Opinion ID: 1292234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Direct Civil Suit

Text: Following its decision in the administrative appeal, the superior court heard oral argument on Balough's Section 1983 claims. Balough had moved for summary judgment on the vested rights issue and requested a preliminary injunction; FNSB had moved to dismiss all of the claims remaining in Balough's complaint following the court's resolution of the administrative appeal. In a twenty-six page Memorandum Decision and Order, the superior court granted FNSB summary judgment on all remaining counts of the complaint. The following is a synopsis of the court's pertinent conclusions: 1. Because Balough attached materials outside of the pleading to her memorandum in opposition to FNSB's motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss will be treated as a motion for summary judgment. 2. Counts IIV and VI of Balough's complaint state a cause of action under Section 1983. 3. Count V, collateral estoppel, does not state a cause of action under Section 1983, and will not be considered. 4. Section 1983 claims can be barred by collateral estoppel, and [i]f the issues in the current action are the same as those litigated before the FNSB Assembly, [BOA], and in the administrative appeal, collateral estoppel should apply to preclude Balough from relitigating the issues as part of the Section 1983 claims. 5. In comparing the arguments discussed and rejected in the administrative appeal and the Section 1983 claims in Counts I through IV and Count VI of Balough's complaint, the court found it clear that there are no remaining questions of law which would be determinative of the Section 1983 claims, [with the possible exception of the vested rights issue]. 6. Balough showed no evidence of a taking for which [she] would be entitled to compensation under the federal constitution. 7. Balough does not have a `vested' property right in either GU-1 zoning or grandfather rights to a use which did not comply with fencing requirements. [Balough is] not entitled to summary judgment on [her] due process claims. 8. Balough did not have vested property rights that were taken by FNSB. 9. FNSB is entitled to $2,500 in attorney's fees, and $2,623.12 in costs. [13] The court denied Balough's motion for reconsideration of her due process claim. Balough appeals the court's grant of summary judgment to FNSB, and its denial of her motions for summary judgment and injunctive relief.