Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01376-KAJ Document 73 Filed 07/11/2005 Page 1 of 2 1
1
1
... @1 1 11 E A W —/1 IRM LLC
Richard L. Abbott, Esq.
3o2.4s9.A.LAw 1
[email protected]
i July 11, 2005
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court 1 A
844 North King Street
Lock Box 10
· Wilmington, DE 19801 l
Re; Acierno, et al. v. Haggerty, et al. i
C.A. No. 04-1376 (JAIQ *
Citation of SubsequentAuthority Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1. 2(c)
Dear Judge J ordan: -
I write to call to the Court’s attention the same case referenced in Matthew F.
Boyer, Esquire’s letter to the Court dated July 8, 2005; San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and E
County of San Francisco, Calfornia, 125 S. Ct. 2491 (June 20, 2005). While the 1
decision appears at first blush to potentially impact this action, a more thorough review
reveals that it has little or no impact on the Motions To Dismiss currently before the
Court for decision. - i
. _ 1
The San Remo Hotel case is only relevant to federal takings claims which a Court
has previously held are unripe pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Williamson
County Regional Planning Com ’n v. Hamilton Bank Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). g
Indeed, Plaintiffs have argued that their takings claims are ripe due to the fact that there is I
no certain avenue of inverse condemnation relief in the State Courts for regulatory
takings, let alone the type of takings which the Plaintiffs allege were carried out by the
Defendants pursuant to the schemes and fiat alleged. .
Additionally, the Supreme Cou1t’s decision in San Remo Hotel was limited to
"the question whether federal courts may craft an exception to the full faith and credit
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment? San Remo Hotel at 2495. That question is not before this Court.
Consequently, the San Remo Hotel has no bearing on the outcome of the currently
pending Motions To Dismiss. 1
1
724 Yorklyn Road o Suite 240 • Hockessin, Delaware 19707 • Fax $02.4892535 l

I i Case 1 :04-cv-01376-KAJ Document 73 Filed 07/1 1/2005 Page 2 of 2
1
1 - The Honorable Kent A. Jordan l
1 July ll, 2005 2 1
Page 2 .
1
1 The only portion of the San Remo Hotel opinion which is worthy of note in the
opinion of the Plaintiffs are certain portions of the concurring opinion of Chief Justice
1 Rehnquist, joined in by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. Therein, the Chief 1
1 Justice noted as follows:
i It is not clear to me that Williamson County was correct in
demanding that, once a government entity has reached a
final decision with respect to a clairnants’ property, the
claimant must seek compensation in state court before 1
g bringing a federal takings claim in federal court. ...lt is not
1 obvious that either Constitutional or prudential principles
1 require claimants to utilize all state compensation
1 procedures before they can bring a federal takings claim.-"
San Remo Hotel at 2508, Rehnquist, C.J. concurring.
1 . 1
‘ The Chief Justice persuasively warns of the need for a careful and judicious
application of the Williamson County ripeness rule. Indeed, he notes that the Court’s
holding “ensures that litigants who go to state court to seek compensation will likely be
unable later to assert their federal takings claims in federal court." la'. at 2509. Since 1
some of the takings claims asserted in this action occurred a number of years ago, it may . 1
1 reasonably be expected that the Defendants would assert that any state court claims in 1
1 those regards are barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, the San Remo Hotel decision 1
and the comments in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurring opinion point up the critical
1 importance of allowing takings claims to proceed in federal court absent the clear
1 applicability of the Vldlliamson County ripeness rule. A 1
es ctful ·y submitted, 1
/1/ V 1
- Richard L. Abbott A _ 1
1 RLA:cth _
File No. 100.11 ° 1
cc: Matthew F. Boyer, Esquire . · 1 1
Claire M. _DeMatteis, Esquire J ` 1
Ian Connor Bifferato, Esquire . 1
1 Michael P. Kelly, Esquire 1
, , Dennis J. Siebold, Esquire j j
Jeffrey I. Pasek, Esquire ` `
i Clerk of Court - V )
1
1
1
1 1