FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 22, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CLA RA NI CH OLS; M ON TY N I CH O LS, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 1427 BO AR D O F COU NTY CO M M I S S I ONE RS OF T HE CO UNT Y OF L A P L AT A, CO L OR ADO, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D. C. No . 0 4 - c v - 1 3 8 7 - W YD- M EH ) W i l l i am E . Z i m sky , W i l l i am E . Z i m sky , P . C . , D urango , C olor ado , for Plai nti ffsA pp el l ants . J os h A . M arks ( H ei di C . Pot t er , w i th hi m on the br i ef) , B er g H i l l G r eenl eaf & R us ci t t i , L L P, B oul der , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efo re K E L L Y , B A L D O C K , and B RI S CO E , C i rcui tJudg es. B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge.2

Pl ai nt i ffs - A ppel l ant s M ontyN i chol s and C l ar a L. N i chol s appea l the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant - appel l ee Boar d of C ount yC om m i s s i oner s fort he C ountyof La Pl at a, C ol or ado ( the “BO C C ”) . T he N i chol s ar gue thatt he B O C C vi ol at ed thei rs ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s bynotappr ovi ng cert ai n m odi fi cat i ons t o a Speci al U s e Perm i tt hat t he B O C C had gr ant ed them underthe l ocal zoni ng or di nance s . Speci fi cal l y , the N i chol s cont end thata s ett l ementbetw een the B O C C and a thi r d par tyhas pr ecl us i ve effec ti n t he i ns t antcas e underthe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel and pr ovi des t hem w i t h a pr opert yi nt er es ti n the appr oval of thei rr eques t ed mo d i fi c a t i o n s . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I. T he fa ct s ar e noti n di s put e. T he N i chol s ow n the B ueno Ti empo R anch, lo c a ted in L a P lata C o u n ty , C o lo ra d o , an d g o v e rn e d b yth e C o d e o f L a P lata C ount y( t he “Code”) . A s par tof the A ni m as V al l eyL and U s e Pl an, the C ode d e s ig n a te s c e rt a in la n d in L a P la ta C o u n ty as fa llin g in to o n e o r m o re D is tr ic ts . T he B ueno Ti empo R anch fal l s w i thi n the R i verC orr i dorD i s tr i ctand the Fi veA cr e M i ni m um Si ngl e- Fam i l yR es i dent i al D i s tr i ct , as defi ned i n §§ 106- 131 t o - 134, and §§ 106- 191 t o - 193, r es pect i vel y , of the C ode. T he C ode does not perm i tcom m erci al m i ning op erat i on s— ei ther as of ri gh tor byS pecial U se P erm i t

— w i t hin these dis t ri ct s. I n 2002, t he N i chol s ’ agent , T i m M cC ar thy , appr oache d the Pl anni ng3

D i r ect orof La Pl at a C ount y , J oe C r ai n, aboutcons truct i ng a pond orl ake on the B u en o T iem p o R an ch an d sell ing the to p so il rem o v ed d u ri n g co n stru cti o n . M r. C r ai n advi s ed M r . M cC art hyt hatal though the cons truct i on of the pond w as “an all o w ed u se in the z o n e d istri ct[,] any s al e of t ops oi l i s cons i der ed a c om m er ci al use of t he land an d is nota llo w e d .” L e tte r f ro m J o e C ra in , R O A , V o l. I , a t 0 1 7 4 . M r . C r a i n a l s o s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a tb e c a u s e th e C o d e p e r m i t s “ l o w - i n t e n s i ty, t our i s t - or i ent ed r ecr eat i onal us es ” bySpeci al U s e Perm i t , s ee Code, §§ 106- 134, 106- 193, “the t empora r ys al e of t ops oi l i n pr epar at i on of expa nded r ecr eat i onal us e of the pr opert ycoul d be cons i der ed a t empora ry , acc es s oryus e and r egul at ed th ro u g h th e S p e c ial U se P e rm it i f a p p ro v e d b yth e B o a rd o f C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e rs .” L e tte r f ro m J o e C ra in , R O A , V o l. I , a t 0 1 7 4 . A Speci al U s e Perm i ti s di s cr et i onary , and the Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on and B O C C m ayonl yappr ove a Spec i al U s e Perm i tupon “det erm i n[i ng] thr ough car eful s i t e pl an and c om pat i bi l i tyeval uat i on t hatthe pr opos al w i l l notbe a detr i m entt o t he cha r act erof the A ni m as V al l ey . ” C ode, § 106- 112( b) ( 7) . T he C ode furt herpr ovi des t hatSpeci al U s e Perm i t s “s hal l onl ybe appr oved thr ough t he cl as s I I l and us e perm i tpr ocedur es . ” I d. § 106- 112( d) . Sect i on 82- 4( b) ( 3) of t he C ode r equi r es an appl i cantfora cl as s I I perm i tt o compl yw i th an arr ayof sta n d a rd s a d d re ss in g su c h iss u e s a s a ir q u a lity , b u ffe rin g , ero sio n c o n tro l, i r r i gat i on, pr es ervat i on of vege t at i on, parki ng, w et l ands pr es ervat i on, and p o llu tio n . S e e id . § § 8 2 -4 (b )( 3 ), 8 2 -1 2 6 to -1 9 1 .4

F o llo w in g M r. C ra in ’s a d v ice , the N ich o ls a p p lied fo r a S p e c ial U se P e rm it, w h ich th e B O C C a p p ro v e d a t a h e a rin g o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e S p e c ial U se P e rm it re q u ire d th e c o m p letio n o f c o n stru c tio n w ith in th re e y e a rs, p ro h ib ited re tail sa le of m at er i al di r ect l yfr om t he s i t e, and pr ohi bi t ed anys cr eeni ng orpr oces s i ng of m at er i al on s i t e. A ppr oxi m at el yone y earl at er , the N i chol s r eques t ed a m odi fi cat i on of thei rSpeci al U s e Perm i tt o l i ftthe r es tr i ct i ons on s cr eeni ng and s t ockpi l i ng. T he B O C C hel d a publ i c hea r i ng on Sept ember15, 2003, atw hi ch t he N i chol s pr es ent ed thei rr eques t . U l t i m at el y , the B O C C fol l ow ed the Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on’ s r ecomm endat i ons and gr ant ed onl yone modi fi cat i on t o the Speci al U se P e rm it: a llo w in g m a ter ials to re m a in o n site o v e rn ig h t to d ra in p rio r to t r ans por t . T he B O C C di d notchange the dur at i on of the pr oj ectorl i ftthe p roh ibit ion o n o n -si te scree n ing . T h e N icho ls did n o t app ea l th e B O C C ’s d e c is io n . O n F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 4 , the N ich o ls a g a in so u g h t a m o d ifica tio n o f th e ir S pecial U se Perm i t . T he N i cho l s’ request ed m od i fi cat i on s w ere s i m i l ar t o those th a t th e B O C C h a d p re v io u slyd e n ied , b u t th is tim e , the N ich o ls b a se d th e ir req u est o n a se tt lem en t betw ee n L a P lat a C o u n tyan d G eo rge V an D en B erg . M r. V anD enB er g, l i ke the N i chol s , ow ned pr opertyw i thi n the R i verC or r i dorand F ive-A cre M inim u m S ing le-F am il yR esid en ti al D istri cts. L ike th e N icho ls, M r. V anD enB er g had att empt ed t o cons tructw et l ands on hi s pr opertyw hi l e s el l i ng t he t ops oi l r emoved dur i ng cons truct i on. I n a br i ef l et t ert o M r . V anD enB er g,5

dat ed J ul y9, 1998, M r . C r ai n had appr oved thi s l i m i t ed s al e of t ops oi l as par tof the c o n stru cti o n o f th e w etl an d s. E v en tually , h o w ev er, th e C o u n tyan d M r. V anD enB er g began di s put i ng t he s cope of hi s t ops oi l oper at i on, and i n Sept ember 2003, t he C ount ys ued M r . V anD enB er g, al l egi ng thathi s t ops oi l oper at i on v io late d th e C o d e . A f ter m e d iatio n , the C o u n tya n d M r. V a n D e n B e rg e n ter e d in to a se tt lem en t agre em en t ( the “ V an D en B erg S ett lem en t”). T h e V an D en B erg S ett lem en t perm itted lim it ed scre en ing , stoc k p il ing , an d retail o p era ti o n s o n M r. V anD enB er g’ s pr opert y , and perm i t t ed hi m t o cont i nue cons truct i on of the w et l ands unt i l D ece m ber31, 2007. T he C ountyal s o agr eed t o dr afta l et t ert o t he C o lorad o D ep artm en t of T ran sp o rt ati o n , o p ining that the a cti v it ies o n M r. V anD enB er g’ s pr opert yw er e notof a c om m er ci al natur e. T h e N ich o ls’ m o d ifica tio n re q u e st o f F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 4 , inte n tio n a lly t r acke d t he l anguage of the V anD enB er g Set t l ement . N everthel es s , the Pl anni ng C o m m iss io n re c o m m e n d e d d e n y in g th e N ich o ls’ re q u e st b e c a u se (1 ) it w o u ld have r es ul t ed i n a pr ohi bi t ed comm er ci al t ops oi l bus i nes s , ( 2) nothi ng had chan ged t o w arr ant r evis i on si nce o ri ginal app roval , and (3) the V anD enB erg case had nothi ng t o do w i t h t he B ueno Ti empo l and us e appr oval . T he B O C C then t ook t he N i chol s ’ r eques toff the age nda forthe meet i ng on M ar ch 15, 2004, beca us e the B O C C vi ew ed i tas a r ei t er at i on of the N i chol s ’ pr evi ous r eques t s and no new i nform at i on w arr ant ed r econs i der at i on. A gai n, the N i chol s di d notappea l t hi s deci s i on.6

O n M a r c h 9 , 20 05 , t he N i c ho l s br ou gh ts ui ta ga i ns tthe BO CC i n the U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado. Pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, the N i chol s al l eged thatt he B O C C vi ol at ed thei rs ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s , pr ocedur al due pr oces s , and equa l pr ot ect i on r i ght s . O n O ct ober31, 2005, the B O C C m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he N i chol s fi l ed a r es pons e on D ece m ber8, 2005, and i n t hatr es pons e, t heyvol unt ar i l yw i thdr ew thei requal pr ot ect i on cl ai m , as w el l as t heirsubst anti ve an d p rocedu ral du e process cl ai m s as theyrel at ed to the N i cho l s’ 2 0 0 3 r e q u e s tt o mo d i f yt h e i rS p e c i a l Us e P e r mi t . Th e i ro n l yr e ma i n i n g c l a i ms w e re a lleg e d v io latio n s o f th e ir su b sta n tiv e a n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts re latin g to th e F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 4 , req u e st to m o d if yth e ir S p e c ial U se P e rm it. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e B O C C ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. It r ej ect ed the N i chol s ’ s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m s , hol di ng t hat t he N i chol s di d nothave a pr opertyi nt er es tent i t l i ng them t o pr ot ect i on undert he D ue P rocess C l ause of t he F ou rt eenth A m end m ent. T he d i stri ctcou rtal so r ej ect ed the N i chol s ’ ar gum entt hatthe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel pr event ed the C o u n tyfro m reli ti g ati n g the e ffec t of the c ri teri a li sted in the V an D en B erg S e ttl e m e n t. II. T hi s court ’ s r evi ew of an or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“i s de novo, appl y i ng t he s ame l egal s t andar d empl oy ed bythe di s tr i ctcour t . ” W ol fe v. B arn h art, 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c),7

su m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ” “ Wh e n a p p l y i n g th i s s t a n d a r d , we exam i ne the factual r ecord an d reasonab l e i nferences t herefrom i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . ” Sundance A s s ocs . , I nc. v. R eno, 139 F. 3d 804, 807 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W her e, as her e, “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ti n di s put e, t hen w e nextdet erm i ne i f the s ubs t ant i ve l aw w as corr ect l yappl i ed bythe di s tr i ct cour t . ” I d. ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T w o i s s ues ar e the s our ce of

contr over s yon appea l : ( 1) w hetherthe V anD enB er g Set t l ementhas pr ecl us i ve effec tundert he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel , and ( 2) w hetherthe B O C C v io la te d th e N ic h o ls ’ s u b s ta n tiv e a n d /o r p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . W e addr es s eac h i n tur n. C ol lat er ales t oppel T he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatcol l at er al es t oppel does not a p p lyh e re . In d e ter m in in g th e p re c lu siv e e ffe c t o f a sta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t, th e f u ll fai t h and cr edi ts t atut e, 28 U . S. C . § 1738, “di r ect s a fe der al cour tt o r efe rt o the p r e c l u s i o n l a w o f

t h e S t a t e i n wh i c h j u d g me n twa s r e n d e r e d . ” M a rr e s e v . Am. A c a d . o f

O rth o p a e d ic S u rg e o n s, 4 7 0 U .S . 3 7 3 , 3 8 0 (1 9 8 5 ). T h is s tatu te “embodi es conce r ns of comi t yand fe der al i s m thatal l ow the St at es t o det erm i ne,8

s ubj ectt o t he r equi r ement s of the s t atut e and the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, the p rec lusive effe ct of

jud g m en ts i n their ow n co u rt s. ” Id . H ere , a c o u n tyco u rt j udge i n L a Pl at a C ount y , C ol or ado, adopt ed the V anD enB er g Set t l ementand e n ter e d it as a c o n se n t d e c re e , so C o lo ra d o law g o v e rn s its p re c lu siv e e ffe c t. U nderC ol or ado l aw , “[t ] he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel pr ecl udes r el i t i gat i on of an i s s ue thatw as al r eadyl i t i gat ed and de ci ded i n a pr evi ous p ro c e e d in g .” G ryn b e rg v . A rk . O k la. G a s C o rp ., 1 1 6 P .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 3 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). C o llate ra l es to p p e l, also k n o w n a s is su e p re c lu sio n , “is in ten d e d to r el i eve pa r t i es of the cos tand vexa t i on of m ul t i pl e l aw s ui t s , cons erve j udi ci al r es our ces , and, bypr event i ng i ncons i s t entdeci s i ons , encour age r el i ance on adj udi cat i on. ” B ebo C ons t r . C o. v. M at t ox & O ’ B r i en, P. C . , 990 P. 2d 78, 84 ( C ol o. 1999) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I tbar s r el i t i gat i on of an i s s ue i f: ( 1) T he i s s ue pr ecl uded i s i dent i cal t o an i s s ue ac tual l yl i t i gat ed and necessari l yadjudi cat ed in the p ri or proceeding; (2) T he p artyagainst w hom es t oppel w as s oughtw as a partyt o orw as i n pr i vi tyw i th a par t yt o t he pr i orpr ocee di ng; ( 3) T her e w as a fi nal j udgm enton the m er i t s i n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng; ( 4) T he partyagai ns tw hom the doctr i ne i s as s ert ed had a ful l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the i s s ues i n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng. I d. at84- 85. T he part ys eeki ng col l at er al es t oppel has the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng eac h of thes e el ement s . I d. at85. T h e d istri ct co u rtan d the B O C C are co rrect th at th e V an D en B erg Se t t l e me n td o e s n o tme e tt h e fi r s te l e me n to f th e c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l t e s t . “ To9

s at i s fyt he fi r s tel ementof col l at er al es t oppel , the i s s ue t o be pr ecl uded mustbe i dent i cal t o an i s s ue ac tual l yl i t i gat ed and ne ces s ar i l yadj udi cat ed i n the pr i or pr ocee di ng. ” G r ynber g, 116 P. 3d at1263. “Foran i s s ue t o be ac tual l yl i t i gat ed, t he part i es m us thave r ai s ed the i s s ue i n the pr i oract i on. ” B ebo C ons tr . C o. , 990 P. 2d at85. A par t ym us thave a s s er t ed i t“byappr opr i at e pl eadi ng, . . . thr ough a cl ai m orcaus e of a ct i on agai ns tthe other[party ] . ” I d. Fur therm or e, “the i s s ue m us t[have been] s ubm i t t ed fordet erm i nat i on and then ac tual l ydet erm i ned byt he adjud icatoryb o d y . ” Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ). A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, the C ol or ado court s have noty etdeci ded w hethera s ett l ementagr eementand cons entdecr ee a r e “a ctual l ydet erm i ned by th e a dju d ica to ryb o d y ” fo r th e p u rp o se s o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l. B u t cf. B e n n e tt C o ll. v . U n ited B a n k o f D e n v e r, 7 9 9 P .2 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 8 (C o lo . 1 9 9 0 ) (“ U n d e r c e rta in ci r cumst ance s a s t i pul at i on betw een pa r t i es t o centr al ques t i ons of fa ctand l aw or a st i pu l at i on t o q uest i on s of fact m ayrender a j ud gm ent not‘fi nal’ as t o those ques t i ons , and i n a s ubs equentpr ocee di ng col l at er al es t oppel s houl d notpr event t he l i t i gat i on of thos e ques t i ons unl es s the part i es i n the or i gi nal l aw s ui ti nt ended th e q u e stio n s to b e se ttl e d a s to f u tu re a c tio n s.” ). T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt, t hough, r el i es on t he R es t at ement( Second) of J udgm ent s § 27 ( 1982) w hen form ul at i ng col l at er al es t oppel pr i nci pl es . See, e. g. , B ebo C ons tr . C o. , 990 P. 2d at 85 -86 & n . 3 ; M icha elso n v . M icha elso n , 8 8 4 P . 2 d 6 9 5 , 7 0 1 & n . 7 (C o lo. 19 9 4 ); B ennettC ol l . , 799 P. 2d at368; s ee a l s o I n r e M cM ahon, 356 B . R . 286, 295- 96O n atl eas tt w o occa s i ons , t he C ol or ado Supr eme C our thas ci t ed com m ent 1 e as s uppor tfori t s col l at er al es t oppel j ur i s prudence . See B ebo C ons tr . C o. , 990 P .2 d a t 8 6 ; B e n n e tt C o ll., 7 9 9 P .2 d a t 3 6 8 . 10 ( B ankr . N . D . G a. 2006) ( appl y i ng C ol or ado l aw and hol di ng thatthe C ol or ado S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld a p p ly§ 2 7 in d e ter m in in g th e p re c lu siv e e ffe c t o f a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t). T h e R e sta tem e n t cla rifies th a t, [i ] n t he ca s e of a j udgm entent er ed byconfe s s i on, cons ent , or defa ul t , none of the i s s ues i s actual l yl i t i gat ed. T her efor e, the rul e of t hi s Sect i on does notappl yw i th r es pectt o anyi s s ue i n a s ubs equent a c tio n . T h e ju d g m e n t m a yb e c o n c lu siv e , h o w e v e r, w ith re sp e c t to one orm or e i s s ues , i f the part i es have e nt er ed an a gr eement m ani fes t i ng s uch an i nt ent i on. R estatem en t (S ec o n d ) o f Ju d g m en ts § 2 7 cm t. e (19 8 2 ). 1 O th e r a u th o rities sim ilarlyd e c lin e to a ffo rd p re c lu siv e e ffe c t to se ttl e m e n ts and cons entdecr ees underthe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel . See, e. g. , H ughes v. Sant a Fe I nt ’ l C orp. , 847 F. 2d 239, 241 ( 5th C i r . 1988) ; 18A C har l es A l an W r i ght , A r t hurR . M i l l er& E dw ar d H . C ooper , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 4443 ( 2d ed. 2002) ; cf. R os s v. O l d R epubl i c I ns . C o. , 134 P. 3d 505, 511 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2006) ( “A cons entj udgm enti s nota j udi ci al det erm i nat i on of any l i t i gat ed r i ght , and i ti s nott he j udgm entof the court , exce pti n the s ens e thatt he cour tal l ow s i tt o go upon t he r ecor d and have t he for ce a nd effectof a j udgm ent . ”) . T he R es t at ementexpl ai ns t he r at i onal e fors uch a rul e: T he i nt er es t s of cons ervi ng j udi ci al r es our ces , of m ai nt ai ni ng con si st ency , and of av oidi ng op press i on or harass m ent of t he ad verse p a rtya re les s c o m p e lli n g w h e n th e iss u e o n w h ich p re c lu sio n is s oughthas notactual l ybeen l i t i gat ed befor e. A nd i f pr ecl us i ve effec t11

w e re g iv e n to iss u e s n o t li tig a ted , the re su lt m ig h t se rv e to d isc o u ra g e c o m p ro m ise , to d e c re a se th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e iss u e s in an ac t i on w oul d be narr ow ed bys t i pul at i on, and thus t o i nt ens i fy l i t i gat i on. R es t at ement( Second) of J udgm ent s § 27 cmt . e ( 1982) . T her efor e, underthe “ac tual l yl i t i gat ed and ne ces s ar i l yadj udi cat ed” e l ementof C ol or ado’ s col l at er al es t oppel t es t , t he V anD enB er g Set t l ementdoes nothave pr ecl us i ve effec ton any of the i s s ues i n contr over s yi n t he i ns t antl i t i gat i on. T h e N ic h o ls ’ r e lia n c e o n S a ts k yv . P a ra m o u n t C o m m u n ic a tio n s , In c ., 7 F. 3d 1464, 1468 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) , i s m i s pl ace d. T he courti n Sat s kyaddr es s ed t he effec tof a c ons entdecr ee unde rthe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a, al s o know n as cl ai m pr ecl us i on. I d. T he effec tof a c ons entdecr ee di ffe r s i n the col l at er al es t oppel , ori s s ue pr ecl us i on, cont ext : “I n m os tci r cumst ance s , i ti s r ecogni zed t hatcons entagr eement s or di nar i l yar e i nt ended t o pr ecl ude anyfur therl i t i gat i on on t he cl ai m pr es ent ed butar e noti nt ended t o pr ecl ude furtherl i t i gat i on on anyof t he i s s ues pr es ent ed. T hus cons entj udgm ent s or di nar i l ys uppor tcl ai m pr ecl us i on b u t no t i ssu e p rec lusion . ” 1 8 A C h arles A lan W ri g h t, A rth u r R . M il ler & E d w ard H . C ooper , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 4443 ( 2d ed. 2002) ; s ee a l s o A r i zona v . Ca l i fo r n i a , 5 3 0 U. S . 3 9 2 , 4 1 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o l d i n g th a t , u n d e rfe d e r a l l a w, se ttl e m e n ts h a v e c laim -p re c lu siv e e ffe c t b e tw e e n th e p a rties to th e se ttl e m e n t,

“ [ b ]u t s e ttle m e n ts o rd in a ri ly o c c a s io n n o is s u e p re c lu s io n . . . u n le s s it is c le a r . . . that the p arti es in tend their ag ree m en t t o h av e su ch an effe ct”).T he Supr eme C our thas cl ar i fi ed thatcourt s m us taddr es s t hi s i s s ue— i . e. 2 w hethert he pl ai nt i ff ha s a pr ot ect ed pr opertyi nt er es tatal l

— befor e addr es s i ng w hethert he governm ent ’ s s ubs t ant i ve dec i s i on orpr ocedur es comportw i th due pr oces s . See Fed. L ands L egal C ons or t i um v. U ni t ed St at es , 195 F. 3d 1190, 1195 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng A m . M fr s . M ut . I ns . C o. v. Sul l i van, 526 U . S. 40, 59 (19 9 9 )). 12 D ue p rocess T he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yhel d thatthe N i chol s di d nothave a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed pr opertyr i ghti n the appr oval of thei rFebruary4, 2004, r eques tt o m odi fyt hei rSpeci al U s e Perm i t . T he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi des thatno s t at e s hal l “depr i ve anyper s on of l i fe, lib e rt y , o r p ro p e rt y , w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f la w .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . X IV , § 1 . U n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se , “[ p ]ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss e n su re s th e sta te w ill notdepr i ve a pa r t yof pr oper t yw i thoutengagi ng fai rpr ocedur es t o r eac h a d e c isio n , w h ile s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss e n su re s th e sta te w ill n o t d e p riv e a p a rty of pr oper t yforan arbi t r aryr eas on r egar dl es s of the pr ocedur es us ed t o r eac h that d e c isio n .” H y d e P a rk C o . v . S a n ta F e C ityC o u n c il, 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T o pr evai l on ei t hera pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983, “a pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s tes t abl i s h thata defendant ’ s act i ons depr i ved pl ai nt i ff of a pr ot ect i bl e pr opert y i nt er es t . ” I d. I n B oar d of R egent s v. R oth, 408 2 U . S. 564, 577 ( 1972) , t he Supr eme C our tdefi ned the pr opertyi nt er es t s pr ot ect ed13

byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e: T o have a pr opertyi nt er es ti n a bene fi t , a per s on cl ear l ym us thave m or e than an a bs t r actneed ordes i r e fori t . H e musthave mor e than a u n ilate ra l ex p e c tatio n o f it. H e m u st, in ste a d , h a v e a leg iti m a te c laim of ent i t l ementt o i t . I ti s a purpos e of the anc i enti ns t i tut i on of p ro p e rtyto p ro tec t th o se c laim s u p o n w h ich p e o p le r e lyin th e ir d a ily l i ves, rel i ance thatm ustno tbe arbi trar i l yun derm i ned . Iti s a purpo se o f th e c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o a h ea ri n g to p rov ide a n o p p o rtu n ityfo r a p e rs o n to v in d ic a te th o s e c la im s . Pr oper t yi nt er es t s , of cour s e, ar e notcr eat ed bythe C ons t i tut i on. R ather , t heyar e cr eat ed and thei rdi m ens i ons ar e def i ned byexi s t i ng rul es orunder s t andi ngs t hats t em from an i ndepende nts our ce s uch as s t at e l aw — rul es orunder s t andi ngs thats ecur e ce r t ai n benef i t s and t hat s up po rtcl ai m s of en t i t l em ent t o those ben efi t s. W e h av e e x p lai n ed fu rth er tha t “co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted p rop ertyinterests are cr eat ed and de fi ned bys t atut e, or di nance , contr act , i m pl i ed contr actand rul es and under s t andi ngs devel oped bys t at e off i ci al s . ” H ul en v. Y at es , 322 F. 3d 1229, 1 2 4 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In th e m u n icip a l lan d u se c o n tex t, m o re o v e r, “th e e n tit lem e n t an a ly sis pr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw and foc us es on ‘ w hetherther e i s di s cr et i on i n the defe ndant s t o denya zoni ng orotherappl i cat i on fi l ed bythe pl ai nt i ffs . ’ ” H y de Par k C o. , 226 F. 3d at1210 ( quot i ng N or t on v. V i l l . of C or r al es , 103 F. 3d 928, 931- 32 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ) . “A pr opertyi nt er es texi s t s i f di s cr et i on i s l i m i t ed by t he pr ocedur es i n ques t i on, t hati s , w hetherthe pr ocedur es , i f fol l ow ed, r equi r e a par t i cul arout come. ” C r ow n Poi ntI , L L C v. I nt erm ount ai n R ur al E l ec. A s s ’ n, 319 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 7 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c i t i n g Hy d e P a r k Co . , 2 2 6 F . 3 d a t1 2 1 0 ) . On14

t he otherhand, “w her e the governi ng bodyr et ai ns di s cr et i on and the out come of th e p ro c e e d in g is n o t d e ter m in e d b yth e p a rticu lar p ro c e d u re a t issu e , n o p ro p e rty i nter esti s i m pli cat ed. ” Id. (ci t i ng H y de P ark C o. , 22 6 F . 3d at12 10 ); see al so J acobs , V i s cons i & J acobs , C o. v. C i tyof Law r ence , 927 F. 2d 1111, 1116- 17 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t, w h e re sta te la w re q u ire d th e z o n in g b o a rd to cons i ders i x enumer at ed fa ct or s , thos e fa ct or s w er e “i ns uffi ci entt o confe rupon the a p p li ca n t a l eg it im ate c lai m o f e n ti tl em en t”). T he N i chol s di d nothave a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed pr opertyr i ghti n the a p p ro v a l o f

th e ir F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 4 , req u e st to m o d if yth e ir S p e c ial U se P e rm it. T h e N ich o ls d o n o t d isp u te th a t th e C o d e p ro v id e d th e B O C C w ith d isc re tio n in appr ovi ng orr ej ect i ng t hei rSpeci al U s e Perm i t

— and anym odi fi cat i ons t o that Speci al U s e Perm i t . T he N i chol s cont end, how ever , thatthe B O C C ’ s di s cr et i on

“ d is s o lv e d ” fo llo w in g th e e n tr yo f th e V a n D e n B e rg S e ttle m e n t. T he N i chol s pr ovi de no author i tys uppor t i ng thei rcl ai m thatthe V anD enB er g Set t l ementl i m i t ed the B O C C ’ s di s cr et i on i n s uch a w ayas t o gi ve t hem a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed pr opertyr i ght . A s ear ch of l and- us e and z oni ng due pr oces s cas es has l i kew i s e r evea l ed no l egal s upportforthi s pr opos i t i on. T he few cas es t hatar e eve n r emot el yanal ogous pr ovi de s uppor tforthe B O C C , r ather t han the N i chol s . See, e. g. , C r ow l eyv. C our vi l l e, 76 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng t hatan appl i canthad no pr opertyi nt er es ti n the zoni ng boar d’ s i s s uance o f a n ew p ark ing v arian ce , w h ere the a p p li ca n t i n tend ed to ch an g e the p rop erty ’s15

us e fr om offi ce t o r et ai l ) ; T r i om phe I nves t or s v. C i tyof N or thw ood, 49 F. 3d 198, 203 ( 6t h C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hat , w her e a s peci al us e perm i thad bee n i s s ued pr evi ous l yon t he s ame pr opert y , the ow nerdi d nothave a pr opertyi nt er es ti n t he i s s uance of anothers peci al us e perm i t ) . T he V anD enB er g Set t l ementw as an agr eementbetw een the B O C C and M r . V anD enB er g. T he N i chol s w er e nei ther par t i es nort hi r d- par t ybenef i ci ar i es t o i t . Fur ther , ther e i s no evi dence thatthe B O C C in ten d e d th e ter m s a n d c o n d iti o n s o f th e V a n D e n B e rg S e ttl e m e n t to a p p ly t o ot herSpeci al U s e Perm i t s , ort o r es ul ti n a de fact o amendm entof the ot herw i s e di s cr et i onarycr i t er i a cont ai ned i n the C ode. C f. H y de Park C o. , 226 F. 3d at1212- 1213 ( “B eca us e the or di nance s as w r i t t en cont ai n no s t andar ds governi ng t he C i t yC ounci l ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on, the or di nance s s i m pl ydo not i m pos e ‘ s i gni fi cants ubs t ant i ve r es tr i ct i ons ’ on the C i tyC ounci l ’ s pow erof r evi ew . ” ( quot i ng J acobs , 927 F. 2d at1117 n. 4) ( emphasi s added) ) . T he fa ctthat t he B O C C ent er ed i nt o a s ett l ementagr eementw i th M r . V anD enB er g, underthe s peci fi c fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of thatcas e, does nottr ans form the t erm s and condi t i ons of the s ett l ementi nt o a cons tr ai nton the B O C C ’ s di s cr et i on i n other cas es . See Fed. L ands L egal C ons or t i um v. U ni t ed St at es , 195 F. 3d 1190, 1200 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( “C our t s have a dopt ed thi s rul e, beca us e ‘ [a] cons t i tut i onal ent i t l ementcannotbe cr eat ed— as i f byes t oppel

— m er el ybeca us e a w hol l yand ex p resslyd iscreti o n arystat e p ri v il eg e h as b ee n g ran ted g en ero u slyin the p ast. ’” ( quot i ng C onn. B d. of Par dons v. D um s chat , 452 U . S. 458, 465 ( 1981) ) ( al t er at i onC ol o. R . C i v. P. 106( a) pr ovi des t hat“r el i ef maybe obt ai ned i n the 3 di s t r i ctcour tbyappr opr i at e ac t i on”: ( 4) W her e anygovernm ent al bodyoroffi ceroranyl ow erj udi ci al b o d ye x e rc isin g ju d icia l o r q u a si-ju d icia l f u n c tio n s h a s e x c e e d e d its j ur i s di ct i on orabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, and ther e i s no pl ai n, s peedyand a d e q u a t e r e me d yo t h e r wi s e p r o v i d e d b yl a w: ( I ) R evi ew s hal l be l i m i t ed t o a det erm i nat i on of w hethert he b o d yo r o ff

ice r h a s e x c e e d e d its ju risd ictio n o r a b u se d its di s cr et i on, bas ed on the evi dence i n the r ecor d befor e the d efen d an t bo d yo r office r. R ule 106(b) provi des fo r a thirt y -dayst atute of l i m i t at i on s for s uch act i on s. 16 in o ri g inal) (em p h asis o m itted)). W e no t e t hat the N i cho l s have b ypassed t he u sual aven ue fo r par t i es w ho se zo n ing req u ests h av e b ee n d en ied. T h e N icho ls co u ld h av e a p p ea led th e B O C C ’s de c i s i on , c on t e nd i ng t he BO CC ha d a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on . Se e Col o. R. Ci v. P. 106( a) ( 4) ( I ) ; Sundhei m v. B d. of C ountyC om m ’ r s , 904 P. 2d 1337, 1345 ( C ol o.

3 C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), aff ’d , 9 2 6 P .2 d 5 4 5 (C o lo . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e N ich o ls c h o se n o t to p u rsu e th is a v e n u e o f re lief a f ter th e B O C C d e n ied e ith e r o f th e ir re q u e sts to m o d if yth e S p e c ial U se P e rm it. “ F e d e ra l co u rts s h o u ld b e re lu c tan t to in ter fe re in zon i ng dis pu t es w hich ar e l ocal concerns. ” N ort on , 10 3 F . 3d at93 3; s ee al so H y d e P a rk C o ., 2 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 2 (“ W ith o u t cle a rlyd e fin e d lim itatio n s o n th e C ity Co u n c i l ’ s e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n t o a s s i s tu s i n o u rc o n s tru c t i o n o f l o c a l l a w, we hes i t at e t o i nfers uch l i m i t s and i nvol ve thi s fede r al courti n a l and us e r egul at i on d ispu te w h ich is p u relya m att er o f lo ca l con ce rn.”).17

W ith o u t a co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted p rop ertyri g h t i n the a p p rov al of their F ebruary4, 20 04 , requestt o m od i fytheirS pecial U se Perm i t , the N i cho l s’ su b sta n tiv e a n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim s n e c e ss a rilyfa il. AF F I RMED .