2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-14-2008 

# C h ainey v . S treet

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1061

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C h ainey v . S tr e e t " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1295. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1295P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 06- 1061 & 06- 1256

NANNI E CH AI NE Y; LERO Y H AM PTON , J R. ; ERN ESTI NE M

. RI CE; T RI NA Mc CL AI N; L YNNE J OHNS ON; TERESA A

. GR AY ER- CA M PBELL; CA S S ANDR A C AR T E R J OHNS T ON; T H O MA S MA P P S R

. ; B E T T Y MA P P H / W; BE T T Y M AP P 1 ; E RN E S T HUB BA RD ; E ST H E R H U B B A R D H / W ; E ST H E R H U B B A R D 1; R O B E R T F O R D ; G WE N D O L Y N F O R D H / W; G W E N D O L Y N F O R D 1 ; O L A IT A N O D E N IY I; A D E O L A O D E N I Y I H / W ; A D E O L A O D E N I Y I 1; LUC RETI A W I LSON ; AN NE LEE; G E R A L D R E N F R O W; C O N S T A N C E R E N F R O W H / W;

VI RGI NI A COX; HAZEL TAYLOR; MI L T O N WI L L I A MS ; S H E R R Y WI L L I A MS H / W; FR A N K L E W I S; E V A L E W I S H / W ; E V A L E W I S1; K E R MI T B O S T I C ; E L I Z A B E T H B O S T I C H / W; M AR Y J

. J AC KS ON; S AM UE L M AT T AWAY; Y V E T T E M A T T A W A Y H / W ; Y V E T T E M A T T A W A Y 1; C H A R L E S R E N FR O W , J R

. ; G E R A L D R E N FR O W 1;2 CA RRI E F. FOSKEY ; BERI DA N PA YN E; C O N ST A N C E R E N FR O W 1,

A ppel l ees at06- 1061/ C r oss-A ppel l ant s at06- 1256

v . J OHN S T RE E T , M AYOR , CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A;

CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; EDWA RD M c LAUGHLI N, COM M I S S I ONER, D EPA RT M EN T O F LI CE N SES A N D I N SPEC TI O N S; H E R B E R T E . W E T Z E L , E X E C U T IV E D IR E C T O R ; RED EVELO PM ENT A UTH OR I TY OF T HE CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A,

A ppel l ant s at06- 1061/ C r os s - A ppel l ees at06- 1256

O n 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. 03- cv- 06248 ( Ho n o r a b l e J o h n P

. F u l l a m)

A r gued J anuary23, 2007

B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , F U E N T E S a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges3 ( Fi l ed A pr i l 14, 2008 )
CR AI G R

. GOT T L I E B, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) RI CHARD G. F EDE R, ES QUI RE C i t yof Phi l adel phi a Law D epart m ent O ne Par kw ay , 17t h Fl oor 1515 A r ch St r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19102 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees
RO BE RT T

. VANC E , J R. , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) 100 Sout h B r oad St r eet , Sui t e 1530 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19110
AD RI AN J

. M OO DY , ESQU I RE L aw O ffi ces of A dr i an J

. M oody 1616 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 700 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e llee s/C ro ss -A p p e llan ts

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge

. T hi s i s an appea l fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s par t i al deni al of defendant s ’ pos t

- t r i al m ot i on aft era j ur yver di ctagai ns tt he4 C it yof Phi l adel phi a bas ed on i t s deci s i on t o hal tr epai r s on hous es r ebui l ti n t he aft er m ath of the 1985 M O V E bom bi ng. D efe ndant s ar e the ci t y , t he ci t y R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y , and t hr ee for m er ci t y offi ci al s : M ay or J ohn St r eet , for m erL i cens es and Ins pect i ons C om m i s s i onerE dw ar d M cLaughl i n, and R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rityE x e c u tiv e D ire c to r H e rb e rt W e tze l. P l ai nti ffs are tw enty -four of t he si xty -one ho m e ow ners w ho se hous es w er e des t r oy ed i n a fi r e caus ed by t he M O V E bom bi ng. In 1 9 8 6 , the c itya g re e d to r e b u ild p lain tiff s’ h o u se s a n d to re p a ird e f

e c ts f o r u p to te n y e a rs . A f te r h a v i n g s p e n t $ 1 2 .8 m illio n o v e r 1 4 y e a rs, th e c ityd e c id e d in Ju ly2 0 0 0 it w o u ld m ake no f

ur t herr epai r s t o t he hous es . A fede r al j ur yr ender ed a part i al ver di ctforpl ai nt i ffs

. D efe ndant s fi l ed pos t

- t r i al m ot i ons , w hi ch the D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed i n par t , r educi ng t he j ur yaw ar d. B ot h par t i es appea l ed. W e w i l l aff i r m i n par tand r ever s e i n par t

. W e w i l l r emand foran ana l y s i s of the s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m and F ed. R

. C i v. P. 50 w ai verand, i f the i s s ue has not been w ai ved, fora det er m i nat i on of w hether each p l ai nti ff p roved c ausat i on and dam ages. I. T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om t he ci t y ’ s 1985 bom bi ng dur i ng t he ad m inistrati o n o f M ay o r W il so n G o o d e (m ay o ra l t erm 1 9 8 4

– 1 9 9 2 ) o f a h o m e o c c u p ied b y M O V E , a g ro u p f o rm e d in t he 1970s as par tof a “ back t o natur e” m ovement

. I n 1978, t he cit y att em p ted t o ex ec u te an ev ict ion o rde r on M O V E m em b ers l i vi ng i n a home i n t he Pow el t on V i l l age ne i ghbor h o o d of Phi l adel phi a. M O V E m ember s r es i s t e d wi t h gunfi r e, ki l l i ng one5 po l i ce of

fi cer and w ou nd i ng otheroff i cers a n d fir efi gh t ers . Ni n e M OV E me mbe r s wer e c o n v i c t e d a n d s e n t e n c e d f o rt he o ff icer’s m u rde r. B y1985, at l eas t t hi r t een M O V E m ember s had r el ocat ed t o a si ng l e fam ily h o m e at62 21 O sage A ven ue in W est P hil adelphi a. D i srup t i ng t he n ei gh bo rhood w i t h loudspe akers, M O V E m em bers m ade viol ent an d profan e t hreat s to nei gh bo rs , po l i ce, and ci t yoff

i ci al s. A ccordi ng t o a p oli ce prob able cause affidavi tsubm i t t ed to supp ortarr estand search w arr ants , M O V E m e m b e rs c a rrie d w e a p o n s, b lo c k e d th e w in d o w s o f th e ir hous e w i t h w ooden sl at s , cons t ruct ed a bunker on t he r oof, and threa t ened t o bl ow up t he ent i r e nei ghbor hood. A r r es tand s ear ch w arr ant s w er e i s s ued on M ay 11, 1985. O n M ay12, t he pol i ce evac uat ed r es i dent s fr om t he s ur r oundi ng nei ghbor hood, ant i ci pat i ng a r ai d on t he M O V E hous e. I n t he e arl ym or ni ng of M ay13, pol i ce of fi cer s and f ire f ig h ter s s u rro u n d e d th e M O V E re sid e nc e . A t 5 :3 0 a .m ., w ith a bul l horn, p o li ce a nnounced theyhad arr es tw arr ant s forfour M O V E m em b ers a n d g av e th em fiftee n m inu tes t o su rren d er. T he M O V E m ember s r es i s t ed, s hout i n g b ac k t hr eat s t hatt hey wer e p r e p a r e d f

o ra g u n b a t t l e . Aft e rf i f t e e n mi n u t e s , p o l i ce fired tear g as a n d sm o k e p roje c til es a t th e h o u se. F ir ef igh ters s pr ay ed the hous e w i t h w at ert o pr ovi de cove rforadvanc i ng p o li ce o ff

icers. S o m e m inu tes l ater, the p o li ce ca m e u n d er f ir e fro m g u n sh o ts fir ed fro m inside the ho u se. M u zz le flash es w ere see n co m ing fro m the ro o fto p b u n k er.6 A m as s i ve gun bat t l e ens ued. Pol i ce w er e unabl e t o ent er t he hous e becaus e the w al l s of the hous e w er e fort i fi ed. Pol i ce r etr eat ed, and consi der ed ot her m ethods t o br eac h t he def ens es M O V E had er ect ed. L at ert hataft ernoon, a po li ce hel i copt er dr opped a bomb on t he r oof of the M O V E r esid ence . T he bom b’ s det onat i on i gni t ed seve r al barr el s of gas ol i ne, s t ar t i ng a fi r e thatki l l ed el even of t he thirt een r es i dent s . H ous es on t he Pi ne and O s age bl ocks w er e consu m ed i n t he bl aze . T he bo m bing, t he res ult ant deat hs, and t he d estruct i on of n ei gh bo rs ’ h o m e s w e r e v i e w e d a s a n a t i o n a l t r a g e d y. T hi s cas e i nvol ves t he ow ner s of hous es on t he Pi ne and O sa g e b lo c k s. In th e f ire ’s a f ter m a th , the c ity e n g a g e d in ext ens i ve negot i at i ons w ith t he ow ner s of the s i xt y - one des t r oy ed house s. I n J une 1985, t he ci t yas ked the R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rityto u se its e m in e n t d o m a in a u th o rityto acqu i re the d am aged area f or “dev el op [m ent] as a re d e v e lo p m e n t p rojec t.” T h e h o m e o w n e rs f iled o b jec tio n s to t he emi nentdom ai n/ r edeve l opm ent pl an. I n A pr i l 1986, t he Phi l adelphi a C i tyC o u n cil en ac ted O rdin an ce 8 6 1 , o b li g ati n g the ci t y to r ebui l d t he s i xt y - one hous es “des t r oy ed i n t he confl agr at i on. ” T he ci t yal s o agr eed t o pr ovi de a t en- y ear w arr antyforcert ai n defe ct s fr om the d ayeac h hom eow ner m oved i nt o hi s / herhom e. I n Sept ember 1986, t he par t i es ent er ed i nt o an agr eement ( t h e 1 9 8 6 Agr e e me n t ) , i n whi c h t h e c i t y a g r e e d t o b u i l d and w a rra n t six ty -o n e n e w h o u se s in c o m p lian c e w ith a ll ap p lica b le Phi l adel phi a C odes , as r e q u i r e d byO r di nance 861, and pl ai nt i ffs7 a g re e d to w a iv e d a m a g e s c laim s in th e e m in e n t d o m a in p ro c e e d in g . T h e c i t y e n l i s t e d t h e R e d e v e l o p m e n tA u t h o r i t y, w hi ch s el ect ed a devel oper , E dw ar ds & H arper , a corpor at i on s peci fi cal l y fo rm ed t o r ebui l d t he hous es . T he ci t yal l ocat ed $6. 7 m i l l i on t o E dw ar ds & H arpert hr ough t h e U rban Local D e v e lo p m e n t C o rp o r a tio n to f in a n c e th e re b u ild in g p rojec t. E dwar d s & Harp e rh i r e d a g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , Eb ony C on struct i o n C om pan y , Inc. , of w hich E rnestE dw ards w as a d ir ec tor. E dw ar ds m i s appr opr i at ed funds and w as pr os ecut ed and c o n v ic te d o f

th e f t. See C om m onw eal th v. E dw ar ds , 582 A

. 2d 1078, 1082–90 ( Pa. Super

. C t

. 1990)

. E dw ar ds & H arperfai l ed t o com pl et e the pr oj ect

. T he ci t yand the R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y hi r ed another gener al contr act or t o complete the hou ses. I n February1986, w hen Edw ar ds ’ s compani es def au lt ed, t he new gener al contr act orw as l eftw i t h overone m i l l i on do l l ars of u np ai d co st s. For t w o y ear s , pl ai nt i ffs l i ved i n s ubs t i tut e hous i ng att he c ity ’s e x p e n se . In 1 9 8 7 , p lain tiff s m o v e d in to th e ir n e w ly c o n stru c ted h o m e s. B u t th e h o u se s w e re d e f e c tiv e . W ith in we e k s o f mo v i n g i n , s e v e r a l h o me o wn e r s e x p e r i e n c e d p r o b l e ms i ncl udi ng: l eaki ng r oofs , defe ct i ve bathr oom and ki tc hen pl um bi ng, i m pr operori nadequa t e fl oor i ng, nai l s poppi ng outof w al l s , bur s t i ng pi pes , defe ct i ve el ectr i cal w i r i ng, fl ooded b ase m en ts an d b ac k y a rds, an d n o n -fu n cti o n ing ap p li an ce s. In Ju n e 1 9 8 7 , the c itya m e n d e d O rd in a n c e 8 6 1 to a u th o riz e th e c ity t o hi r e the R edeve l opm entA u tho ri t yt o w arr antthe hous esB etw een 1988 and 1990, t he ci t yal l ocat ed $720, 400 t o t he 1 R edev el op m ent A uthori t yfor r epair s. 8 ag ains t “co n stru cti o n , d esig n an d related d ef ec ts. ” In Jan u ary 1988, t he ci t yand t he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t yent er ed i nt o a new agr eement( t he 1988 A gr eement )

— t he R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t yagr eed t o per for m t he ci t y ’ s r epai r obl i gat i ons and the c i t y a g r e e d t o c o m p e n s a t e t h e R e d e v e l o p m e n tA u t h o r i t y. B e tw e e n 1 9 8 8 a n d 1 9 9 7 , w h e n th e w a rra n ties w e re se t to expi r e, t he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t yconduct ed pi ece m eal repai rs of r epo rt ed probl em s, repl aci ng roofs, s t ov es, dis hw ashers , and garbag e dis po sal s. T he re c o rd sugg est s a cont i nuous fl ow of m oney i nt o t he proj ect , butdoes notpr es ent a c lear p ic tu re o f th e total ex p en d itu res d u ri n g that ti m e. In 1 1 9 9 5 , th e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u tho ri ty es tim a te d it w o u ld c o s t $ 8 .5 m i l l i on t o r epai rt he or i gi nal defe ct i ve cons t ruct i on. T he ci t yand the R edevel opm entA ut hor i t yhi r ed the U ni t ed St at es A r m yC orps of Engi neer s t o eval uat e t he cos tof t he r em aini ng r epai r s . I n 1997, t he C orps i s s ued a com prehen si ve repo rtou t l i ning t he rem ai ni ng necessaryrepai rs , es t i m at i ng i tw oul d cos tthe ci t yand the R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y$1. 657 m i l l i on t o ful fi l l t hei rw arr antyobl i gat i ons and t o b ri ng each h ou se i nto com pli ance w i t h citybu i l ding cod es. T he C orps det er m i ned thatr epai r s t o t he bui l di ng envel ope— t he ro o f in g , b r ick s, slid in g d o o rs, s id in g , an d w in d o w s— w o u ld acc ountfors eventyper centof the t ot al pr oj ect ed r emai ni ng c o st.T h e to tal h a rd c o n stru c tio n -c o st e s tim a tes in c re a se d to 2 betw een $3. 3 m i l l i on and $4. 4 m i l l i on ( i ncl udi ng t he or i gi nal $1. 7 m i l l i on)

. A ddi t i onal cos t s i ncl uded $439, 000 t o $482, 000 in so ft co sts fo r th e U n it ed S tat es A rm y C o rp s o f E n g inee rs contr act , an ener gy cons ul t ant contr act , and R edeve l opm ent A u th o ritysta f

f , an d $ 4 1 6 ,0 0 0 to $ 5 5 6 ,0 0 0 f o r w a rra n ty s et t l ement i t ems i ncl udi ng i nt er i orr epai r s t o be made by hom eow ner s , l os t ener gy paym ent s , and ow ner s ’ admi ni s t r at i ve fees. 9 I n 1998, t he ci t y , t he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t y , and the C o rps d esig n ed a so li cit ati o n fo r bid s fro m p ri v ate c o n tr ac to rs t o compl et e the r epai rw or k. O n A ugus t30, t he R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t yent er ed i nt o a $1, 765, 538 contr actw i t h t he s ucce s s ful bi dder , A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on C om pany ( t he R edevel opm ent A ut hor i t y - A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on A gr eement )

. T he ci t yal l ocat ed $ 2 m illio n to p a yA lli e d C o n stru c tio n f o r th e re p a irs. S h o rtly t her eaf t er , A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on w or ker s uncover ed seve r al ot her pr obl ems hi dden fr om vi ew un ti l d i s cover ed i n t he cour s e of c o n d u c ti n g r e p a ir s . T h e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o r itysu b se q u e n tly author i zed pa ym entof an a ddi t i onal $800, 000. B utbyt he end of 1999, t he es t i m at ed cos tform odi fi cat i ons r os e fr om $8 00 , 00 0 to bet w een $ 2. 1 m i l l i on and $3

. 5 m i l l i on , an incr ease at t r i but abl e t o i t ems n o t cover ed undert he w or k’ s or i gi nal s cope: change d w i ndow t yp es, br i ck w al l m odi fi cat i ons and w i ndow s i l l r e p l a c e me n t s , a d d i t i o n a l fr ami ng, and modi fi cat i ons t o i nt er i or w all s . N one of thes e addi t i onal cos t s had bee n 2 i nclud ed in A ll ied C o n str u ct i on’ s or i gi nal es t i m at e.10 A ccor di ng ly , t he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t yr eques t ed another $ 2

. 9 m il li o n fro m the c ityto sa ti sfyA ll ied C o n s tr u cti o n ’s request s and to com plyw i t h the w arr antyob l i gati on s. O n D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 , o u tg o in g M a y o r Ed w ard R e n d e ll s enta l et t er( t he R endel l L et t er ) t o t he homeow ner s r eaf fi r m i ng t h e c i t y ’ s i n t e n tt o c o mpl e t e t h e n e c e s s a r yr e p a i r s . Buta f t er M a yo r Jo h n S tre e t to o k o f f ice in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 0 , cityo f f icia ls bal ked att he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i ty ’s r eques tfort he addi t i onal $2. 9 m i l l i on. I n a mem or andum d ated January4, 2000, t he ci t yaudi tm anage res t i m at ed the fi nal cos to f each w arr antyat$129, 000 for eac h of t he s i xt y - one hous es , fora t ot al cos tof $7, 869, 000. O n Fe b ruar y10, 2000, t he ci t ycontr ol l er r epor t ed thatt he ci t yhad al r eadyi ncurr ed al m os t$13 m i l l i on for w arr antyr epai r s , o r $ 2 1 1 , 2 86 perhous e. I n M ar ch 2000, t he cit yesti m ated the a d d it ion al co st w o u ld ran g e b etw ee n $ 4 .5 m ill io n a n d $ 1 1 m ill io n . In th e 1 9 8 6 A g re e m e n t, th e c ity det er m i ned the fa i r - m ark et val ue of the hous es as of M ay12, 1985, t o be appr oxi m at el y$26, 0 0 0 perhous e, or$1, 586, 000 t ot al

. A tt r i al , Pl ai nt i ffs ’ expertr epor test im at ed thatas of M ar ch 23, 2005, pl ai nt i ffs w oul d need t o be r ei m bur s ed “i n t he n e ig h b o rh o o d o f $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ” f o r e a c h h o u se in o rd e r to re lo c a te t o a s i m i l arhous e i n anotherPhi l adel phi a nei ghbor hood. I n m i d- 2000, t he ci t y ’ s D epart m ent o f L i cens es and In sp e c tio n s in sp e c ted th e h o u se s a n d re p o rte d th a t n o d e f e c ts r ender ed t he houses i m m i nent l ydanger ous . B utt he r epor tnot ed a pr obl em w i t h ai r vent s

— an or i gi nal cons t ruct i on defe ct t hat coul d pot ent i al l ydr aw carbon m onoxi de i nt o t he hous es . N one11 of the res i den t s had repo rte d a nycarbon m on ox i de p robl em s, butt he ci t y ’ s comm er ce di r ect or pr epar ed a pl an forr el ocat i ng al l of the r es i dent s . C i t yoffi ci al s s oon concl uded t h e ai r - vent pr obl em re nder ed the hous es i m m i nent l y danger ous and thatt he hous es s houl d be tr eat ed as a bl i ght ed ar ea. O n J ul y21, 2000, p lain tiff s w e re su m m o n e d to a m e e tin g w ith th e m a y o r a t C ity H al l

. At t h a tme e t i n g , M a y o rJ o h n Str e e tp r e s e n t e d p l a i n t i ffs w i t h a l et t eri nfor m i ng t hem t hatt he ci t yw oul d pay$125, 000 perhous e, pl us $25, 000 for rel ocat i on expens es , butthatt he par t i es w oul d be r equi r ed t o vaca t e t hei rpr emi s es no l at ert han Sept ember 6, 2000. T he r es i dent s w er e t ol d t hat i f t heydi d not m ove, t hei rhom es w oul d be t aken thr ough emi nentdom ai n. T hi r t y - s even of

t he s i xt y - one s et s of r es i dent s acc ept ed thi s ( or a su b s e q u e n tl o wer ) o f f e r ; t h e r e ma i n i n g t wen t y - f o u rr e j e c t ed th e o f f e r, an d late r in iti a ted th is s u it. S h o rtlyth e re a f

ter , P h ilad e lp h ia G a s W o rk s b e g a n to “r ed- t ag” pl ai nt i ffs ’ hous es , t he first s t ep i n t er m i nat i ng gas ser vice. P l ai nti ffs ob t ai ned an i njunct i on i n st at e cou rtagainst P h ilad e lp h ia G a s W o rk s to c o n tin u e se rv ice a n d a g a in st th e c ity to ref rain f rom d em o li sh ing p lai n tif f s ’ h o u ses w ith o u t a co u rt or der or unt i l t he concl us i on of the emi nentdom ai n pr ocee di ng. C o les v . P h ila d e lp h ia , N o . 0 3 9 5 (P h ilad e lp h ia C o u n tyC t. C o m m . P l. O ct. 3 , 2 0 0 0 ) (ord er g ran ti n g injun cti o n ). O n O c tob er 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , p lai n ti ff s filed s u itin state co u rt a n d d e f e n d a n ts re m o v e d to f

e d e ra l c o u rt. A t a f

e d e ra l ju rytrial, p lain tiff s s o u g h t to p ro v e c laim s b a se d o n b re a c h o f c o n tra c t, s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s , th e ta k in g s c la u s e , s ta te -l a w c o n s p i r a c y,T h e ju ry in stru c tio n s d id n o t re f e re n c e th e 1 9 8 6 A g re e m e n t. 3 12 equal pr ot ect i on, and s peci fi c per for m ance . O n t he contr act cl ai m , t he j ur y w as i ns t ruct ed t o deci de l i abi l i t yand damages for br eac h of contr acton t hr ee a l l eged c ontr act s : t he 1988 A gr eement , t he R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y - A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on

3 A g ree m en t, an d the R en d ell L ett er. T h e ju ryf

o u n d th e c itya n d th e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rity l i abl e forbr eac h of tw o contr act s

— the 1988 A gr eementand the R endel l L et t er , bu tnott he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t y - A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on A gr eement

. T h e j ur yaw ar ded $250, 000 per p lain tiff in c o n tra c t d a m a g e s , c o n sis tin g o f $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 in expec t at i on damages agai ns tt he ci ty and the R edeve l opm ent A uthori t yand $1 00 , 00 0 in em oti on al distress dam ages ag ai nst t he ci t y( $6 m i l l i on t ot al )

. T he j ur yaw arde d $ 152, 083. 33 per pl ai nt i ff f

ors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i ons , con s i s t i ng of $7 0 , 0 0 0 p e rp l a i n t i f

f i n c o mpe n s a t o r yd a ma g e s a g a i n s tM ay or J o h n S t r e e t , $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e s a g a i n s t t h e c i t y, and $52, 083. 33 i n puni t i ve dam ages agai ns tM ay orJ ohn St r eet i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y ( $3. 65 m i l l i on t ot al )

. For t he t aki ngs cl aus e cl ai m s , t he j ur y aw ar ded $80, 000 per pl ai nt i ff a gai ns tt he ci t y( $1. 92 m i l l i on t ot al )

. T he j u ry also aw ar ded $52, 500 per pl ai nt i ff i n cons pi r acy damages agai ns t defe ndant s , co ns i s t i ng o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 in co m p en sato ryd am ag es a g ains t th e m ay o r, $14, 000 i n compensa t or y damages agai ns t t he ci t y , $2, 000 eac h i n compensa t or y damages agai ns t W et zel , M cLaughl i n, and the R edevel opm entA ut hor i t y , $4, 166. 67 i n puni t i ve damages13 agai ns t t he ci t y , and $8, 333. 33 i n puni t i ve damages agai ns tt he m ay or( $1. 2 6 m il li on t ot al )

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed ju d g m e n t ag a in st d e f

e n d a n ts fo r a to tal o f

$ 1 2 .8 1 6 m ill io n , w ith ea ch o f th e tw en ty -fo u r p lai n ti ff s rec eivin g an ag g reg ate a w ard of $534, 000. T h e c ase w as tri ed b ef o re Ju d g e C laren ce N ew co m er, w h o di ed af

t ert he j ur yver di ct

. D efe ndant s fi l ed pos t

- t r i al m ot i on s. N ew l yas s i gned J udge J ohn Ful l am gra nt ed defe ndant s ’ m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t er of l aw w i t h r es pect t o the t akings, ci vil con spi racy , and pu nit i ve dam ages c l ai m s, b u t r e je c te d d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l. See C hai ney v . P hilad elp h ia , No. Ci v . A. 0 3

- 0 6 2 4 8

- J F, 2 0 0 5 W L 3 2 6 3 0 4 2 ( E

. D. Pa. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 5 )

. Th e c o u r tu p h e l d l i a b i l i t yo n c l a i ms f or br eac h of c o n tr act( underbot h t he 1988 A gr eementand the R e n d e ll L e tte r ) a n d s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . I d. a t* 3

– 4

. On br eac h of contr act , t he courtup h eld t he j ur y ’ s aw ar d of $150, 000 perpl ai nt i ff i n r epai r damages ( $3. 6 m i l l i on t ot al ) and $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p er plainti ff

fo r em o ti o n al distr ess ($ 2

. 4 m il li o n total)

. I d. at*5–6. A l t hough t he co ur tuphel d t he s ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e ss v e rd ict ag a in st th e c ity a n d a g a in st M a y o r Jo h n S tre e t in hi s offi ci al capa ci t y , i taw ar ded no r ecove r ybeca us e pl ai nt i ffs s o u g h t o n ly e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s d a m a g e s f o r th is c la im

. I

d. T he cour tfound an una cce pt ab le over l ap betw een the $2. 4 m i l l i on contr actual emot i onal di s t r es s aw ar d and t he i dent i cal aw ar d for s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s v io l a t i o n s . I d. M o reo v er, th e c o u rt found thatanyaw ar d i n exces s of $100, 000 perpl ai nt i ff f or emot i onal di s t r es s damages , caus ed byei t herbr eac h of contr actJ ur i s di ct i on i s pr operunder28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. T he D i s t r i ct 4 C our thad s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt hi s appea l and c ros s - appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , gr ant i ng i n par tand den y i ng i n part defe nd ants ’ po st -tri al m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f la w . Ma rin e lliv . C ity o f E rie , 216 F. 3d 354, 359 ( 3d C i r . 2000)

. W e re vi ew defe ndant s ’ r eques tfora new t r i al bas ed on al l eged p rejudi ci al ques t i oni ng forabus e of di s cr et i on. U n ite d S ta te s v . A d e d o

y in , 3 6 9 F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 14 o r s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n s , w a s e x c e s s iv e . I d. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed j udgm entfor br eac h of contr act agai ns t t he ci t y and j udgm entfors ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss a g a in st th e c itya n d a g a in st M a y o r Jo h n S tre e t in h is offi ci al capa ci t y . T he aggr egat e aw ar d foreac h pl ai nt i ff w as r educe d t o $250, 000 fora t ot al of $6 m i l l i on. 4 II. A l l par t i es have a ppeal ed. D efe ndant s cont end the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bydeny i ng j udgm entas a m at t er of l aw on t he b reach of co ntr actcl ai m s and sub st anti v e d u e process cl ai m s , and bydeny ing their m ot i on fora new t r i al

. Pl ai nt i ffs cont end t h e D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byover turni ng t he t aki ngs cl aus e ver di ctand the puni t i ve damage aw ar d aga i ns tM ay or Jo h n S tre e t. A

. B r e a c h o f Co n tr a c tCla i ms15 T he D i s t r i ctC our t decl i ned t o di s turb t he j ur y ’ s damage aw ar d bas ed on br eac h of contr actunderbot h the 1988 A g ree m en t an d the R en d ell L ette r. C hai ney , 2 0 0 5 WL 3 2 6 3 0 4 2 , at * 3

– 4

. T h e c o u rt h e ld d e f e n d a n ts w a iv e d th e ir s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e agai ns t t he cont r actcl ai m s bas ed o n th e 1 9 8 8 A g re e m e n t b yf a ili n g to ra ise th e d e f

e n se u n til p o sttr ia l m o tio n s . I

d. at*4. I t also reje ct ed def endant s ’ ar gum ent t h a tM a yo rR e n d e l l w a s n o ta u t h o r i z e d t o b i n d t h e c i t y, c o n c lu d in g h e h a d a p p a re n t a u th o ri ty. I d. at*3. W e w i l l aff

i r m l i abi l i t yundert he 1988 A gr eement , but notunder the R endel l L et t er . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he aw ar d of cont r actual expec t at i on damages bas ed upon the 1988 A gree m ent and r ever s e the aw ar d of contr actual emot i onal d istress d am ag es b ase d o n the R en d ell L ett er.

1. 1988 A gr eem ent

a. St at ut e of

Li m i t at i ons D e f e n d a n ts c o n te n d th a t P e n n s ylv a n ia ’ s f o u r - ye a r sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons forw r i t t en contr act s bar s r ecove r y under t he 1988 A g re e m e n t. 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 5 5 2 5 (a )(8 ). D e f e n d a n ts m aintai n t he 1988 A gr eementexpi r ed no l at ert han N ovember 1996, r equi r i ng pl ai nt i ffs t o as s er tt hei r c la i m s byN ovember 2000. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound def endant s w ai ved the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e byfai l i ng t o t i m el yr ai s e i t

. W e agr ee. A ffi r m at i ve d ef

ens es s houl d be as s er t ed i n t he ap p rop ri ate resp o n sive p lead ing s. F ed

. R

. C iv. P. 8(c ). “F ail u re“ T h e p u rp o se o f re q u irin g th e d e f e n d a n t to p lea d a v a ilab le 5 aff i r m at i ve defens es i n hi s ans w eri s t o avoi d s urpr i s e and undue pr ej udi ce bypr o v idi ng t he pl ai nt i ff w i t h not i ce a nd t he o p p o rtu n ityto d e m o n stra te w h yth e a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se sh o u ld nots ucce ed. ” R obi ns on v. Johns on, 313 F. 3d 128, 134–35 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng B lo n d e r-T o n g u e L a b s., In c . v. U

n iv. o f Ill. Found. , 402 U

. S. 313, 350 ( 1971) )

. Per m i t t i ng t he l im it ati ons defe ns e af

t ert he cl os e of a l l evi dence contr adi ct s t he art i cul at ed purpos e of the rul e. 16 t o r ai s e an a ffi r m at i ve def ens e byr es pons ive pl eadi ng orby appr opr i at e mot i on gener al l yr es u lt s i n t he w ai verof that defe ns e. ” C ha rpenti er v . G o dsil , 9 3 7 F

. 2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 3 (3d C ir

. 1991)

. A lt h ough “a [ s t atut e of] l i m i t at i ons defe ns e does not

5
ne c e s s a r i l y h a v e t o b e r a i s e d i n t h e a n s wer [ , ]

. . . i t does not f o llo w th a t a lim ita tio n s d e f e n s e c a n b e ra is e d a t a n ytim e .” R obi ns on v. Johns on , 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In th is cas e, i tw as r ai s ed t oo l at e. A s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e, ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e in a p o st-tria l m o tio n , is g e n e ra lly w aive d

. See B r adf

or d- W hi t e C or p. v. E r ns t& W

hi nney , 872 F.2d 1 153, 1161 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( fi ndi ng s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e w ai ved w hen r ai s ed i n t he ans w er but n ev er p u r s ued u n til p o st-tr ia l m o tio n s); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. B i

g D E nt er pr is es , I nc. , 1 8 4 F. 3 d 9 2 4 , 9 3 5 ( 8 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( f i n d i ng s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e w ai ved w hen “[ a] ppel l ant s fai l ed t o r ai s e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum entunt i l t hei r pos t t r i al [ s ic ] m o tio n f

o r r e m ittit u r” ).17 D efen dan t s fi rs t rai sed t he st atute of l i m i t at i on s defen se to th e 1 9 8 8 A g re e m e n t in p o st-tria l m o tio n s. T h e yju stif yth e ir fai l ur e t o pl ead i tear l i erbycont endi ng t he 1988 A gr eementw as neverpl eaded nordi d i tbecome an art i cul at ed theoryof rec o v eryu n ti l m en ti o n ed in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u ry i ns t ruct i ons . B uti n t hei rA m ended Com pl ai nt , pl ai nt i ffs al l eged t hat“[d] efe ndant s br eac hed t he expr es s and i m pl i ed t er m s and condi t i ons of t he Set t l ement A gr eeme n t, the A l l i ed [ C o n s tru c tio n ] C o n tr a c t, an d th e ir o th e r le g a l o b lig a tio n s . . . ” and t ha t“ [a ] s a di r e c ta nd pr ox i mat e r e s ul tof

. . . D e fe nd a nts ’ b rea ch es o f th e S ett lem en t A g ree m en t, M ay o r R en d ell ’s D ece m ber22, 1999 l et t er , t he A l l i ed [Construct i on] C ont r act and r el at ed contr actual obl i gat ion s, . . . Pl ai nt i ffs w er e i nj ur ed

. . . . ” A l t hough i ts houl d have be en s p ec ifi cal l ypl eade d, t he r efe r ence t o “r el at ed cont r actual obl i gat i ons ” cove r s t he r el at ed contr actual obl i gat i on i n t he 1988 A gr eement

. Fur t her m or e, t he pr opos ed j ur yi ns t ru cti o ns expr es s l yr efe r ence d t he “1988 w arr antyagr eement ” as a t heory of r ecove r y . D efe ndant s r ai s ed n o o b je c tio n . I n B r adf or d- W hi t e C or p. v. E r ns t& W

hi nney , w e found a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e w ai ved w her e, ev en t hough p lea d e d in th e a n sw e r, it w a s n o t p u rsu e d b e f o re o r a t th e trial. 872 F. 2d at1160–61 ( defe ndant“di d notfi l e a m ot i on orpr es ent ar gum entbefor e the di s t r i ctcour ton t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons iss u e a t a n y tim e b e f

o re o r a t th e trial” ). A f

ter th e ju ryv e rd ict, defe ndant r ai s ed i t s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum ent s i n pos t

- t r i al mo t i o n s . We f

o u n d “ i two u l d b e g r o s s l yu n f a i rt o a l l o w aD efe ndant s ci t e no ca s e l aw , r efe r r i ng i ns t ead t o t he 6 R es t at ement ( Second) of C ont r act s § 304, w hi ch s t at es : “A pr om i s e i n a contr act cr eat es a dut y i n t he pr om isor to any i nt ended be nefi ci aryt o per for m t he pr om i s e, an d the i nt ended b e n e f ic ia ry m a ye n f

o rc e th e d u ty.”

18 pl ai nt i ff t o go t o t he expens e of t r y i ng a cas e onl yt o be met by a new defe ns e af

t ert r i al

. ” I

d. at1161. D efe ndant s her e neve r r ai s ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e t o t he 1988 A gr eement unt i l aft ert r i al

. T heyh ave w ai ved the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons d e f e n s e . D efe ndant s ci t e E ddy v. V i r gi n I s l ands W at er& Pow er A uth. , 256 F. 3d 204 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , as author i t yt o amend att he pos t

- t r i al s t age. I n E ddy , w e hel d t he def ens e of qua l i fi ed im m u n ityis n o t n e c e ss a rilyw a iv e d b ya d e f e n d a n t w h o f

a ils to r a i s e i t u n til th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e . I d. a t 2 1 0

. Edd

y is in a p p o s ite

. b . T h e C ity’s L ia b ili ty D efe ndant s cont end pl ai nt i ffs cannotr ecove ragai ns tt he ci t yas a mat t erof l aw beca us e the contr actual obl i gat i ons i n t he 1 9 8 8 A g re e m e n t ra n on l ybetw een the R edev elo p m e n t A u th o rity a n d th e c ity . C o n ten d in g o n lyth e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rity pr om i s ed t o r epai rpl ai nt i ffs ’ hom es , defe ndant s ar gue the R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rityw a s th e o n lyp a rtyre sp o n sib le to pl ai nt i ffs under t he 1988 A gr eement

. B ut t he ci tyassum ed 6
re sp o n sib ili tyto re p a ir p lain tiff s’ hou ses i n th e 1 9 8 6 A g re e m e n t.C ont r act s and B onds

. T he [C i t y L aw ] D epart m ent 7
s hal l pr epar e orappr ove al l contr act s , bonds and o th e r in stru m e n ts in w riting in w h ich th e C ityis conce r ned, and s hal l appr ove al l s ur etybonds r e q u i r e d t o b e g i v e n f

o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f

t h e C i t y. I ts hal l keep a pr op er r egi s t r yof al l s uch c o n tr a c ts , b o n d s a n d in s tru m e n ts

. 3 5 1 P a. C o d e § 4

. 4 -40 0 (c). C ont r act s . B efor e anycontr acts hal l be ef fec t i ve, 8 t he [Ci t y ] D i r ect orof Fi nance s hal l appr ove i tas 19 It th e n d e leg a ted th a t d u tyto th e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rityin the 1 9 8 8 A g ree m en t, an d p rom ised to f u n d the re p airs. B ef

o re paym ent , the R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y w as r equi r ed t o pr ovi de th e c ityw it h b ill s a n d v o u c h e rs. P lain tiff s w e re th ird -p a rty b en ef ic ia ri es o f th e 1 9 8 8 A g ree m en t, an d m ayp rop erlyasse rt cl ai m s bas ed on the 1988 A g r eementagai ns tbot h t he ci t yand t he R edeve l opm ent A ut hor i t y . A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he 1988 A gr eementw as a val i d bas i s fort he j u r y’ s c o n t r a c ta w a r d a g a i n s tt h e c i t y.

2. The R endel l

Let t er D efe ndant s cont end the R endel l L et t er w as not a bi ndi ng contr act beca us e i tl acke d t he appr oval of the C i t yL aw D epart m entand Fi nance D epart m entas r equi r ed byt he P h ila d e lp h ia H o m e R u le C h a rt e r. See 351 Pa. C ode § 4. 4- 400( c) ; 351 Pa. C ode § 6. 6-10 4

. Pl ai nt i ffs pr es ent ed no

7 8to th e a v a ilab ili ty o f a p p ro p ria ted f u n d s. H e sh a ll des i gnat e on eve r y s uch co n t r a c t , t he a p p ro p ria ti o n u n d e r w h ich it i s m a d e a n d sh a ll g iv e it a n u m b e r in th e o rd e r o f its d a te. H e sh a ll, i n t he or deri n w hi ch ea ch contr acti s num ber ed, cha rge the ap p rop ri ati o n o u t o f w hi ch expendi tur es t her eunderw i l l be made. 351 Pa. C ode § 6. 6- 104. 20 evi dence t hat t he C i t y L aw D epart m ent orFi nance D epart m ent pr epar ed or appr oved the R endel l L et t er . N onethel es s , pl ai nt i ffs c o n te n d d e f

e n d a n ts b o re th e b u rd e n a n d f a iled to p u t f

o rth e v id e n c e to sh o w th e lette r w a s n o t ap p ro v e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e P h ilad e lp h ia H o m e R u le C h a r ter . P lain tiff s a re in c o rre c t. U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , t he part y asse rt i ng t he val i di t yof a c o n tr a c t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f

. L i nn v. E m

ploye rs R e ins. C o r p ., 1 5 3 A .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 5 (P a . 1 9 5 9 ); H a zle to n A re a S c h . D ist. v . Kra sn o

ff , 6 7 2 A

. 2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 2 (P a. C o m m w . C t. 1 9 9 6 ). A ti s s ue i s w hether M ay or R endel l had ac tual orappar ent a u th o rityto c o n tra c t f

o r th e c ity , a b se n t th e a p p ro v a l o f th e C ity L a w a n d F in a n c e D e p a rtm e n ts. T h e P h ilad e lp h ia H o m e R u le C har t erpr ovi des : “the [C i t y L aw ] D epart m ent s hal l pr epar e or ap p rov e a ll co n tr ac ts .

. . . ” 3 5 1 P a. C o d e § 4 .4 -4 0 0 (c). F u r t h e r m o r e , “ [ b ] e f

o r e a n y c o n t r a c t s h a l l b e e f f e c t i v e , t h e [ C i t y] D i r ect orof Fi nance s hal l approv e i tas t o t he ava i l abi l i t yof appr opr i at ed funds

. ” 351 Pa. C ode § 6

. 6 -10 4

. U nder Penns y l vani a dec i s i onal l aw , governm entoffi ci al s cannotbi nd21 th e g o v e rn m e n t w ith o u t th e n e c e s s a ry st a tu to ry a p p ro v a l. See Ci t y of Sc r an t on v . Hef

f l e r, Rade t i c h & Sa i t t a, LLP , 871 A

. 2d 87 5, 88 0 (Pa. C om m w . C t

. 20 05 ) (“‘ W here a m un i ci pali t ym ust exec ut e a c ont r acti n a part i cul ar m an n erunderl egi s l at i ve pr onouncement , fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t h e pronounc ement r ender s t he contr act une nfor cea bl e. ’ ” ( quot i ng A l co Parki ng C or p. v. P ubl i c Parki ng A uth. of P i t t s bur gh , 706 A

. 2d 343, 348 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 9 8 ))); P i t t s bur gh B as ebal l

, I nc. v. St adi um A uth. of P i t t s bur gh , 6 3 0 A .2 d 5 0 5 , 5 0 8

– 0 9 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 1993) (f i ndi ng an or al contr actw i t h a ci t ym ay orw as not b in d in g o n th e c ity ); see al so In n e s v . Sc h . D ist. of

N ant i coke , 20 A

. 2 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 ( Pa

. 1 9 4 1 ) ( “ ‘ Pe r s o n s c o n t r a c t i n g wi t h a governm ent al agenc y m us t , at t hei r per i l , know t he ext entof the pow er of i t s offi cer s m aki ng t he contr act

. ’ ” ( quot i ng C har l er oi L um ber C o. v. Sch

. D ist

. o f B e n tl e y v ill e , 6 A

. 2d 88, 92 ( Pa. 1 9 3 9 )))

. I n Scr ant on , t he C om m onw eal t h C our tco n si der ed w h ethe r th e C ityo f S cra n ton co u ld b e li a b le fo r th e m ay o r’s w r i t t en pr om i s e t o pay pl ai nt i ff t o audi tm edi cal cl ai m s pai d by t he ci t y ’ s i ns ur ance carr i er . A ft erpl ai n ti ff submi t t ed i nvoi ces f o rs e v e r a l m o n t h s o f a u d i t i n g s e r v i c e s , t h e c i t y r e f u s e d t o p a y. Fi ndi ng t he s t atut or yr equi r ements forexec ut i on of m uni ci pal contr act s m andat or y , t he courthel d t her e w as no l egal l ybi ndi ng co n tr ac t. Scr ant on , 8 7 1 A

. 2 d at 88 0

. T h e C ityo f S cra n ton ’s A dm i ni s t r at i ve C ode pr ovi ded “a l l contr act s m us tbe r evi ew ed and appr oved by t he C i t y Sol i ci t or and s i gned by t he M ay orand t he C ont r ol l erort hei rdes i gnat ed s ubs t i tut es and att es t ed t o by22 t he C i t yC l er k. ” Id

. B eca us e thes e r equi r ement s had notbeen m e t, th e c o u rt f

o u n d n o v a lid c o n tr a c t. I d. Si m i l ar l yi n P itts b u r

g h B a s e b a ll, I

n c ., pl ai n ti ff

w as at t em pt i ng t o enfor ce a n al l eged or al pr om i s e byt he may orof t he C i t yof Pi tt sbur gh t o contr i but e $25 mi l l i on t ow ar ds t he p u rc h a se a n d o p e ra tio n o f th e P itt sb u rg h P ira tes b a se b a ll fr anchi s e. T he C om m onw eal t h C our thel d t he al l eged or al contr actw i t h t he m ay o r w as notbi ndi ng on t he ci t yw her e the re lev a n t cityc o d e re q u ire d a ll co n tra c ts w ith th e c ityto b e in w riting a n d to b e sig n e d b yth e m a y o r a n d a p p ro p ria te depart m enthead a nd w her e the Phi l adel phi a H om e R ul e C har t er r equi r ed t hat al l contr act s i nvol vi ng ci t yaff ai r s be author i zed by re s o lu tio n o f

th e c ity c o u n c il. P i t t

sb ur gh B as ebal l

, I nc. , 630 A

. 2d a t5 0 8

– 0 9

. Con s t ru i n g t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a tut e, th e P h ilad e lp h ia H o m e R u le C h a rte r, an d P e n n sy lv a n ia d e c isio n a l la w , w e f

in d th e R e n d e ll le tter lac k e d a c tu a l au th o rity t o b i n d t h e c i t y. E v e n if lac k in g a c tu a l au th o rity , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th e m a y o r h a d a p p a re n t au th o rityto b in d th e c ity : “[ It] m a yw e ll be [that t he m ay or l acke d actual author i t y ] , buthe ce r t ai nl yhad appar entauthor i t y. . . . ” C hai ney , 2 0 0 5 W L 3 2 6 3 0 4 2 , a t* 3

. To es t abl i s h appar entauthor i t y , a thi r d par t ym us tdemonst r at e that he r eas onabl yr el i ed on hi s agent ’s a l l eged a ppear ance of a u th o ri ty. R evere P ress , Inc. v. B l um berg , 246 A

. 2d 407, 410 (P a. 1 968)

. C i t i ng W

i l l i am B

. TannerC o. , I

nc . v. W IO O , I nc. , 528 F. 2 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 5 ) , p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t t hey r eas onabl ybel i eved t he m ay or , as t he ci t y ’ s chi ef e xecut i ve, had23 t he pow ert o contr actual l ybi nd t he ci t y . I n Tanner , an age ntof a r adi o s t at i on w ho h el d hi m s el f outas a gene r al m anage r e n ter e d in to c o n tr a c ts o n b e h a lf o f th e ra d io sta tio n . W e h e ld t hata r eas onabl e per s on m i ghtbel i eve the r adi o s t at i on gave the a g e n t a u th o ri ty. Id

. at266–67. B utt hat c ase di d noti nvol ve a p p a re n t au th o ri ty w h e re a s ta tu te , o rd in a n c e , o r i n th is c a s e , a s t atut e and a ci t yhom e rul e cha r t erdi ct at ed the appr oval n e c e s s a r y t o b i n d t h e c i t y. W her e a s t atut e gi ves pub li c n ot i ce of t he r equi r ed p ro c e d u re s f

o r g o v e rn m e n tal c o n tra c t ap p ro v a l, P e n n sy lv a n ia cour t s hav e h eld t her e i s no appar entauthor i t yforcontr act i ng g o v e rn m e n t a g e n ts w h o a re n o t a u th o ri z e d b yth e s ta tu te

. See B e r kh e im e rA s s o c ia te s v . N o r c o Mo to rs , 842 A

. 2d 966, 970–71 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 20 0 4 ); Kra sn o ff , 672 A

. 2d at862. I n N or co , t he C om m onw eal t h C our tr efus ed t o enfor ce a s et t l ement agr eementbetw een a lo ca l t ax col l ect orand a t axpay erover t ow ns hi p and s chool di s t r i ctdel i nquentt axes beca us e i tw as not appr oved bya maj or i t yvot e of the s chool boar d, as r equi r ed by t he Publ i c School C ode forcon t r act s exce edi ng $100. T he tax p a y e r c o n ten d e d th e tax c o llec to r h a d a p p a re n t au th o rityto s et t l e, ci t i ng cas e l aw hol di ng t hata l aw y erm ays om et i m es have appar entauthor i t y to sett l e a c as e on beha l f of the cl i enteven a b s e n t e x p re s s a u th o ri ty. N or co , 8 4 2 A

. 2 d at 96 9

– 7 0

. In r ej ect i ng t hi s ar gum ent , t he courtfound, “the ca s es r el i ed on by N o rco an d the tri al co u rt d o n o t inv o lve a sc h o o l distri ct w h ere a sta tu te p u ts all p e rso n s d e a lin g w ith it o n n o tice th a t co n tra c ts over$100. 00 r equi r e appr oval of the s chool boar d. ” Id

. at970.M or eover , t he di s cus s i on of equi t abl e es t oppel i n Scr ant on 9
couns el s agai ns tfi ndi ng appar entauthor i t y . T he Scr ant on co u rt cons idere d w hetherequi t abl e es t oppel bound t he ci t y , and con cl ud ed thaten ter in g int o a co ntr actw i t ho ut the ex press a p p r o v a l o f

t h e s o l i c i t o rwa s u n r e a s o n a b l e a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, gi v en t he r equi r ement s of the Scr ant on A dm i ni s t r at i ve C ode. S crant on , 8 7 1 A. 2 d a t 8 8 2

. Th e u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s w as par t i cul ar l ym ani fes tcons i der i ng t hatt he pl ai nt iff rel i ed upon sta tem e n ts f

ro m a “ m e m b e r[ ] o f

th e o u tg o in g a d m in istra tio n in i t s w ani ng m ont hs

. ” I

d. at881. 24 Si m i l ar l yi n Kra sn o

ff , t he C om m onw eal t h C our tr ej ect ed th e a rg u m e n t th a t sc h o o l b o a rd m e m b e rs h a d a p p a re n t au th o rity t o contr actabs entappr o v al b y a maj or i t yvot e of the s chool boar d. I n Kra sn o

ff , an ar chi t ectcontr act ed w it h t he s chool di s t r i ctt o per for m r enovat i ons . A ft erm ee ti n g w i t h i ndi vi dual s chool boar d m ember s , t he archi t ectpr ovi ded s er vi ces bey ond the s co p e o f h is origina l con tr ac t. T h e C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt det er m i ned the P ubl i c School C ode r equi r ed appr oval byan aff i r m at i ve vot e of t he school boar d t o cr eat e a bi ndi ng contr act for t he ad dit i on al ser vices

. Kra sn o ff , 6 7 2 A. 2 d a t 8 62 ( ci t i ng 9 Mat evis h v. S ch

. D is t

. of R am ey , 7 4 A .2 d 7 9 7 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1950) )

. C ons i s t ent w i t h t hes e cas es , t he R endel l L et t ercannot cons t i tut e a bi ndi ng contr actas the may or l acke d bot h actual and a p p a re n t a u th o rity u n d e r th e P h ilad e lp h ia H o m e R u le C h a rte r to e n te r i n to s u c h a c o n tr a c t. See 351 Pa. C ode § 4. 4- 400( c) ; 351 Pa. C ode § 6. 6- 104.25 A l t ernat i vel y , pl ai nt i ffs cont end defe ndant s r at i fi ed t he R endel l L et t er . “I ti s w el l s et t l ed thata m u n ic i pal corpor at i on m ayr at i fycontr act s w hi ch ar e w i t hi n i t s corpor at e pow er s and m a d e byi t s officer s w i t ho ut aut ho ri t y , or i n ex cess of th e ir author i t y . ” E c ke rt v . P ier o tti , 5 5 3 A. 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 8 ( P a . Co mm w. C t

. 1989)

. A “muni ci pal i t ym ayw ai ve an i r r egul ar i t yof a m u n ic ip a l co n tr a c t an d ra tif yth a t c o n tr a c t.” S c r a n to n , 871 A

. 2d at881 ( ci t i ng E ckert , 55 3 A

. 2d at11 8). R at i fi cat i on m aycon si st of af fi r m at i ve ac t i on byt he pr operoffi ci al s or by ot heract i on or i nact i on t hatamount s t o appr oval of the contr actundert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id

. B ut w her e a pr evi ous l yu n aut hor i zed contr acti s r etr oact i vel y r at i fi ed bypos t

- contr actappr oval , s uch po st -cont ractrat i fi cat i on m ustbe ap proved by“every on e w ho se appr oval w as [pr evi ous l y ] r equi r ed underappl i cabl e l aw . ” I d. ; se e a lso P itt

sb u rg h B a se b a ll , I

nc. , 630 A

. 2d at 509 ( fi ndi ng no ra tific a tio n ); c

f. E ckert , 553 A

. 2d at118 ( hol di ng r at i fi cat i on exi s t ed bas ed upon form al pos t

- contr act appr oval of the contr act ati s s ue)

. I n Scr a nt on , w her e the courtfound the al l eged contr actl acke d t he r equi r ed appr oval of the ci t ys ol i ci t or , among ot her s , t he courtal s o hel d t hatt her e w as no pos t

- contr act r at i fi cat i on beca us e t he evi dence “r evea l [ed no] appr oval of the C i t ySol i ci t or ” betw een t he t i m e of t he contr act and t he al l eged ra tif ic a tio n . Scr ant on , 8 7 1 A

. 2d at881. Si m i l ar l yher e, pl ai nt i ffs pr es ent ed no evi dence of pos t

- contr actappr oval fr om ei t hert he C i t yL aw D epart m ent or Fi nance D epart m ent , s o t hey cannotes t abl i s h r at i fi cat i on.

3. C ontr act ualD am agesT he D i s t r i ctC our tm ol ded the $2. 4 m i l l i on aw ar d t o cover 10 th e ju ry ’s a w a rd s f

o r th e c o n tra c tu a l em o tio n a l d istre ss c laim a n d 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. 26 D efe ndant s cont end t he aw ar d of cont r actual emot i onal d istr e s s d am ag es sh o u ld b e o v erturn ed

. T h e tri al co u rt e x p lain e d to th e ju ry : “I in stru c t y o u th a t o n lyth e [ R e n d e ll L ett er] is el igible fo r e m o ti o n al d istress d am ag es . . . . ” T h e jury aw arded $ 10 0, 00 0 per pl ai nti ff i n em oti on al dis t res s dam ages. I n deny i ng t he mot i on for a new t r i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl i ned t o over tur n t he aw ar d of emot i onal di s t r es s dam ag es t ot al i ng $ 2 .4 m ill io n . B e c a u se th e R e n d e ll L e tter w a s n o t a v a lid

10
c o n tra c t, th is a w a rd m u st b e o v e rtu rn e d a s w e ll. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ec li n ed to o v erturn the ju ry ’s aw ard of $150, 000 i n expec t at i on damages bas ed on t he R endel l L et t er and the 1988 A gr eement

. T he t r i al cour t i ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hey coul d aw ar d expec t at i on d amages fora br eac h of anyof the t hr ee c ont r act s . T he tr i al cour ti ns t ruct ed that the par t i es had s t i pul at ed thatexpec t at i on damages s houl d be the s ame w hether t he j ur yfound thatone oral l of the pot ent i al contr act s had bee n b re a c h e d : “[ I]f y o u f

in d th a t th e re w e re th re e c o n tra c ts, a n d a ll t hr ee of t hem w er e br eac hed, y ouraw ar d w oul d be t he same as if th e re w a s b u t o n e c o n tra c t b re a c h e d .” T h e ju ryf o u n d th e c ity br eac h e d t wo o f

t h e c o n t r a c t s , t h e 1 9 8 8 Agr e e me n ta n d t he R endel l L et t er . A ccor di ngl y , t he br eac h of the 1988 A gr eement su p p o rts th e ju ry ’s a w a rd o f e x p e c tatio n d a m a g e s. W e w ill affirm t he jur yaw ard of co ntr actual expectat i on dam ages.T he ci t yand the R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t ym ade r epai r s at 11
s i gni fi cantexpens e, butoft en thes e r epai r s w er e s ubs t andar d or t e mp o r a r y . S o me h o me o wn e r s t e s t i f i e d t h e yp a i d f

o rt h e i ro wn r epai r s beca us e the ci t yei t herdi d notr es pond pr om p tl y or s i mp l yf a i l e d t o c o r r e c tc e r t a i n p r o b l e ms . Th e p r o b l e ms per s i s t ed foral m o st t en y ear s . I n 1997, t he A r m yC orp of E ngi neer s r epor tnot ed s ev era l de fi ci enci es i n t he homes a nd es t i m at ed the c os tof r epai r s ats l i ght l yl es s t han $1. 7 m i l l i on. A s not ed, i n 1999, t he R edeve l opm entA ut hor i t yh ir ed A l l i ed C on struct i o n a n d p ai d ap proxim at el y$2 m i l l i on for r epair s. Soon t her eaf

t er , A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on r eques t ed a n addi t i onal

27 B

. Su bst an t i ve D ue P rocess T he j ur yaw ar ded $152, 083. 33 perpl ai nt i ff f or s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i ons , cons i s t i ng o f $ 70, 000 per p lain tiff in c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s a g a in st M a y o r Jo h n S tr e e t, $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 p e r p l a i n t i f

f i n c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e s a g a i n s tt h e c i t y, and $52, 083. 33 per pl ai nt i ff i n puni t i ve damages agai ns tM ay or J ohn St r eeti n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y ( $3. 65 m i l l i on t ot al )

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr educe d t hi s aw ard t o $2. 4 m i l l i on, s t r i ki ng t he puni t i ve damages , and aw ar ded thi s amou n tbas ed on both t he em oti on al dis t res s c lai m s and the subst anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m s , fi ndi ng t he j ur yaw ar ds on t hes e cl ai m s dupl i cat i ve. C hai ney , 2005 W L 3263042, at*5–6. P l ai nti ffs con t end t he jur y ’s subst a nti ve d ue p rocess v e rd ict w a s g ro u n d e d in e v id e n c e th e c itym a d e in a d e q u a te r epai r s an d t hen us ed s t r ong- ar m t act i cs t o r emove pl ai nt i ffs

11$ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 to c o m p lete th e re p a irs. B u t b yth e e n d o f 1 9 9 9 , it i ncr eas ed thatamount t o $2. 9 m i l l i on. A s not ed, t he ci t ydet er m ined t he fa i r - m ar ketval ue of the 12 hous es as of M ay 1 2 , 1985, w as appr oxi m at el y$26, 000 per hous e, or$1 , 5 86, 000 t ot al

. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ expertr epor tes t i m at ed t hatas o f M ar ch 23, 2005, pl ai nt i ffs w oul d need t o be rei m bu rs ed “in t he n ei gh b o rh o o d o f $2 50 , 00 0” fo r each ho use in o rd e r to re lo c a te to a sim ilar h o u se in a n o th e r P h ilad e lp h ia n e i g h b o r h o o d

. P l a i n t i f

f s we r e l i v i n g i n t h e i rh o me s a tt h e t i me o f th e trial. 28 fr om t hei r “def

ect i ve” hom es . M ay orJ ohn St r eett ook offi ce 12 i n J anuary2000, as w o rk on the homes s t al l ed. O vert he next fe w m o n ths, c ityag en cies d ec ided the c o n ti n u ing co st of rep airs w oul d exce ed A l l i ed C ons t ruct i on’ s es t i m at es . Dur i n g th i s t i m e, M a y o rJ o h n S t r e e tme twi t h h o me o wn e r s o n a t l e a s tt wo occa s i ons . A ccor di ng t o s ever al hom eow ner s , he i ni t i al l ygave t he i m pr es s i on t hat t he r epai r w or k w oul d r es um e. A ta meet i ng i n A pri l 20 00 , he st at ed thatt he cityw ou l d inspectal l ho uses. I n J une 2000, aft eri ns pect i ng t he hom es , t he D epart m ent of L i cens es and Ins pect i on not ed an or i gi nal cons t ruct i on defe ct i nvol vi ng cert ai n ai rvent s t hr ough w hi ch ca rbo n m onoxi de coul d pos s i bl yent ert he homes. B ut t he D epart m entof Li cens es and I ns pect i on concl uded thi s defe ctdi d notr ender t he homes i m m i nent l y danger ous . L es s t han one m ont h l at er , i n J ul y2000, th e m a y o r se n t th e h o m e o w n e rs a lette r a sk in g th e m to c o m e toT he off er w as $125, 000 fort he home and $25, 000 for 13
re lo c a tio n e x p e n s e s . O n e h o m e o w n e r, w h o h a s a c u te a sth m a , tes tifie d th a t a 14
carbon m ono x i de s y s t em she i ns t al l ed i n 1987 had neve rgone o f f

. 29 C ity H a ll o n J u ly 2 1

. H om eow ner s t es t i fi ed theyexpec t ed M ay orJ ohn St r eet t o expl ai n how t he ci t y w oul d r es t ar t r epai r s . I ns t ead, t he may or h an d ed ea ch o f th em a lett er stati n g th a t th eir ho m es w ere “i m m i nent l ydanger ous ” bec aus e of pos s i bl e ca rbon m onoxi de pr obl ems w i t h t he ai rvent s . T he l et t er gave the homeow ner s t en d ay s t o acc ept$150, 000 fr om t he ci t yi n excha nge forl eavi ng t hei rhom es w i t h in forty - s even da y s , bySept ember 6, 2000. 13 T h e lett er e x p lai n ed that if an o w n er d id n o t ac ce p t th e o ff er, “the C i t y w il l have no c hoi ce butt o t ake y ourpr oper t yby e m in e n t d o m a in p ro c e e d in g s .” T her e w as ev ide nce pr es ent ed att r i al t hatt he ci t yand M ay or Joh n S t reet“m anu fact ured” t he “im m i nen t l ydan gerous” d esig n ati o n to p ressu re the h o m eo w n ers to a c c ep t th e c ity ’s offe rand move out

. T h e ai rvent s w er e i ns t al l ed i n 1987, but everyhom eow nerw ho t es t i fi ed about t he i s s ue— m os tof w hom ha d d e t e c t o r s i n t h e i r h o me s

— s t a t e d t h e y e x p e r i e n c ed no pr obl ems w i t h carbon m onoxi de. I n A ugus t2000, s om e of the 14 hom eow ner s hi r ed a pr i vat e contr act or w ho t es t ed tw el ve homes a n d f o u n d n o sig n s o f

c a rb o n m o n o x id e . A c c o rd in g to o n e c ityFor exampl e, one pl ai nt i ff e xpl ai ned that“I don’ tt hi nk t he 15 C i t yhas a r i ghtt o for ce me t o s el l m y hous e t o t hem or t o m ove outof the nei ghbor hood t hat I chos e t o be i n, ” w hi l e another t es t i fi ed thathe “w oul d never t r ade [hi s nei ghbor s ] foranyt hi ng in th e w o rl d .” 30 offi ci al , i t w oul d have t aken onl yaboutone mont h t o r epl ace t he heat er s i f the ci t y h ad chose n t o r emedyt he “a i rventi s s ue” rather t han declar e t he h om es im m i nen t l ydan gerous. Si gni fi cant l y , j us tw eeks befor e the Ju l y2000 m eet i ng, t he D epart m entof Li cens es and I ns pect i on concl uded thatt he h o m e s w e re n o t im m in e n tly d a n g e ro u s. E v e n d e f e n d a n ts “a cc ep t on ap p ea l th at t h e jury co u ld h av e f o u n d M ay o r S tr ee t’ s J ul y 21 l et t er w as at l eas t par t l y pr et extual , and t hatt he var i ous decl ar at i ons w er e mot i vat ed atl eas ti n par t t o for ce [ p] l ai nt i ffs t o acc eptt he M ay or ’ s $150, 000 offe r . ” B r i ef f orD efe ndant s at 55

. B u t d efen dan t s al so asser tt hat these “i m proper m oti ves” w er e notl egal l ycogni zabl e bec aus e the amount offe r ed fort he hom es w as r eas onabl e and the m ay or ’ s act i ons w er e notfor p e rs o n a l g a in

. T w e n ty -f

o u r h o m e o w n e rs, th e p lain tiff s in th is s u it, rejected the c ity ’s of

fe r. A cc o rdin g to the irtest im o n y , theyw ere ups etbyhow t he ci t yhad tr eat ed them for y ear s , t heybel i eved they h ad been l i ed t o byM ay orJ ohn St r eet , t heydi d nott hi nk t he ci t y ’ s fi nanci al offe rw as fai r , and t hey s i m pl ydi d notw ant to m o v e. S o o n af

ter d e c id ing to rejec t th e m ay o r’s of fe r, 15 p lain tiff s o b tain e d in

ju n c ti v e re lief

in sta te c o u rt. B u t th e c ity31 a ll e g e d lyc o n tin u e d to p re ss u re th e m to m o v e o u t. In A u g u st, t he ci t ygas agenc ytur ned off gas and w at erheat er s i n t he h o me s b e c a u s e o f a n “ u n s a f e c o n d i t i o n ” a n d “ r e d

- t a g g e d ” t h e m, m ea n ing theyco u ld n o t b e u sed

. B yO ctob er, a stat e c o u rt enj o i n e d t h e c i t yf

r o m de mol i s h i n g t h e h o me s wi t hout conduct i ng ful l emi nentdom ai n pr ocee di ngs and or der ed the ci t yt o p ayfor r eplacem ent heat ers . In decl i ning t o o vertu rn the sub st anti ve d ue p rocess d a ma g e s a wa r d , J u d g e F u l l a m h e l d t h a t “ [ n ] o t wi t ho ut s ome di ffi cul t y , I concl ude t hat r eas onabl e m i nds coul d w el l di ffe ras to w h e th e r th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ a c tio n s in th is c a se w e re su f f icie n tly e g re g io u s to c o n s titu te a v io la tio n o f s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s .” C hai ney , 2005 W L 3263042, at*4. B ut t he cour t not ed that“the iss u e is n o t o f c ru c ial im p o rta n c e , sin c e . . . I co n c lu d e th a t m o st, i f notal l , of the damages at t r i but abl e t o t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr ocess vi ol at i on w oul d al s o be r ecove r abl e unders om e of pl aintiffs’ ot hert heor i es . . . . ” I d. H ol di ng t hatover l appi ng damages w er e aw arde d fort he emot i onal di s t r es s and s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im s , th e c o u rt m o ld e d th e v e rd ic t. I d. a t* 5

. As n o t e d , we wi l l o v e r tu r n t h e e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s c l a i m. T h e re f o re th e $ 2 .4 m ill io n d a m a g e a w a rd w ill d e p e n d e n tirely o n t h e v i a b i l i t yo f

t h e 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. T h e trial c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju r yth a t p lain tiff s c o u ld r ecove r damages for s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i ons b as ed upon: “ p h y s i c a l p a i n , e mot i o n a l p a i n a n d s u f f e r i n g , me nt al angui s h, di s comfort , i nconveni ence , l os s of enj oym entof l i fe, di s t r es s , emb arr as s m ent , and humi l i at i on. ” The bas es fort he32 s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , i ns t ruct ed t he t r i al cour t , w er e the ci t y ’ s al l eged f

ai l ur e t o r epai rt he hous es, t he “r ed- t aggi ng” of ho uses i n the nei gh bo rhood , t he o ffer to pu rchase pl ai nti ffs’ hous es , t he thr eatt o s ei ze the hous es t hr ough emi nentdom ai n, and t he char ge t hat t he hous es w er e i m m i nent l ydanger ous . T he j ur yi ns tru c t i ons l i m i t ed the r el evantconductt o t he ci t y ’ s act i ons b e tw e e n Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 0 a n d th e p re se n t. D efe ndant s cont end pl ai nt i ffs cannotr ecove ron a su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim b e c a u se p lain tiff s n e v e r p ro p e rly proved da m ages foremot i onal di s t r es s . I n or dert o r ecove r com pen sat orydam ages fo r m ental dis t res s, a plai nti ff m ust p re s e n t e v id e n c e o f a c tu a l in ju ry. G unby v. P enns

ylvani a E l ec . C o. , 840 F. 2d 1108, 1121 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng C ar ey v . P i phus , 4 3 5 U .S . 2 4 7 (1 9 7 8 ); Spence v. B d. of E duc. of C hr is t i na Sch. D ist. , 806 F. 2d 1198, 1200 ( 3d C i r . 1986) )

. I n G u n b y , w e h e ld that test im o n yo f a d isap p o inted job ap p li ca n t th at h e w as “ v ery ups et ” w as i ns uffi ci entt o s upport an aw ar d foremot i onal di s t r es s . 840 F. 2d at 1 1 2 0–22. I n C ar ey , the S u p rem e C o u rt n o te d th a t “ [ a ]l th o u g h e s s e n tia l l y s u b je c tiv e , g e n u in e in

ju ry . . . m a yb e e v id e n c e d b yo n e ’s c o n d u c t a n d o b s e rv e d b yo th e rs .” 4 3 5 U

. S

. at 26 4 n . 2 0

. C o m p eten t ev iden ce is r eq u ir ed to su p p o rt a d a m a g e a w a rd f

o r a n in ju ry. Id

. ( ci t i ng G er t

z v. R ober tW

el ch, In c ., 4 1 8 U .S

. 3 2 3 , 3 5 0 (19 7 4 )). D efe ndant s cont end the t es t i m ony o f s ever al pl ai nt i ffs fai l s t o demonst r at e thatt he fai l ure t o p roperl yrepa irt he h ou ses caused em oti on al dis t res s dam ages. D efe ndant s poi ntt o vary ing t es t i m onyon i nj ur yand33 d a m a g e s f

ro m th e tw e n ty -f

o u r p lain tiff

s, b re a k in g d o w n th e ir t es t i m onyi nt o fi ve ca t egor i es . Fi r s t , s om e pl ai nt i ffs t es t i fi ed th e y s u f f e re d n o h a rm . See, e. g. , T r i al T r . at 91 ( M ar . 29, 2005) ( “Q : A nd M s . C ampbel l , h av e y o u s uffe r ed, had anyt ype of m edi cal

— s t r i ke that

. H ave y ou s uffe r ed i n anyw aybeca us e of t hi s i nci dent ? A : N o, m a’ am. ”)

. Second, s om e pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o t e s t i f yt h a tt h e ys u f

f e r e d a n y e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . Th i r d , s o me pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m ed emot i onal har m , butt es t i fi ed the harm w as ca u sed b ythe 1 9 8 5 M O V E b o m b ing , rathe r th an b ythe c ity ’s l at er act i on s: Q : M r . W i l l i am s , have y ou and y our fami l ys uffe r ed fr om t hi s s i tuat i on? A : Q u ite a b it. Q: Ho w? A : W el l , w e’ ve had c ouns el i ng aft er 1 9 8 5 , mys o n s , mywi f

e a n d I , we s oughtcouns el i ng. Q : O k ay . A nd i s couns el i ng of the w h o l e f a m i l y– A : W el l , back t hen , y es. Q: An d t h i s i s d u e f r o m? A : F ro m th e o rig in a l f ire , rig h t. Q : A r e y ou s t i l l s eeki ng anyt ype of c o u n s e l i n g n o w? A : N o . J u s t s tr e s s e d

. T ri a l T r. a t 7 6 (M a r. 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). See a l so T ri al T r. at 17 (M ar. 31, 2005) ( “Q : D i d y ou ory ourfami l ys eek a nym edi cal34 t r eatm entbeca us e of thi s i nci dent ? A : I n t he begi nni ng, aft er the b o m b w as d rop p ed

. . . . ”). Fo u rth , so m e p lai n ti ff s w ere u n c l e a rwh e t h e rt h e i rh a r m a r o s e f r o m th e 1 9 8 5 M OVE b o m b ing o r fro m the a ll eg ed Ju ly2 0 0 0 b rea ch , an d all eg e h arm t hatt he ci t ydi d notcaus e: Q : H ow did y ou r fam i l y suffer becau se o f th is in c id e n t? A : W ell , m ym o ther a n d them

– sh e’s ol d

. . . and s he can’ t do n o thi ng. A nd m yfather , . . . he di ed l as ty ear

. . . . Q : W e ll, let m e a sk y o u , i s th a t in re latio n to w h a t h a p p e n e d w ith th is M [ O V E ] in c id e n t? A : Y eah— no— I m ean, y eah, y eah. Q: I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a th as happene d t o t he m th r ough s uffe r i ng b e c a u se o f

th e M [ O V E ] in c id e n t? A : S h e go t O ld T im ers , A lth eim er’s (sic ), w h a t d o y o u c a ll i t? Q : A l zheim er’ s? A : Y es. T r i al T r . at 116–17 ( M ar . 30, 2005)

. Fi fth, s om e pl ai nt i ffs gave vague t es t i m onyabout“s uffe r i ng” bec aus e of “ t hi s i nci dent ” or notbei ng s ecur e bec aus e of “ t hi s s i tuat i on. ” See, e. g. , T ri al T r. at109, 155 ( M ar . 30, 2005)

. D efe ndant s cont end thi s t es t i m ony i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tr ecove ryforemot i onal di s t r es s and35 co u ld rela te eith er to the 1 9 8 5 M O V E b o m b ing o r th e c ity ’s l at er act i on s. A tt he s ame t i m e, s om e pl ai nt i ffs t es t i fi ed t heys uffe r ed damages fr om t he ci t y ’ s act i ons . O ne r es i dentt es t i fi ed s he devel oped hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, l os tw ei ght , and coul d nots l eep aft ert he J ul y2000 m eet i ng w i t h M ay orJ ohn St r eet

. T r i al T r . at 3 5

– 3 7 (M ar. 31 , 2 0 0 5 ). S o m e re sid e n ts s e n t th e c itya lette r in A ugus t2000 i ndi cat i ng the yneede d s t r es s couns el i ng, and ot her s t es t i fi ed t o t he i ndi gni t yof l i vi ng i n a nei ghbor hood fi l l ed w ith b o a rd e d -u p h o u s e s . See, e. g. , T ri al T r. at 50 , 9 8

– 9 9 (M ar. 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). J udge Ful l am faced a di ffi cul tand s ensit ive t as k. Inh erit ing a c ase tr ied by an o ther jud g e, he w as o b li g ed to so rt t hroug h som e con t radi ct ory rul i ng s an d juryi nst ruct i on s. A s a co n s e q u e n c e , h e d i d n otr eac h oraddr es s defe ndant s ’ s uffi ci ency of the evi dence ar gum ent

. N ordi d he ana l y ze the s ub stan ti ve due pr oces s cl ai m beca us e “the i s s ue i s notof cruci al i m por t ance , s i nce . . . I concl ude that m o s t , i f notal l , of the damages at t r i but abl e t o t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oce ss v i ol at i on w oul d al s o b e r ecove r abl e unders om e of pl ai nt i ffs ’ ot her t heor i es . . . . ” C hai ney , 2005 W L 3263042, at*4. B utas not ed s upr a, th e se d a m a g e s a re n o t r e c o v e ra b le u n d e r th e R e n d e ll L e tter. T h u s, a n a n a ly sis o f th e su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim is n o w c ru c ia l. I n addi t i on, t he courterr oneous l y r el i ed upon a fi ct i t i ous s t i pul at i on t hat“i f pl ai nt i ffs w er e ent i t l ed t o r ecove rdamages36 for‘ emot i onal di s t r es s ’ eac h s etof pl ai nt i ffs s houl d be aw ar ded t he s ame a m ount of m oney . . . . ” I d. at *1. T he courthel d, as a r es ul t , “couns el m us t be deemed t o have s t i pul at ed t hat ea ch set of plai nti ffs w as to be aw arded t he sam e am ou nt of dam ages, if damages w er e found t o be r ecove r abl e. ” I d. Butn o s uch stip u latio n e x ists. P o st-b rie f in g , w e d ire c ted a ll p a rties to id e n tifyth e re c o rd c itatio n f o r th e p u rp o rte d stip u latio n , o r if w r i t t en, t o pr ovi de a co p y . I n l et t erbr i ef r es pons es , nei t her p artyw as a b le t o iden ti fyit

. D ef en d an ts asserted that “w e a re notaw ar e of s uch a s t i pul at i on. ” T he onl ys t i pul at i on i dent i fi ed b yp lain tiff

s w a s th a t d a m a g e s f

o r b re a c h o f

o n e c o n tra c t w o u ld be the s ame r egar dl es s of how m anycontr act s w er e br eac hed. T hi s i s nota cl as s act i o n su it ; eac h pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove he ors he i s ent i t l ed t o damages

. T her e ar e tw enty - fours et s of pl ai nt i ffs ow ni ng s epar at e h om es and pr es ent i ng di ffe r entand att i m es contr as t ing vi ew s of the eve nt s i n ques t i on, i ncl udi ng cau sat i on and damages

. E ven i n the cl as s act i on cont ext , t he abi l i t yof ea ch pl ai nt i ff t o pr ov e damages i s oft en a ke yi s s ue. See New t on v. Mer r i l l Lynch, P i er ce, Fenner & Sm i th, I nc. , 259 F. 3d 154, 188 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “The abi l i t y t o cal cu lat e the aggr egat e amount of damages does not abs ol ve pl ai nt i ffs fr om t he d utyt o p rove each i nv est or w as harm ed b yt he d efen dan t s’ p rac ti ce . ”). B y rely ing u p o n the erron eo u s sti p u lat ion , the c o u rt rev iew ed the s u ff

ici en cyo f th e su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess a w ardI ti s al s o l i kel yt hatt he court ’ s err oneous reli an ce on “ t he 16 st i pu l at i on ” ex p l ai ns t he ab sence o f other i m po rt ant anal y ses. T he courtdi d notr eac h defe ndant s ’ al t ernat i ve mot i on fora new t r i al bas ed on pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ur e t o pr ove t hat defe ndant s ’ act i ons caused em oti on a l di s tr e s s . T he co urton l yadd res sed def end ants ’ new t r i al r eques t al l egi ng i m pr opercr os s - exami nat i on of M ay or J ohn St r eet

. A l s o, t he cour t not ed t he l ack of “s i gni fi cant obj ect ion s to the court ’ s char ge, ” buti tdi d notr evi ew t he c h a rg e f o r p la in e rr o r. See F e d

. R

. C iv . P . 5 1 (d )(2 ); A l exande r v. R iga , 2 0 8 F .3 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 6

– 2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 37 c o l l e c t i v e l y i n s t e a d o f

i n d i v i d u a l l y. 16 A lso , the c o u rt f

a iled to a d d re ss w a iv e r w ith re sp e c t to bot h pl ai nt i ffs and defe ndant s on t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence iss u e . “[ A ] d e f

e n d a n t’s f

a ilu re to ra ise a n iss u e in a R u le 50( a) ( 2) m ot i on w it h s uffi ci ents peci fi ci t yt o putt he pl ai nt i ffs o n n o tice w a iv e s th e d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to ra ise th e iss u e in th e ir R ul e 50( b) m ot i on. ” W

i l l i am s v. R unyon , 130 F. 3d 568, 571–72 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). B u t i f a p lai n ti ff d o es no t o b ject to a de fe n d an t’ s R ul e 50( b) m ot i on “s peci fi cal l yon t he gr ounds t hatt he i s s ue w as w ai ved by an i nad equ at e R ule 50 (a) m oti on , t he [p l ai nti ff’s] r i ghtt o obj ecton t hatbas i s i s i t s el f w ai ved. ” I d. a t 5 7 2

. P o st tri al, Ju d g e N ew co m er, in an A u g u st 9, 20 0 5 O rde r, d ire c ted th e p a rties to su p p lem e n t th e ir p o st-tria l m o tio n s w ith br i efi ng on “w hetherD efe ndant s have pr oper l ym ai nt ai ned aT h e O rd e r f u rth e r re c ited : “T h e P a rties sh a ll sp e c if ica lly 17 br i ef t hi s C our ton ( 1) w hetherD efe ndant s have pr oper l ym ade t hei rR ul e 50 M ot i on agai ns tPl ai nt i ffs ’ B r eac h o f C ont r act C l ai m s , and i f t hey have not , ( 2) w hetherPl ai nt i ffs have w ai ved t hei rr i ghtt o obj ecton t hi s gr ound. ” 38 p o rtio n o f

th e ir R u le 5 0 M o ti o n .” B o th p a rties b rie f e d th is 17 i s s ue fort he t r i al cour t

. B utt he court ’ s pos t

- t r i al opi ni on nei t her decides nor r efers t o the R ule 50 w ai ver m oti on s. For under s t andabl e r eas o ns , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not addr es s t he subs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , w hi ch i s now cr i t i cal on appea l

. Fur t her m or e, t he er r oneous r el i ance on a s t i pul at i on neveragr eed t o and the abs ence of ana l y s i s on i m por t ant p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s we i g h i n f a v o r o f a r e ma n d

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we do notr eac h t he mer i t s of the def endants’ cont ent i ons , but i ns t e a d wi l l r e ma n d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a s u b s t a n t i ve due pr oces s and F ed. R

. C i v. P. 50 w ai veranal y s i s and, i f the i s s ue has notbeen w ai ved, a det er m i nat i on of w hethereac h pl ai nt i ff c a n e s ta b lis h c a u s a tio n a n d p ro v e d a m a g e s . D efe ndant s conten d there are m or e fundament al pr o bl ems w i t h t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ver di ct

. Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des r emedi es fordepr i vat i ons of r i ght s es t abl i s hed byt he C ons t i tut i on, i ncl udi ng s ubs t ant i ve due pr ocess undert he F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. Kaucherv. C ount y of B ucks , 455 F. 3d 418, 4 2 3 (3d C ir

. 2006)

. “To st at e a § 1983 c l ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mu s td e mo n s t r a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t , a c t i n g u n d e r c o l o r o f s t a t e l a w, depr i ved [pl ai nt i ff] of a r i ght s ecur ed by t he C ons t i tut i on ort he39 l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Ka u c h e r, 455 F. 3d at423 ( ci t i ng A m eri can M

f rs . Mut

. I

ns . C o. v. Sul l i van , 526 U

. S. 40, 49–50 ( 1999) )

. A ccor di ngl y , “[t ] he fi rst ste p i n eval uat i ng a s ect i on 1983 cl ai m i s t o ‘ i dent i fy the ex actcont our s of the under l y i ng r i ghts ai d t o have be en vi ol at ed’ and t o det er m i ne ‘ w hethert he pl ai n ti ff ha s al l eged a depr i vat i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtat al l

. ’ ” Nic in i v . Mo r r a , 212 F. 3d 798, 806 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( en banc) (qu o t i ng C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 523 U

. S. 833, 841 n. 5 ( 1998) )

. Fur t her m or e, “the cor e of t he conc ept[of due pr oces s i s ] pr ot ect i on agai ns tarbi t r aryact i on ” an d “onl yt he m os tegr egi ous offi ci al conduct can be s ai d t o be arbi t r aryi n t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e. ” L e w is , 5 2 3 U .S

. a t 8 4 5

– 4 6 ; see al so U ni t ed Art is t

s Theatr e C i r cui t

, I nc. v. Tw p. of W ar r i ngt on , 316 F. 3d 392, 399 (3d C i r . 2003)

. T he Supr eme C our thas con si st entl y “spok en of t he cog nizabl e l evel of exec uti ve ab use of pow er as t hat w hi ch s hocks t he cons ci ence . ” L e w is , 52 3 U. S. a t 8 4 6 ; s ee als o U

n itedA rtists , 3 1 6 F .3 d a t 3 9 9

. T o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff m us t p r o v e t h e p a r t i c u l a ri n t e r e s ta ti s s u e i s p r o t e c t e d b yt he s ubs t ant i ve du e p r o c e s s c l a u s e a n d th e governm ent ’ s depr i vat i on o f th a t p ro te c te d in te re s t s h o c k s th e c o n s c ie n c e . U n itedA rtists , 3 1 6 F .3 d a t 4 0 0

– 0 2 . F o r e x a m p le, w e h a v e h e ld “ o w n e rsh ip is a propert y i nter est w orthy of subst anti ve due p rocess pr ot ect i on. ” D eBl as i o v. Zoni ng B d. of A dj us tm ent f or Tw p. of W . A m w e ll, 5 3 F

. 3 d 5 9 2 , 6 0 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) over r ul ed on other gr ounds by U

n itedA rtists , 3 1 6 F

. 3d at40 1. In ot her w ords, her e, pl ai nt iffs m us thave be en depr i ved of a fundament alD e f e n d a n ts a rg u e , in tera lia , t hatt he ci t y ’ s offe rof 18 $150, 000 for eac h hom e, an am ount al m os t doubl e t he $80, 000 perhom e the j ur yaw ar ded as j us t compensa t i on on t he t aki ngs cl ai m s , cannots hock the cons ci ence . 40 p ro p e rt yin te re s t u n d e r t h e C o n s titu tio n . See G i kas v. W a sh in g to n S c h . D ist. , 3 2 8 F .3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A s not ed, pl ai nt i ffs cont end t he ci t y depr i ved t hem of the p e a c e f u l en jo ym e n t o f

th e ir re sid e n c e s c a u se d b yth e f a ilu re to r epai rt he hous es r es ul t i ng i n poorcondi t i ons , t he “r ed- t aggi ng” o f th eir h o u ses, the de clarati o n o f em inen t d o m ain, t h e cit y ’s det er m i nat i on t hatt he hous es w er e i m m i nent l y danger ous , and t he undue pr es s ur e ap p li ed byM ay orJ ohn St r eett o acc eptt he o f f e r to p u rc h a se th e ir h o u se s. T h e c ru x o f p lain tiff s’ c la im is t hatt he ci t y fal s el y decl ar ed thei rhom es i m m i nent l ydanger ous as a pret ext t o av oid com plet i ng t he p rom i sed r epair s. B ecause p lain tiff s re m a in e d in th e ir h o u se s a t all tim e s, d e f e n d a n ts c o n ten d n o d e p riv a tio n o c c u rre d . In r e s p o n se , p lain tiff s c laim t hat co urt s can find a de pri vati on of sub st anti ve d ue p rocess w ith o u t a n a c tu a l p ro p e rt ylo s s . Fur t her , defe ndant s cont end the r el evantconductaft er J ul y21, 20 0 0 does not“s hock the cons ci ence . ” D epr i vat i on 18
v iolates d u e p roc ess o n lyw h en it“‘sh o ck s the co n s c ienc e,’” w hi ch enc om pas s es “‘ onl y the m os tegr egi ous offi ci al conduct

. ’ ” U

n ite d A r tis ts , 316 F. 3d at400 ( quot i ng L e w is , 523 U

. S

. at 84 6 ). A p p ly ing the “ sh o ck s the co n scien ce ” stan d ard “pr event s us fro m b eing cas ti n t he r ol e of a ‘ zoni ng boar d of41 appea l s . ’ ” Id

. at 402 (qu o ti ng C r eat i ve Envi r onm ent s , I nc. v. Es t abr ook , 680 F. 2d 8 2 2, 833 ( 1s tC i r . 1982) ( quot i ng V i l l age of B el l e Ter r e v. B or aas , 4 1 6 U .S . 1 , 1 3 (1 9 7 4 ) ( M a rs h a l l , J ., di s s ent i ng) )). W hi l e the meani ng of the s t andar d var i es dependi ng upon fac tual cont ext , m er el yal l egi ng an i m pr o per m ot i ve i s i ns uffi ci ent , even w her e t he mot i ve i s unr el at ed t o t he m e ri ts o f th e u n d e rl y in g d e c is io n . Id

. at 400. I n E i chenlaub v. Tw p. o f I n di ana , 385 F. 3d 274 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w e appl i ed the s hocks t he cons ci ence s t andar d i n a zoni ng di s put e. Pl ai nt i ffs al l eged thatthe t ow ns hi p “mal i gned and muzzl ed ” th e m, a ppl i ed s t andar ds notappl i ed t o s i m i l ar pr oper t i es , del ay ed perm i t s and appr oval s , i m pr oper l yi ncr ease d t ax as s es s m ent s , and pur s ued unannounce d and unnec es s aryenfor cementact i ons i n deny i ng z o n in g re q u e s ts

. Id

. at 28 6

. B u t i n a f firm ing the tri al co u rt ’s fi ndi n g that t he al l eged c onductdi d nots hock the cons ci ence , w e not ed th ere w er e no al l egat i ons of corrupt i on, s el f- deal i ng, bi as agai ns tan ethn ic gr oup, oraddi t i onal fac t s t hats ugges t ed c o n s c ie n c e -s h o c k in g b e h a v io r. I d. W e do notaddr es s t hes e i s s ues att hi s t i m e becaus e the t r i al cour t di d not anal y ze t he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m or t he R ul e 50 w ai ver i s s ue and err ed i n not r equi r i ng i ndi vi dual p ro o f o f c a u sa tio n a n d d a m a g e s. W e w ill re m a n d f o r a n a n a ly sis o f the su bs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m and Fed. R

. C i v. P. 50 w ai verand, i f the i s s ue has notbeen w ai ved, a det er m i nat i on of w hethereac h pl ai nt i ff ha s ade quat el ypr oven ca us at i on and dam ages.D e f e n d a n ts re f

e re n c e d th re e p a rticu lar in sta n c e s: 19 T H E C O U R T : In th e c o u rse o f y o u r ten u re o n C ity C o u n cil an d as M ay o r, h as th ere everbeen an yeventt hathas been as t r aum at i c i n t he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a as t hi s eventatO s age A venue? T H E W I T N E SS: T h is is w ayup t her e, y our H onor.

I ti s w ayup t her e. T H E C O U R T : C an y o u ex p lai n w h y y o u d o n ’t

h a v e a b e tter u n d e rsta n d in g o f a ll t hes e ques t i ons t hatar e bei ng as ked of y ou? T H E W I T N E SS: T hat ’ s eas yt o expl ai n. T H E C O U R T : I w i s h y ou w oul d. T H E W IT N E S S : B e c a u s e I a m M a yo r o f th e f if th la rg e s t c ity in th e c o u n tr y. . . . [des cr i bi ng ot herdut i es as M ay or o f P h il ad elph ia]. T H E C O U R T : Y et, y o u ca n ’trem em b er— T H E W ITN E S S : I j ustcan’trem em ber t he d et ai l s.

42 C

. N ew Tri alB as ed on Tr i alC our t ’s Q ues t i oni ng

of MayorJohn Str eet I n pos t

- tr i al m ot i ons, d ef en d an ts co n tend ed Ju d g e F u ll am sh o u ld h av e o rde red a n ew tr ial b ase d o n Ju d g e N ew co m er’s p reju d icia l q u e s ti o n in g o f M a yo r J o h n S tre e t. 19T H E C O U R T : L et m e fi ni s h. T hat ’ s an i m pr es s i ve li st [o f d u ti es o f th e M ay o r]. T H E W IT N E S S : T h a t’s ju st s h o rt o r p a rt o f th e list. T H E C O U R T : A m o n g y o u r resp o n sibil it ies, are n ’t

y o u also resp o n sible fo r th e w elfa re and the w el l

- bei ng of al l of the ci t i zens o f P hi l adel phi a and w o u ld n ’t th a t in c lu d e th e p e o p le w ho l i ve atO s age A venue. T H E W IT N E S S : A b so lutely , y o u r ho n o r. T HE C OU R T : S o , i f t h a t i s y o u r a n s we r t o my q u e stio n , so b e it. T H E W I T N E SS: C an I expl ai n? T H E C O U R T : I t hi nk y ou have. T ri al T r. at 86

– 8 8 (M ar. 31 , 2 0 0 5 ). [TH E W I T N E SS]: B ec au se th ere ar e— t hi s i s a v ery

compl i cat ed s i tuat i on t hat has been goi ng on . . . fora l ong, l ongt i m e. T he i nci d entthatoccurr ed thatgave r i s e t o al l of thi s l i t i gat i on, occurr ed in M a yo f

1 9 8 5 . B yth e tim e th a t I gott o be the M ay or , i n J anuaryof 2000, i ti s 15 y ear s l at er . . . . I am t el l i ng y ou t hatI do not agr ee that th e c ity w a s re s p o n s ib le

. . . . 43T H E C O U R T : J us t a m i nut e. T hat ’ s notw hat y our couns el has i nform ed the C our tor t hi s j ur y . C ouns el has i nfor m ed the C o u rtan d the ju ryu n less I’m gr os s l yi n err or , t hatt he ci t yhas acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yfo rt he damage caus ed on thatocca s i on. [D E F E N D A N T S ’ A T T O R N E Y ]: Y o u r H o n o r, th e p lain tiff c o u n se l is

as ki ng— T H E C O U R T : A m I c o rre c t o r in c o rre c t? [DE FEN D A N TS’ A T T O R N E Y ]: I w o u ld lik e to e x p lain th a t. T HE CO UR T : J us t t el l m e a m I cor r ect or

i ncorr ect , have y ou nots o s t at ed for t he r ecor d? [DE FEN D A N TS’ A T T O R N E Y ]: I sta ted f o r th e r e c o rd , tha t th e c ity h a d a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. T H E C O U R T : V e ry w el l , t hat’ s w hat I t ho ug h t I

j us ts ai d. [DE FEN D A N TS’ A T T O R N E Y ] : Y o u r H on or, I w o u ld lik e to

e x p lain . F irst o f

a ll, th a t— T H E C O U R T : N o , th is is n o t a tim e to e x p l a in

. I

j us tw ant ed y ou t o r es pond, i n vi ew 44of the M ay o r’s mostr ece nt t es t i m onyher e. [DE FEN D A N TS’ AT T OR NE Y] : T h en I h av e an o b ject i on t o t he

ques t i on as d r a w i ng on t he— as ki ng fora l egal concl us i on fr om t he w i t ness. T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed. Pr ocee d. T ri al T r. at 90

– 9 1 (M ar. 31 , 2 0 0 5 ). T H E C O U R T : M y next ques t i o n is, d o y o u have

any w ay of know i ng, have y ou ever conduct ed a s tudyordo y ou have an o pini on , as t o w hat i tw ou l d co st i n the agg regat e t o fix al l of these hous es , putt hem i n t h e shape that t heyw er e i nt ended t o be i n? T HE WI T NE S S : T o d a y , n o w? T H E C O U R T : T o d a y. T HE WI T NE S S : I d o n ’ tk n o w. T H E C O U R T : D i d y ou ever do t hat , everdevel op

a s tu d y? T HE WI T NE S S : T h ere w ere peopl e w ho w ere

resp o n sible fo r it , try ing to f igu re o u t h o w m u c h it w o u ld c o st. T H E C O U R T : I ’ m as ki ng y ou.

45T H E W I T N E SS: D i d I everp erso n all y d o it ? N o, y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : Som eone w or ki ng fory ou? THE W I TNESS: I t hi nk s om eone w or ki n g f o r t he ci t y , di d t ha t on num er ous occasi on s. T HE CO UR T : Y ou s houl d h a v e s o me k i n d of

resp o n se to m y q u esti o n , sh o u ldn ’t y ou? T H E W IT N E S S : I c a n g e t a re s p o n s e , y o u r H o n o r, I

d o n ’th av e th at w ith m e. I do n ’t h a v e it in f

ro n t o f m e . N o b o d yto ld m e to b rin g a n y d o c u m e n ts. P e o p le t o l d m e t o b r i n g m y b o d y. T H E C O U R T : Y ou ar e h ere b ec au se y ou ar e t he

M ay o r of t he ci t y . Y ou al r eady t es t i fied t hati tw oul d notbe fe asib le t o p erf

o rm re p airs, that’s w hyI ’ m as ki ng y ou t he ques t i on. T ri al T r. 1 1 5

– 1 6 (M ar. 31 , 2 0 0 5 ). 46 D e f e n d a n ts c o n ten d th e se q u e stio n s d e m o n stra ted a n im o sity t ow ar d M ay orJ ohn St r eetand def endant s ’ counsel , and su g g ested to the juryan a n s w e r t o the u lt im ate issue b ef o re t hem. D efe ndant s m ai nt ai n t he tr i al j udge m isunde r s t ood t he di ffe r ence betw een t he acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y forthe or i gi nal M O V E i nci dentand fort he curr entr epai r s , cont endi ng47 t he j ur yw as ei t her l eft w i t h t he m i s t aken i m pr es s i on t hatM ay or J o h n S t r e e td i d n o ta c c e p tr e s p o n s i b i l i t yf o rt h e 1 9 8 5 M OVE b o m b in g o r th a t th e c o u r t b e liev e d th a t th e c ityw a s le g a lly res po nsi ble for the 2 00 0 repai rs . Judge Ful l am char act er i zed thes e ques t i ons byt he tr i al j udge as “expr es s i ng s urpr i s e” thatM ay orJ ohn St r eetcoul d not r eca l l keyoccurr ence s and s ugges t i ng t he M ay ors houl d have “bee n m or e sol i ci t ous of t he w el far e of hi s ci t i zens . ” C hai ney , 2005 W L 3263042, at*6. B utas J udge Ful l am not ed, t he tr i al j udge i m m edi at el yi s s ued a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yaft er th e th ir d e x c h a n g e . I

d. M or eover , J udge Ful l am not ed the ques t i ons m i gh t h av e i nfl uence d onl yt he puni t i ve damages a w a rd a g a in s t th e M a y o r, w h ic h h e o v e rt u rn e d

. I d. B eca us e the evi dence o n the br eac h of contr actcl ai m s l i kel yent i t l ed pl ai nt i ffs t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , s ai d J udge Ful l am, any e rr o r w o u ld b e h a rm le s s . I d. W e re v ie w f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . A d e d o

y in , 369 F. 3d at342 ( ci t i ng F ed

. R

. E vi d. 614( b) )

. E vi dence R ul e 614( b) p ro v id e s th a t th e c o u rt m a yin te rr o g a te w itn e s s e s . I d. T hi s has been a n i m por t ant and l ongs t andi ng pr act i ce on the partof tr i al ju d g e s a n d s h o u ld n o t b e d is c o u ra g e d

. See Ri l ey v . G o o d m an , 315 F. 2d 232, 234 ( 3d C i r . 1963) ( “W e have l ong abandone d t he ad v ersa ry sy stem o f li ti g ati o n w h ich reg ard s o p p o sing law y ers a s p layers a n d th e ju d g e a s a m e re u m p ire w h o se o n lyd u tyis to det e r mi n e whe t h e ri n f

r a c t i o n s o f

t h e ru l e s o f

t h e g a me have b e e n c o m m itt e d .”). O f c o u rse , a ju d g e m u s t n o t “a b a n d o n h is [orher ] pr op er rol e and a s s um e thatof an a dvocat e. ” U ni t edT o s uppor t t hei r ar gum ent , defe ndant s r el yon U ni t ed Stat es 20
v. F i l ani , 7 4 F .3 d 3 7 8 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), a c ri m in a l c a s e . I n F i l ani , th e d e f e n d a n t w a s the o n ly d e f e n se w itn e ss a n d h is c re d ib ili ty w as d eterm i nat i ve. T he tr i al j udge cha l l enged the def endant several t i m es and in terfered repeat edlyw i t h the defen se c o u n s e l’ s c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f w itn e s s e s . Id

. a t 3 8 1

– 8 2 . In th is cas e, t he crux of the cl ai m w as a w r i t t en contr act

. Fur t her m or e, Judg e N ew com ber e m ph asi zed t o t he jur yt hat theyal on e m ust d e te rm in e th e f

a c ts

. 48 St at es v. G r een , 544 F. 2d 1 3 8 , 147 ( 3d C i r . 1976)

. B utt he a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd is a d e f e re n tial on e a n d in o rd e r to m eet t he s t andar d t he conduct of a t r i al j udge m us t be “i ni m i cal a n d p a r t i s a n , c l e a r l y e v i d e n t a n d p r e j u d i c i al

. ” R i l ey, 315 F. 2d at 235. I n m aki ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, “[e ] ach cas e m us t be vi ew ed i n i t s ow n s et t i ng. ” I d. at234. T he tr i al j udge i ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hathi s ques t i oni ng of M ay or J ohn St r eet w as di r ect ed t ow ar d t he ci t y ’ s acc ept ance of resp o n sibil ityfo r th e M O V E b o m b ing it self, n o t th e c ity ’s re sp o n sib ili tyto w a rra n tyth e re b u ilth o u se s, th e c e n tra l issu e in th is c a s e . F u rt h e rm o re , w e f a il to s e e p re

ju d ic e . See U

ni t ed 20 S ta tes v . B e a ty , 72 2 F

. 2d 10 90 , 10 93 (3d C i r. 19 83 ) ( “W e m ust det er m i ne w hether[the t r i al j udge’ s ] conduct w as s o pr ej udi ci al a s to d e p riv e d e f

e n d a n t . . . o f

a f a ir, as o p p o se d to a p e rf e c t, tr ia l.” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). D efe ndan ts al s o cont end the tr i al j udge’ s ques t i ons affected t heirabil i t yt o d i scl ai m res po nsi bil i t yfor t he repair s.49 B uti ns ofaras t he j ur yaw arded contr actual expec t at i on damages , t hey w er e bas ed on t he 1988 A gr eement and t he ex pect at i ons of the homeow ner s , nott he t es t i m onyof M ay or Jo h n S tr ee t. W e a g ree w ith Ju d g e F u ll am that the tr ial jud g e’s q u e stio n in g d id n o t a f

f e c t th e o u tco m e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill aff i r m t he deni al of a ne w t r i al on t hi s gr ound.

D . T a k in gs C la u se V

e rd ict T he j ur yent er ed a ve r di ctfor p lai nt i ffs on t hei rt aki ngs cl aus e cl ai m s and aw ar ded $80, 000 per pl ai nt i ff. T h e D i s t r i ct C ou rtrever sed t his verdi ct , fi nd i ng no t akings occu rr ed b ecause atal l t i m es pl ai nt i ffs cont i nued t o r es i de i n t hei r hom es . H ence , t her e w as no depr i vat i on. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rtnot ed thati f a tak in g h a d o c c u rre d “ p la in tiff s w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit led to p u rs u e rem ed ies u n d er th e st ate em inen t d o m ain st atute .

. . .” C hai ney , 2 0 0 5 WL 3 2 6 3 0 4 2 , a t* 4

. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d we shou l d rei nst at e bo t h t he verdi ct and t he d am age aw ard becau se th e yp ro v e d d e f

e n d a n ts d e p riv e d th e m o f al l econ om i cal l yv iab le us es of thei rpr oper t y . T hey cont end t hey have no r emedyunder t he s t at e emi nentdo m ain code beca us e the ci t y ’ s act i ons “po i soned t he m arket ” for t heirho m es. T he t aki ngs cl ai m s ar e notr i pe becau s e pl ai nt i ffs never pur s ued thei rt aki ngs cl aus e cl aim s in st at e court

. A pl ai nt i ff m u st f irst “ se e k c o m p e n sa tio n th ro u g h th e p ro c e d u re s th e S tate has pr ovi ded fordoi ng s o” bef or e as s er t i ng a fe der al t aki ngs c la im

. W i l l i am s on C ount

y R eg’ lP l anni ng C om m ’ n v. H am i l t on B ank of Johns on , 47 3 U

. S

. 1 72, 194 ( 1985)

. I n W i l l i am s on ,50 aft er t he pl ai nt i ff pur chas ed l and t o devel op r es i dent i al hous i ng, defe ndant

- countyadopt ed a z oni ng or di nance r est r i ct i ng t he per m i s s i bl e dens i t y . Pl ai nt i ff a l l eged a t aki ng, cl ai m i ng he w as d e p ri v e d o f

a ll e c o n o m ic a lly v ia b le u s e o f th e la n d

. I

d. at 1 7 7

– 8 3 . T h e C o u rt re

jec ted p la in tiff ’s c laim b e c a u se , as y e t, t her e had be en no deni al of j us t compensa t i on. C ons t rui ng t he Fi fth A m endment ( “[N ] ors hal l pr i vat e pr op erty be t aken f or publ i c us e, w i t houtj us tcompensa t i on. ”) , t he C our texpl ai ned t he “Fi fth A m endment do es notpr os cr i be the t aki ng of pr op e r t y ; ” i ns t e a d, i ton l y“ pr os c r i be s t a ki ng s w i tho ut j ust com pens at i on . ” Id

. at 19 4 & n . 1 3 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T he Fi fth A m endment does not r equi r e at t he t i m e of the tak in g th a t ju st c o m p e n sa tio n b e p a id , b u t o n ly t h a t a “r eas onabl e, cert ai n and ade quat e pr ovi s i on forobt ai ni ng compensa t i on exi s t

. ” Id

. at 19 4 (c ita tio n s o m itted). A ccor di ngl y , i f t her e i s an adequat e provi s i on forcompensa t i on, “no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on occur s unt i l j us tcompensa t i on has b ee n [su bs equent l y ] deni ed. ” Id

. at194 n. 13. I n W i l l i am s on, beca us e Tennes s ee l aw pr ovi ded a pr ocedur e byw hi ch pl ai nt i ff c o u ld o b tain ju st c o m p e n sa tio n f o r th e a lleg e d d im in u tio n in v a lu e o f p la in tif f ’s p ro p e rt y , p la in tif

f ’s c la im w a s n o t r ip e . I d. at19 6 ; see a l

s o St er n v. H

al l igan , 1 5 8 F

. 3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 4 (3d C ir

. 19 98 ) ( “T he p l ai nti ffs h a v e no t , so far as the record show s, s o u g h tc o m p e n s a t i o n t h r o u g h s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s . A c c o r d i n g l y, p lain t i ffs’ t akings c laim m u st b e re jec ted .”); c

f. C o u n ty C o n c re te C o rp . v. T

w p. of Ro xbu ry , 4 4 2 F. 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2006) ( hol di ng t aki ngs cl ai m w as r i pe bec aus e pl ai nt i ff ha d exhaus t ed51 sta te p ro c e d u re s). A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt re c e n tlysta ted : t her e i s s cantpr ece dentfort he l i t i gat i on i n fede r al di s t r i ctcour tof cl ai m s t hata s tat e ag encyhas tak e n p ro p e rty i n v io latio n o f th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t ’ s t a k i n g s c l a u s e . T o t h e c o n t r a r y, m o s t o f th e c a s e s in o u r t a k i n g s ju ri s p ru d e n c e . .

. c a m e to u s o n w rits of c e rtio ra ri f r o m sta te c o u rts o f las t re so rt. San R em o H

ot el , L. P

. v. C i t

y and C ount

y of San Fr ancis co , 545 U .S . 3 2 3 , 3 4 7 (2 0 0 5 ); cf

. F i rs tE ngl is h E vangel i cal Lut her an C hur ch of G l endal e v. C ount y of Los Angel es , 482 U

. S. 304, 312 n. 6 ( 1987) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng W ill i am s on b e c a u s e Ca l i forni a had no just co m p en sati o n p roc ed u res). P e n n sy lv a n ia p ro v id e s a d e q u a te p ro c e ss f o r p lain tiff

s to o b tain ju st c o m p e n sa tio n . P e n n s ylv a n ia’ s E m in e n t D o m a in C ode provi des i nver s e conde m nat i on pr ocedur es t hr ough w hi ch a l andow nerm ays eek j us tcompensa ti o n fort he t aki ng of p ro p e rt y . See 26 Pa. C ons . St at

. §§ 3 0 8 , 5 0 2 (c) , 709. H er e, pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o p u r s ue an i nver s e conde m nat i on. T hey c o n ten d th e y d id n o t n e e d to p u rsu e th e tak in g s c lau se c laim s in s t ate co u r tbeca us e theyw er e nots eeki ng j us tcompensa t i on. B uti n fac tt hati s t he bas i s of thei r cl ai m

— j us tcompensa t i on for t he redu ct i on i n fairm arketvalue of thei r hom es. I n C ow el lv. P alm erTw p. , 2 6 3 F

. 3 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 0 (3d C ir

. 2001) , pl ai nt i ffs i n a fede r al s ui t al l eged a t aki ng w h en t he m uni ci pal i t yal l egedl yr educe d t he pr oper t y ’ s val ue by52 i m pr oper l yi m pos i ng l i ens on pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr oper t y . W e r ej ect ed p lain tiff s’ a rg u m e n t th a t th e yw e re n o t re q u ire d to f ile a c laim in s ta te c o u rt

. I

d. at 291. W her e t her e i s a pr ocedur e fors eeki ng j us tcompensa t i on, “the prope r t yow nercannotcl ai m a vi ol at i on of the [Taki ngs ] C l aus e unt i l i thas us ed t he pr ocedur e and bee n deni ed j us tcompensa t i on. ” W i l l i am s on , 473 U

. S. at195. A ccor di ngl y , pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m s ar e not r i pe, and w e do not r eac h t he i s s ue of w hether a depr i vat i on occurr ed. T he D i s t r i ct C our tcorr ect l yacknow l edged thati f a tak ing ha d occurr ed, plai n ti ffs m us tpur s ue thei rcl ai m i n s t at e court

. A s not ed, t he D istri ct C o u rt h eld that n o takin g o cc u rred an d set aside the ju ry aw ar d on t he t aki ngs cl ai m s . W e w il l aff i r m buton di ffe r ent gr ounds

. W e w i l l s etas i de the j ur yaw ar d on t he g rou n d t hat pl ai nt i ffs ’ t aki ngs cl ai m s ar e notr i pe foradj udi cat i on. III . For t he r eas ons s et for t h, w e w i l l aff i r m i n par t and re v e rse in p a rt th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt. W e w ill r e mand on t he i s s ue s of s ub s t a nt i ve du e pr oc e s s , Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 50 w ai ver , and, i f t he i s s ue has not been w ai ved, w hethereac h pl ai nt i ff pr oved ca us at i on and damages fort he s ubs t ant i ve due process cl ai m s.