Opinion ID: 2674691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Procedures Prong

Text: Under the second prong of Williamson County, a plaintiff’s claim is ripe only if the “plaintiff has sought just compensation by means of an available state procedure.” Dougherty, 282 F.3d at 88. While Williamson County prevents a plaintiff from bringing his takings claim in federal court before first seeking compensation from the state, it “does not preclude state courts from hearing simultaneously a plaintiff’s request for compensation under state law and the claim that, in the alternative, the denial of compensation would violate the [Takings Clause of the] Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.” San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S. 323, 347 (2005). This is because “[r]eading Williamson ‐26‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER County to preclude plaintiffs from raising such claims in the alternative would erroneously interpret [the Supreme Court’s] cases as requiring property owners to ‘resort to piecemeal litigation or otherwise unfair procedures.’” Id. (quoting MacDonald, 477 U.S. at 350 n.7). Sherman first brought suit against the Town in federal court in 2008. The Town argued that the takings claim was unripe in part because Sherman had not alleged that he sought and was denied just compensation by an available state procedure. Sherman voluntarily dismissed the case, and followed San Remo by filing his federal takings claim and his state law claim for compensation in state court. The Town then removed the case from state court to federal court, where it argued once again that the takings claim must be dismissed because it can be heard only in state court under Williamson County. In Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2013), the Fourth Circuit concluded that when the defendant removes a ‐27‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER takings claim to federal court, the state procedures prong of Williamson County does not apply. We agree with that court’s reasoning that “refusing to apply the state‐litigation requirement in this instance ensures that a state or its political subdivision cannot manipulate litigation to deny a plaintiff a forum for his claim.” Id. at 545. The removal maneuver prevents Sherman from litigating his federal takings claim until he finishes litigating his state law claim for compensation. In other words, it prevents Sherman from pursuing both claims simultaneously, no matter what forum they are brought in. This runs against San Remo, which allows plaintiffs to do just that. In other words, the removal tactic can “deny[ ] a plaintiff any forum for having his claim heard,” or at least force the plaintiff into the kind of piecemeal litigation that, under San Remo, cannot be required. See id. at 547. ‐28‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER We conclude that when a defendant removes a takings claim from state court to federal court, the second prong of Williamson County is satisfied. Sherman’s takings claim is ripe, and we may address the merits.