ., Inc

. , 103 F.3d at 52 1. In h old ingtha t t he a ppe lla nt’ s fa ci alta

kin gs cl ai m wa s ti m e-ba

rred, i t a dopt ed Lev ald ’s rea soni ng t hat t he inj ury in a fac ia l takin gs c la im

oc cu rs upo n th e sta

tut e’ s e na ct

m ent be ca

use the e na ct

m ent of t he sta tut e ei the r “ ‘h as red

uc ed theva lue of th e prope rty or ha s e ffec te d a

tra nsfe r of a prope rty int ere st.’ ” Id. (quot ing Lev ald, Inc. , 103 F.3d at 68 8). Th e Sixth Ci rcui t
co nc lud ed

tha t t he a ppe lla nt’ s “ subs ta

nti ve Due Proce ss c la im

for de priva

tio n of prope rty is tim e-ba

rred for t he sa m e rea son. ” Id. It re as one d th at “ [a] ny de priva tio n of pro pe rty

tha t [th e ap pe lla

nt] suffe red wa s ful ly

e ffec tuate d whe n [the c ount y ordin an ce ] wa s e na ct ed , a nd t he sta tut e of li m ita

tio ns b eg an

to run at that t im e. ” Id. (ci tin g Oc ea n Ac re s Ltd . P’shi p v . Dare Cn ty . Bd. of H

ea lth , 707 F.2d 10 3 (4th

Ci r. 1983 )). The Ninth C irc uit

ha s a lso a

ppl ie d th e ac crua l rul e it de ve lop ed in the fac ia l takin gs c ont ext t o su

bst antiv e due proc es s c la im s a lle gin g prop ert y de priva tio ns.
7 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 7 of 10In Ac tio n Apa rtme nt A sso ci ati on , a n a sso ci at ion

of la ndl ords fi le d su it in 2 004 ag ai nst the c ity of Santa Mo nic a, a lle gin g th at

a rent c ont rol ord ina nc e, whi ch

wa s first e na ct ed

in 1979 , wa s a

fac ia l vi olatio n of s ubst antiv e due proc es s. 5 09 F.3d at 1022 . In ho ldi ng t

hat t he fac ia l su

bst antiv e due proc es s c la im wa s ti m e-ba

rred, t he Nint h C irc uit a ppl ie d th e ac crua l rul e it ad opt ed for fac ia l t ak ing s c la im s: [T]h e log ic for the ac crua l rule s in the takin gs co nte xt ap pli es wit h eq ua l force in the subs ta

nti ve due pr oc es s co nte xt. Give n the ge ne ral rule that “ the sta

tut e of limita

tio ns be gin s to run w he n a pot entia l plai nt if f know s or ha s rea son to know of the as se rte d inj ury ,” it sta nds to r eas on that any fac ia l inj ury to an y right shou ld be ap pa

rent upo n pa ssa ge a nd e na ct m ent of a sta tut e. Id. at 102 7 (quo tin g DeAnza Props. X, Ltd . v . C nty . of San ta C ruz , 936 F.2d 1 084, 1086 (9th Ci r. 1981 )). Exte ndi ng t

he a cc rualrule s for fa ci alta kin gs c la im s to fac ia l su

bst antiv e due proc es s c la im s wa s lo gic alund er t he fac ts o f Ac tio n Apa rtme nt A sso ci ati on , whe re,
as in Lev ald, th e va lueof th e prope rty at i ssu e de prec ia

te d whe n it

be ca m e subj ec t to t he rent c ont

rol ord ina nc e. The inj ury

oc cu rred a t t he ti m e the ordin an ce wa s
en ac te d a nd wo uld have be en

a ppa rent to the c urrent

la ndowne r upon

the ordin an ce ’s pa ssa ge and e na ct m ent. Any

future owne rs c oul d no t a rgua bly have suffe red an

inj ury be ca use the “pric e the y

pa id for t he [prope rty ] doub tle ss refle ct ed the burde n of re nt c ont

rol t he y woul d ha ve to suffe r.” Guggen he im v
. Ci ty of Gole ta , 638 F.3d 1 111, 112 0 (9th Ci r. 2010 ). 8 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 8 of 10W e are pe rsua de d by the rea soni ng e xpre sse d by our s ist er c irc uit s in Ku hnle
an d Ac tio n Apa rtme nt A sso ci ati on . Hi llc res t’ s la nd b ec am e en cum

be red im m ed iate ly upo n th e Ordina

nc e’ s e na ct

m ent i n 20 05. Its p rope rty woul d ha ve de cre as ed in va lue at t

hat t im e be ca

use any c urrent or futu re d ev el opm ent pl an s woul d ha ve be en sub je ct to the Ordin an ce ’s req

uire m ent t

hat, i n e xc ha

nge for grantin g a c om m erc ia l de ve lop m ent pe rm it, Hil lc res t wo uld have to de ed

pa rt of the la nd t o th e co unt

y wit hout pa ym ent for t

he a cq uis iti on. This inj ury

sho uld have be en a ppa rent to Hil lc res t up on t

he Ordin an ce ’s pa ssa ge and e na ct m ent be ca

use it ha d be en theowne r of the prope rty sin ce 200 1 a

nd h ad be en a ct ive ly e nga ge d in de ve lop ingthe prope rty

sin ceat l ea st 2 003. Se e Asoc iac ión deSus cr ipc ión Co nju nta de l Se

guro deRe

spon sib ilidad Obli

gat ori o v . J uarb e-J imé ne z , 659 F.3d 42, 5 0 (1st

Ci r. 2011 ) (“ [A] p la int iff is de em ed to knowor ha

ve rea son to k

now a t the ti m e of the a ct

it se lf a nd n ot a t t he poi nt t hat t he ha rm ful c onse que nc es are fel t.” ). Conc lusi on W e are pe rsua de d th at

Hil lc res t’ s fa ci alsub sta

nti ve due proc es s c la im
ac crue d whe n th e Ordina

nc e wa s e na ct ed

on N ove m

be r 22, 2 005, and wa s ti m eba rred wh en

Hil lc res t fil ed

thi s a ct ion

m ore tha n five y ea rs late r on Ap ril 7 , 201 0.

9 Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 9 of 10Ac co rding ly , we va ca te the Dis tric t C ourt’ s orde r to t he e xte nt t

hat i t gra nte d
sum m ary jud gm ent a

nd a pe rm an ent i nju

nc tio n in fav or of Hi llc res t on

it s fa ci al subs ta nti ve due proc es s c la im . W e expres s no vie w a s to the m eri ts o f Hill cre st’ s pe ndi ng a s-a

ppl ie d su bst antiv e due proc es s c la im
. VACAT ED; a nd REMANDE D.

10

Case: 13-12383 Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Page: 10 of 10