David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest Grove et al, No. 3:2008cv00266 - Document 73 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Defendants' motion for summary judgment 16 on Plaintiff's state law takings claim is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal takings claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, eq ual protection claim, substantive due process claim, and procedural due process claim is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 20 , to the extend that the affirmative defenses were not already withdrawn without prejudice, is DENIED in its entirety. Defendants' motion to strike 48 is GRANTED as to the Fruits Affidavit and deemded moot as to the Hankins Affidavit. Signed on 2/23/10 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2010: # 1 CORRECTED (CLEAR COPY) OPINION AND ORDER) (peg).

Download PDF

IN THE UNITliD STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 'I fiE DiSTRICT OF ORWON P<W:Il.i\ND DJVISION tlAVIP HILI t:>IWiO.,OPMENT, LLC, an i OI'l'~otllimitQtlliahility l:oropally, OPINION ANI) ORDER v, CIIY OF FOREST (JROVE, an OJ'l'goll ltllll1idpal eOj'pora!io!t, STEVE A, W{:>OD, iltdividually tVld itt his l'apncity as Pj'oj~l't l!pghwel' fbI thl' City of FOI'\J@t (lroV\J, ROlll';RT A, Fos'rl~R, individultlly and in his ollkial CllplJei(y as EngltleeI'it:>(,\ Di f\Jl}tor and Pphlic WOl'k,g Diret:tor fbI' th\'! City of Fonest t]rove, OPINION ANP OIUJER :KI'R 1 CITY OF !'OR":ST GROVE, an Orl!gol1 111llnidpal Ctll'IJorf\tion, STINE A. WOOl>, indivic!tlally and in his t;aracity as Pn,jept Engine"r j(jr th" City of Forest GI'OVP, ROJlEI~T A. FOSTER. indivic!ually and itl his onidal cnpndty as P:ngineering Director and Public W('rks Pil'ectol' fhr the City of Ft1re~t Grove, Coun!cr..Plainti fill, v, D;\ VID lULL DENELOPMENT, nc, Oregon lirt\itec! lillbility company, 111\ Coun!er..Defbndant. ACOSTA, Mng;istrate Judge: Inli'Otlzll'litm PllJintitfDavic! Hill Pevelopnwnt, Lee ("Plfl!r\ti!1") alleges nve dlli!ns agllin~t Defendants City of Forest (Jrove ("the City"), St"vc Wood ("Wood"), ,md Rnbmt l' oster ("foster") (collectively i'IJef¢mlar1ts"): inverse eOl1c!enJnIJtionln violation ofthe Ol'pgon COl1gtituti(lIl, Ankle I, Se\!tit1!1 18: inverse conc!emDl\titm In violation of the Finh lind Ftlurte\!nth Constil\ltion in e(l!1jullction with 42 U.S.C. Ametjdl\1ent~ to the tJni1l1d Sliltes * 1983 ("SPctioll 1983"); retfllllltion uncleI' the First Al11enthllent iUlIj slCetion 198:3; violatioll ofequlli pr(j((.mtitUl rights under the f(JUrteel1th At\Hindmt~nt f'ollrtccnth AmiOO\ll11enl ltnd sectiol1 1983. P\1fcndltnts WOve for s1Il11mllry judRI1Wllt 011 all OWV0S clall11~. Pltlintirf opposes thi~ moHoli tlnd for pt1rtlal sun1t1lltry judgment Olt eettaht of J)\1fetldaot~' llfjinlltltiw Ol'lNION ANt> OlWIH{ del~l1~es, Plaintiff {KPRj n1ilndatory arhitnttiun; exhaustion uf 11chllinistratiw remedies; ItotJeIi requit'el1wllts of thli Orc!!oll Tort Clairlls A~t: compliance with the DIiVlilollll1ent Agreement: alld the uxculpatory dalls\l ill Ex:hibit B to the D\lvelopnlent Agreement J)efelldat1ls oilly pltrtially tlppo~e l'laitltin's mtltion, conceding tltat ~Nia!11 of its flfiirl11ative det\lnses dOllot aPllly. Finally, J)efendal1ts assert a gc,n\lrnl objection to l'1!jintiffs duclllnniolls and afl1davits, lmd spel.'it1caUy move ttl strike tl10 aft1davits of Fruits lInd J Iflllldns. The COllrt will Address tlw nH\tiolls in IUI'1l. 1 For the rN1SOns set nmh below, [Jef1mdantlJ' motion fhr lJunHnary Jlld~ment ilJ gl'anted with re~pect to Pl<litltitTs state tflkinl)s plaim, and granted in pat'! and d ¬'nied in pltrt with respect to (/vervl?w subdivi~ion. PlilintilfS\lcccssl\illy pptitiOllcd the City Ihr ltnllexation ofthe property wHhin the urban gwwth boundllfY IHlit rceeiwd prelilnillary plttt apPI'ovfll tOI' its ckvQ!opment. The developm<1!lt rail into problems, 11owliver, involving disllgl'eetnel1t~ betwecnl'lllilltiffnnd Det\nldlmt~ ovcr the 1;ewer line, eaMellleots, tl'ec~, and phasiu/.l. Plaintiffalleges th'lt DcfendtlnlM IWlively lrustrtlted nnd delayed its devQ!opnwnt IifltH1M, .lllen~t In pal't, tiue ttlllpl'el\)renee In I}tVOf of othcl' area developet's Imd perSOlllllllnirnl\s ttJWilrc! onli orits pl'in0ipills, Timothy Md)onflld ("McDonald"). In the nwanti!ne, IFOf t:itiltipn purposes, the record t:illitlpnM will refel' to the r<1clll'd ilssodated with til ¬' motloll currently [-)clog dl~e[lssed, unless otherwise speelt1ed. ) The lJf\ftiQIJ h<lw eons<1t1ted to jufisilletion by magistrate judge pursuant to 2g U.S.C', § 636(e)(I). OPINION Ai'll) ORDI3R {KPR} rhe residentinll'~al estatill11al'k\1t d~e1in~d 1ll1tl Pia intiff reeei v\1d l\1sS n1l'ney 1111 the sllie 0 nots within (1113 d~vdopl1lellt tlHlI1 o("igll1lllly lltllil:ipati3d, Plairlli/T1l!so itwuned tldditiolUlltjeyelopl1lell1 eosts as 11 tilsull of spiltifi\1 a,'tilll1t; aud d\1Plltnds by PefeudtHlts. FU Cl l!a/13(}cA:gt'ollnd Plnintillwfls foml~d in 2004 as a sin~l\1 purpos~ entity to develop "l'he PE\rks:' a ceskl~ntial ."uhdivision in jiolilst Clcove, ()regon. (Pet{,mdE\nts' ("Pels. ''') COlHjisi3 Stattll11ent ofMntel'ial Facts ("CSMF") ~r I.j Plainti il's inteut was to rh,velop the prOP\1rty by (renling nn tnthls/ruetur\1 to support [1 Sllbtlivislon aJjd subs\1\1wntly s\1l1lots to other dev\1lopcrs who would th\1n eOl1Slt'ud and S\11l homes in tlw subdivisiou. ld To this ~nd, Pldin/ill PUl'UhtiS\1d li!ttlost sixty ilet'es of llml1 IJfOP\1fty in Wtls!tington CtJlln(y l{,lI' apPl'llxinjEltely $6,9 Inillion, (l1el's. \ C1>MF ~ 2,) I'd or to pllfehasil\ I'lltirttiff ,;ot1ght tmnexation of the prt1]l\1rty within thil City, in pal1 to Ipuke 11IIIitie5," (nel~.' ust~ of the City's "S\11'vlee8 und CSMF ~ 3.) A(;enrdinb\ \() McDonald. an ownel' of Dltvid lIill !lcveltlpll1\1nt, at th\1 til11,) of pUfuhase lUinexcd pl'operty, Lil., PI,open!' inside the 1I1'han gfowth btlllltdlll'y ("U(m"), ,;old for appnntll11lttely $100,000 per acre mOI'\1 thilli ul1fllllle),(etl propel'lY. PlaifltitI"Pllid IU1 ilvill'uge of $120,600 r'cfHere fOf The Park~ propeny," (Mr;])onflld Ml1ljavit ("Alr")" :2.) Plalt1tl Ws \1fjbrts to tll1lle);: the pl'llP\1rty wer\p s\Jeuessfllland ajmuxation was approved 011 JfllwalY 10,2005, tIt which point PlfllntilT begfln sllbn1ittit\b\ pennit applielitions to the l'chjVlll1t ag~l1t:i\1s. (nef~.' ~ CSM!" ~I 5.) Md)tll1l1ld elrlilJls thltt 1'laintifT"had a I:OI11I'(1etor tinder eonll'llPt to finish the l,roje\Jtln 4-~ nwnths (D~el.'l1lbcr :2005 pr Jarlllitry 200p) ilnd with the market at Its peak." (Mc])owM Alt " :1.) In 11drlittol1, MeDonald St111ct1 that in ord\1c ttl s~lIlots to 11Idld\prs, Plalntlff"n\pcl1[\1lj ] plutt"d lots that [w~t'\1] ready I\,r building pel'll1its[,r and Ums it would flot "be in a good ppsi!ion to sell thl] tievelopP1rmt t(j a hom\! huilcl\1c until the tltlal plat WllS rcconjcd an.d the City OPINION AND ORDIR 4 Wll~ I'\pady to issue buildinl; permits." (Md)onflld AIT, '1 il.) [n early 2004, McDonald and PCI1I1is Yal'chel1kn, both owner~ of Pavid I1II1, met with rhe Clly, Washington C('Ullty ("Ihe County") and Clean Water Scrvice~ ('iCWW') fbI' un jnlbnnatlonul tliE'etingto discnss the trunk ~ewer II11C1 that W(jUlll serve the dcvc!OpnlenpHtd which Cl1tiry, tht~ Cily 01' th,~ Counly, would Hlkc oVCr the portion PI' David IIill Roa\} lhat ct'tlllc0ted with Highway 4? FnlTIl the ouwct, the pnjp\1rty was bW'dE'n"d with [tcces@ issues, At th\1 tinlc of purchase, the pl'(>perty Illcked ,WC\1SS 11'11111 Illghwl1Y 47 and aC\jes@ ]1'0111 the TI()lih. Therg was eltlCl'gcncy access j)wn the gast, howcver. (Kuhn AlT., Del'. 's Memo" Exhibit ("Ex.") A at:O Annth"r property owner, Lyle SpiessehMrt ("/>pies@chaert"), who had been lln lictlve resillcnt and pl1rticipmH in the I''tjrest Grow community Ill!' many years, oWlwd PfOPE'fly tt' thc @outl\ of"lhe Pltrks. This propet1y WaS behlg developed by Dave Huttala ("I!u\lalfl"), t! developer, into a ~llbdivisi\JIll1mned "Oak Hill Settlement." (PlllintilTs Response ("PI:s I{esp.") CSMf ~ j 8, :Hl.) Plaintiff daims that in CO!1strU(:titlg the Oak J1111 Settlem\tnt, the tlevelplwr WtW I'"quir\ld to pl'uvit1e ~ewer a"eeSs all the way to David lUll Road. Thus, Piaintiffseeks cUfllt'ensati,Jn trotn the City, in pUli, Illr lhilttre to enllJrCIi this conditioll. McDonald tE'stifi,'d tll tIt.1position thllt althuugh the City cuuld not tlwee Huttahl to cUjl1plete lhc phase uf dcvc\tlptnenlU1l1t WUllld hlJVe I'esulted in sewcl' acce,~s that l'"t!ehed to David Hill ROlld, "lhcy eould lulY\! conditlOI1~d [Hunahl] to !Slve right,oI;WllY, and [MclJolt,lld lelt] that [Huttal,J] wac, coHditlotled in phase PHil ttl giw dght,of-wlly." Id. ut ;1. "Washington C'PUl1ty iS~l1(,d its reeoltlltlCndatioos .. ,011 Apdl27 ,2(J05 ," (PI:s R\lsp. C8MI' ~144.) Notlibly, tlw I'cc(jtmll\!ntJiltiOI1~ clilled tlJl' the installation ofa Iraille signal, but did not require I Atrtlnk s\twel' is It Sew"r thatt'ccelves sewagelhnll tnultiplc Soul'(:e,!l and §eI'Ve§ a lal'ge a!'ltt!, O\'INlON AND ORDER {KPRI fut aligl1nwnt ll1odill~atioli, i.e" that th\O mad be "sli'ai~htel1~d outl, I" to llc"omlttotlat\O that signElL ImptJ!><1t1ltit<1f itl thc City'!> Transportation 14yst<1l11 ),Ian ("'IS l!"). [d. at 8. Ftjstel' t~&till~d tlwt the Th~ (1'1.'1; R~sp. City knew that Plaintlffwanted to ~xtJedit" chlv,,!opment of'lhe PlIrks lind tl1lltl'Illintill CSMF ~115.) 1'01' its Plll't, the City Inti/tired in A~tgu&t 2005 wh"th~1' it t:ottld legtilly roul" t1l\O s~wel' outside tlw l!GB If that tum"d out t(j bt~ the 1110st bcmdidal 1'(1U!1!. (Momsch Det:L, 1'1.'& Ppp., E){. [l all J.) On 1'jeptl!tubcl' 2, 200:\, Plallllll'ft'~ct:iv~d Pt'dil11lnmy phIl approval, subJ~ct to II 1;~t lif appealable eond(titl!1s. (Kuhll Aft, HI(. I.) Ryall O'Brien, foundel' and VOl1sultmll fot' LPC Oc'sl~n, ~ rue. ("IJ)C"), thl'- vnglueering f1nl1 elilplo)'eltl by l'htintiff to address ~ . ellgin~ering i~sue14 llppt'(jVltl and all al'pelal periods expirc, the pr()l!mlu!try pilit 11PIJrovai conditions beeouw IJinding 011 bo(1t thv City and the alJPheant for thc term ofth" p\!l'tjlit!' (O'Bri"n AlT. ~17,) lIe w"nt on to sltitc' his opil1iot'llhat, sllln'()l\u"nt to wa~ th~ prelil11it1ll1'Y plat apPwvlll, i'[l]lw C'~ity's tt'~atl11<!nt of' [Plaintiff1 by Val' th" 1ll0s(.upJhir lmtlreekless disregal'll t{.1' l,ellpl\O' 14 rilJhts Ihe blllj] wir.ness~d Ell!,y City lI'~at to [Set ckveiopillent underwlly eV"p tho\lgh it hlld not oPlllitl~d all orthe lteeeS§lll'y pet'l11Hs to [Jeb\itl full \iPlwtrllctiop." (P,,[~,' OPINlON AND O]{PIR CSMF ~16.) Th" p~I'111il slltted: "Constru vtilll1 activity allowed by thel GruLling Pcnnit wlilnot inplude cj(cuvati\jn for or tlw in~talllltion pf privnlc PI' public utilities, Addftiohtllly, th,' Grading PL,rjjlit will 110t allow for the plM\!ll1enl ofn[tgregille bllse miltcrinls within Pllblit rondway arcl\s.·' (Kuhn AII. Ex. Jlllt (\"7.) The Permit allpwcd, spevil1cnlly, "(a) illstallnliol1 of ESC pl'ovisiPIW. induding aggrcgate site entrnllves ami provisions for Il(lis~ nnd dust controL (b) sHe t;leadng and grubbing; <UlIj (c) ll111SS grading apd shalJing of the developnwnt site:' Id. at7. F!u'lhel'llwre, under "Sjlet;ial ProvbioltS:' the permit stated! "Developer a!lre~s 10 \;Ojnply with any lind 1111 SUhS0qUetit r~quir~ment5, as m,lY be eSlabliljheP hy the City or otberjurispktltllllll agency of authodty, pertljining to thb deveiopll1~nt project." it/. ItI II. With regard to PlnhllilTs pnJposed ,~ewer aligtU1W!1f, CWS lold the City that Plaintiffs plan waS '''wellthotlg)1t out: lInd met 1111 reLluire!n'1Ots." (PL 'R Resp. CSMV '113 (eitillg Huttnla All, Ex. A at 5,,7.).) At d"ppsltiOll, fORter apl11itted tlHH it WlW dear in an enwil betweel1 CWS and Wood, Pro.l~et P:ngineel' fbr the CHy of Fore~t Grove, Ihltt "Wood tlg!'eed lIt the thne with Clean Wilter S~rvices' propo~al; aljSeRSjjlelH rcgal'diog UjC's prh11l1ry requirem"n!~ that it met t1w Clefln Water Service~ Itnd WllS in CO!11plhll1ec ...." (Morllljch Dec\., Ex, B tlt 3.) He stilted thaI he did not kll0W why Wood Itllet ehatilct;:r!zed Plaintiff's pl'tlpOSelj !J;:wer plM as a "prohlem," whcn In fact Plai!ttilT"htlP II Ptin!ary option tlwt wa~ actually the solttjiO!l and m~t ItII thel el'iteria . , .." Id. laic\' t<3Rtlfietl that [lefimdants Were not hnpre~,sed hy ~olne orPlal[ltlff~ Fo~tcr i,IeIIS teglll'ljing the Sewer routing. However, he wlts untlble to e){plahl why CWS "[tltoughfl [Plaintiff'R] pritnltry option WitS 50 good[.I" 01' why WOod seemed to agre~ with this f1SljeljSmenl. (lvIol'tIsch l)epl., 1',)(.13 at6,) al~o te~tilied thtll a nltcen"!l)(1t \HUity ellSI!Il1~nl that hOUljed both s~wer Fo~ter and wa\et muWs woule1 comply with applicllble codr:s ilI1tl could potentially be gj'fllJ\cd Oil tl lell1p0rtlry bltsilj, up 10 ten yeltl's, (Morasch Decl., Ex. Il I\t II J He also admitted that if OPINION ANt) ORDER 7 th,~ City did not thll1k the tifteQj1,lbot {KPRf ell~eh1011l Wt)lI\c1 bt: sufficiellt, they typl~aliy would bave I'Ilised the Lgslle prior Ii) the prditnillary pIal fI""it!w, (Morlt'3ch Det'1., Ex. [lilt 12,) Jal11es Reitz ("Reitz"), ,l t'ity employee, teslilled thllt the en~ihct!ring ell~CIMllt t1el1ar!mclH did flO! eOl11nWllt ill the Ijrclil11illflry plllHnlpg period tlhtHlI the tiJtecll-t\Jol deseribed in the allplicatitjf1 Illl1lerials. C'l(eye,y"), f\mt1erly tht:' Devcl\lPtnefltService~ (Mora~eh [let'1., Hi(. C at 2.) Terry Keyes Manager for CWS, te~ti lied tiltH, hl1!.ell¢nll, ~ewet fOuth!1!. withIn II development WIlS llot a (Joneel'l1 of thl' (;ity "Ullle.ys II mutl' t'iluseld] ll1tlintellallee pnlblems:' (Keye~ Air ,'4.) He Illso stilted Ihut it WitS his undel'stilwjing thllt dewlopers of property to Ihe west oi'lhe Purks, and sllcdf1t:uliy M,ltitleo, were "not supportive Pflhe sewer routing liS puI [(nth iu tIlt' Inaster sewer pian," "1lt1 thut this isslte was diseusst'd in a l11eetln1!. between Keyes, Wood, tlnti !'oSlel'. If/, In a Novemhcr2, 200:\; email, Keyes wrote: "'rhe [lroposetll't'ute for the ttunl< line tlppellrs well th\lu~ht out lind should llliniml:z:c COflstrtl,;tion costs and ¢a,yelllent issues," tie~pHc the faet thllt oth,:I' develoller, were 110t "(~lIll'el1tly supportiv<.' or tI seWer (:xten~ion trtlv\!rsll1g thelt' pn'perty." (I(eye,ij AI'C E){. 13.) I<eyes agail! slat~d tlUlt the 10clltiojlljrOP\Wett by JllalntilTwlls the be~t (>pliOl!. Id III an emtlil written Illrel' thllt thy, Wood al';kllowledged that the wlitinlb proposed by Loe oft Plahltill' f3 bebtll f"'is the !'Oule that el1sures that The Parks devdoptnent Iws met the CWIl pbli1!.f1tion njr eJ'tendinlb the tnljlk sew<.'r through its (\eveklptnent , . ," 11Pd admits thllt "the LDC pl'H\ tlc!lllJIly provides City, or (!Jettet SElic!) 111<.' next ()evdol'o\', with two potolltitll alignment Opliofl,ij. , . whIch is good." (Keyes Atl Ex. C.) On S¢ptel11bor :11, 2()O:\, the City issued II stop wor\;: order, (McDonllld D"po. 160:9,-13.) PI,litHiffdid Ilot comply with the 01'(\\01\ and llnotlwr StoP Wmk Nptit~o WtlS i~sued \ltl Sepfell1b~1' '26, 200:\, The l10tice sltlled thtl! Plaintiff WilS in viul,Hion of SP\id,ll pl'(lvi~ions to the eat'1y g1'llding permit lInd n\lt ill cOl1lplianee with a fetjulrelMI1t oft!w BOIlllevilie !,ower AdilliIlistratiol!. Further, 0IJ1N](JN ANi) ORO!\R {KPRj PlnlntlffwtjS "installillg pu blie IJJlplovelj1euts" without npprova!, a pe:l'llilt, Ill' ttptJt'opdat ¬,- "tmlvi sions 1'01' in~Ji~ction by" the City. (Kuhlt Air" Ex. J{. at 1,2.) ThIs oltk~I' d~laYHI the: project fbI' On SCjltcmbCl' 30, 2005, (he:rc WtlS t1 mee:ting attct1dr~d by MeIJollald, Wood, P'ost\lr, and Rkk t:o~'s 111111W 011 th\l sl~nllJi slNr<t n~ "Bill Co(:ks" (Pl.'s CSMF 1136.) With 1'~gtl1'd to tlw wethmds issue, \lt1vlrot1mental cOl1sultilntJulle Wirth ("Wirth") was tm,k(!d with "idel1tlfYll1g wetillUt1 mitlgl1tiol1 OPliol'tllnitles fOt' the \lXtellsiOt1 ofDavid Hillli<)tld (D1'lR) ... ," (Wirth Aft ~j.) She lestilled t1wllw City Wlls Illirespnl1slve tn Plahlliffs eflbrt,s to l1nd tl splutiol1 tp tlt\l wotltlnd8l~s\te. Due to thi~ \tllrr<sJipn~ivenes~, PIl1lntiff"ordr<to!l [Wirth] to prepare tlletter fbr Mr. Ilolnn' ~ s!gnalttro for tlte ,;itv to send to the l'~glllatoty tlgendes ott their ownlotterhead." (Wirth . .' Afr. 114,) This I~tt~r was giwn to lIplan, tl10 Cou1tmmity IJevell'JitnotH Director fbI' tho City, but was nr,Vgr sigj1er! or /tlrwardod to the: J'(Jgulatory tlgCtleleS. (Wirth Aft H)(. A.) tr,ll1tinnsltill with Tim MeJ)otlllld, III seveJ'il1 t1ilJerent meetings with lim sl:at~ments rel-l<1nling th,' subjeet prnj~et whkh hllve b~el1 h~ has nl[lde various prOwn \llll1'ue, It hilS lJecnnlo very hard nlr City stnlnp beliew anything [ll'<ltt1! the mouth pfMJ. tvkJ)Ol1llkF (Mpt'llSch L)et:J., n,,:. I> at I.) tlte ~ll1l10 Qlnail Vatl<kl'kin eXJit'~ssed the Qone~m of an LDe ouglnecr, Rpy Htltlk;ins C'lIankitls"), wht) Ihll'ed thElt his Hsso,:iatiOl1 with Thr; Parks peve!o)Jnwnt would htlrm OPINION AND ORDl'l,z hi~ I'~hltinnship whit the iKPH} City, lei. at2, CllI'l~toph~r Hankins in 2006, his rcllltion~hlPs I~stified Ki!tn'd!t<.\ th~ Qllgln,,~r who look over Ibr Patrkk Mm'tln ("Murtilf') and lit tk,potiitlpj1, d\lspili;l his t:onCel'll~ that such tQst!tn\lny would endllng~r with Wood I1I1t! V<lIldQrkln, thtlt '\vhen Ih<.1ll1r51 got involved in the proj<.1n. [the two miltll <.1}(prCS8<.1t! their unhappitlctiS with holll 'rim and tl10 prcvious engincers, IlIQ] kn<.1w they wcril Ii'tU>it'llted tllRI irrHal\ld, ,lund 1 that lIlQre wasn't tJny lov\l lost hetwe\llj them and the dewlop<.1r," (Kittrild[Se D\lptlsl!ion ("J)epo:') 1~2: 19.2~.) Mattin was the ·\ll~sl[Snllt<.1d pruj<.1t:t cngil1<.1cl'" for Tlw Par!;:s llnt!llanki!ls wurk\ld with him on the Ptoj"cl, (Mt'l'tlsch DceI., Ex. A 1117,) Wood testified that he had no personal pl'ohkl11S with Hunkins, hllt that he did qucstion hisJlIdgn1ellt on UCl'tahl \Jcufjsions, pal'tlelllllrly with I'\lglml to the trllnk seWer Illignll1clll. hi. In .!Imum'" 2006, City etjj.ploY\lcs ej{chaligcd el11liil~ tlbollt whether PlaltltllJhad b"el1 billed tbr time ,~p()nt by a eityr attorney Illl iSstm~ tl~socitlted with 'rlw I'I1l'ks develt'pl11QIll. Up to that ppin t, thc City hat! not bllletl Th<.1 PllI'ks but, ll~ Wood Wfote: "If, City tlhooses to pass applicable dirtlt:t cllsts Itlr Ic~al Cljlll1S01 ul(lI1g to Developer (liS hillr:d to City by City At10rneY lll' legal eOUllBel) all such btllings shtll1lt1 b~ pt1id pl'hll' to (1ity's ucccplWI(',J oftlie projet:\." A l1:1w w~eks lAter, the City e){pr~ssed it~ r~l1:1rred OehJb~r :?'t)()5 reWlI'ding The to Plaitttl!'f lIs having been "Ii [pllinl," pl,lnted out to his cpllel1[Su"s thtlt The Parks' IHtt>rney hlld been incltld\ld "f(Jrwardin~ 11)(, 1at j-:1,) int0l1t to bill Plaintiff fol' thill"gl!l feef> itIClll'l'"d up to tlUll POlllt. (Mortlsch Dec\., Ex. 1at 3,) In tll1 email strltlg thltt began in Par!;:s dQvclolll1iiJlit, Wood (Moru~c1t D~01., tlny such ctlll1tUun!t:a!iojis to [the] City's (1) I~gtd the email ~lt'int1 lind eontemplAted 0(1IIllsell.J" hI. tit 'kj. In AJAIlt.lIlIY 3, 2006, \ll11ail stt'in[S hetweiJn Vander!;:il1l1l1d W(lod, Wood WrotiJ that hc nHiy be "l1shing;," but b\llliJWs the City wm> eo!te..:! in ''tlot iS~lIjng building perl11lts , ' , tmtil <til r~quir"d imptPwnients have been elltl1pl\lted IUlllriJspeetively lwe~Pted[,1" (MWlISeh Pel:\', HI<, P III 3,) He Illsp Wl'l'te thM he WIIS 10 {Kl)}{} Ihlnldnj,! allml( whether th~ City eould legally "hold up blliltling permits If oll'slte (That\)h~r Rd tll be specifie:) pu!,!it: itnpnWel11ellW are Ilot eoltlplet~d," ld VanchJrkin agl"e~d thllt thc City W,t~ ,:OI'1'e,:t in withholding the pennit'! until the \:mllpletioll uf itnproveillent'!. ld 011 March 3, 2(l06, WOlld sellt an email to MeD(IIll1ld ill whkh he made fOllr ~p~cit1e. repre,>entati1ll1s, First, Wood wrote that "[o]nly ol/e (Itility (Hssl1l11ill~ slillital)' sewer) C~1l be IOI;ated intp It IS-loot wide ~aseillent. If two utilities are inSlaHed the minimum en~elj1(1I1t width WOldd inerellse to 2tH<;el, ... A I(j,l(jot wide utility ellsen1~nt (subst!tuHnj,! ail the PUE) is required !\ir dry \Jtllities, Altogether, thi.~ tl'lu1il!lnes in8tallatiorl." (MOl'l1seh Pet:l., I()(. to a l11illin1\lll1 ellSel11~l1t width of 3()-!itet fur publit: utility A at 20.) Seeond, Woo,l inlbnl1ed MeDol1ltid th~t th~ !he \lepartmen( I'"quir"s Ill'ight of WilY Oil top or the \Itility ellSen1"nl, illelucllng a turn IU'olmd, "with It n11l1itt1um tmvel-wav width of 2().feet . MllDol1l1id thnt the "City wHl ln1provell\~I1t, ~Ul='port ne~d (~x\:ll1di[lg support slul\llden;)." . ld Third, Wood told your d"sign proposlli fcll' eOl1iltrtleting an int~ril11 htllt~~Wet Idong DllVld Hill R\Jlld, tltnt will have sUf/ki"nt width to stl'lIdurally 1111d salitly two lanes ortraflk" Iii. at 21. I'otll'th, Wood poimed out that (he "t:UrrCllt trallk sf1ldy" 11ssl1111ed that a ilceolid r)u~}lk tlt:@ss would be ~Vllillible Itt the inter1;eetion of Pav!tlllill [{I)tltl tlnd Brookc Strcct. hi the ~vent thm ol1ly one l='u1>Ii\: Itce~ss was aetutllly avnUablc, Wood illfbnned M01)Ol1ltld that an U1Jdate\i traffle study would be required. M Aer-ording tu PIt:lilltil1~ the Man:h 3,2006, email was the nl~t time the City con111lunir-ated its delUand Ihr II tweI1ty,·lbot emergency ace~ss on Brook~ Street: it WllS Illso the nrst time thc City \:ould htlvc apPl'Pwd ~ f1ftl1elHbot tetnpol'tlry emergency ItCe~S8 il1~tead. (PI.'s CSMF ,,29.) Chmles Mllrble testilled by affidavit thltt when he WIIS emploYed hy thc City as aSilistal1t I1n.! chief; "thc CilY OPINlON AN\) ORO!'£{ II 1,600 r~et long alid had20·j'oot·wide pullouts every 300 fef-lt fot the (Marble AfC '13,) 'rhe elnall wtl'; also the til"~t ~lIlJlmit Pointe aUbdiviljiotl." ljltmtltlll thltt Ow C'ity required II twelve-/(lot,·wid" medlillj in tlw eelitet of Davkl Hill ROilti, (PL's CSMF '13:2,) l'oster te!;tHh~tlthat it dili not iair thlit IllalntHl' was requherl to deliicatQ thitty·sevett I~et !\>t medilln width, whik ()ak lIiIl Settl\jl11elit was required tp dedicltte only thirty-three, (Moraseh l)~cI" Wood t~stin[.)d idt;ntitl~s HUlt the deei.~ion had llfthose peoljle, Id, i'\I~o, b~ell Se~tH l~x, 13 at 5,) At llep\mitit=>n, by "people llbow [hin1]:' tlHlllgh be "ould not r~enll the according to the t~stimol1Y on;'oatel" a city ~n1PloYee, tlw City "may llitVi:' allowed tWI' utilities in II I 5,foo( ClIS(jnwnt bl.'fore/, but HUll It waN nllt Ideal and wO\lltl only be allowcd on 11tempOI'lU'y basis, (PI. 's CSMF '128,) Hilllldl1s, felld projevt lllllnaiSer 011 The Patk~ d\Jwlopl1lent, (eatit1ed tbtll "[t]lwre WIIS 110 need to run dty utilitieN along 13rooke ~)treet Ujltjj the lwighlJOrjng property oWl1er(Oak Hill Settlement) tle()id[.)d to rlevelop," (Hankitls All '14,) The same WilS Irue for Ihe water (Olinectlol\, (Htlnkin~ AfC '1 5,) Hiln!<ins ljlsp statl.'d in his affidavit thnI the (hd,1Ya in th.; erOsiml ePlltl'O! plan lmd proper grading pfthe site were ticcasioned by the City, not Pillintilf (llilnkil1s Aft'. ~l 6,) ht April 2()06, Plaintill' received finlll bids from all interested dewlopers, Plaintiff c11Pse "Venture Pwp.;tties (Venture) and sliSn.;d an opcn ended p\n'(!ha~e and sales agre~ment , ' , ttl pure!laiJe ~ I5 or 1.1/ !tltS for lli2/,950,000 , , ," with an opcn-epd[.)d time lhtmc fOt delivety tlnd closing, (MeDlllmkl Aft'. 'll6,) Altet the delttys cllused the nlarke! wIue pfthe lots to dnlp, PlltintilT ultiJnatvly sold I -12 OIl May lot~ to Vellture I~Jt llppl'Oxinwtely $16,J25,OO(), (Md)onald Aft'. '1 7,) 15, ;()(J6, the parries entered illto a Public ImptoVemvnl~ COlttlltct assotliatet! with The Pl1rK" d;;lVell1Pl11Ctlt, (Dei's,' CSMF '1 9,) The agreenlellt 14tated: ;'Upl1n C0l11li1eti()l1 lind acceptl1pe,) the pU!:llite improveljlellt will hecome the pl'\>[1l.'rty ofthe City tlnd therefore must t:Otlt(Jrltl OPINION AND {)ROJi,R 12 {KI'Rj to existio~ City staodards." (Kuhn AlT., Ex. ), at I J Furthel\ the "('Ity shall issue tll Developer It permit alioWiu15 deveh'Per to eoostl'Ud the prujet:t "ubje(:t to the temw and conditions eootained 10 this Agre"Il1~llt alld futth¢r~ubjel:t to any sliCcial c(lI1ditioo~ spe\:i lIed io tll~ attach¢d Exhibit' n.'" ld, (,:11jphasis tmlltt\!d). In ~,meral, the llgl'\!etileDt required CtlmplimlCe with "curl'ent City Mw,ter Plao~ Hnd Transportatioo System PlaoL!" as wdl CWS, as nlllY be 1110dif1ed (If' <IS "tlJe elUTent sttmdariJS and speel!'iet1tions llf amended by the City," Jd at;;t. It also eontain¢d a clause thttt iutegraled all t>rior agreell1¢l1ts tmd gov~med llllnre nwdif1eations, hi. lit !2. Ilxhlbit B to th¢ agre¢l1jent outlin~d sp¢eial cOllditions that goveflwd developrnem or The Parks, in pattieull\r that "la]1I WOl'k sball eoofol'm (as applicable) to , . , [t]he appwvitd plaml and ,specifications desigrK;d tlltd pl'epared by LPC Design (Jroup, !tiC, of Hillshortj, Oregon," /d. at 14, MeDonnld te"tified that, despitl! ollgoing probl~J11s with DdQndtllHs, Pltiintiff ,~iglll!tl tbe agre¢ment to keep tlw projeet moving; lhrward. (Mel)ttnllid Depo. 102:;]1-103:3) At:enrding t(l the depositioll testhnony of WOOt! llnd Ftlst~r, the City took !sMt!e with tlw judgment of Plailltift'~ enghleer~ rt;gtml!ug; the t!'Unk SfW~I' fllign!l1cnt aud t:onsldcred id.el1s unimpressive liI1t! PJaintin'~ not "eoutpletc]y thllll~ht tIJn)ugb." (PL's CSMF ~121.) Wood and FOBtel' also ¢)wlmog;ed ell1ails libtlut the pro~pect onalldng to t'Jw Ore/oiu/1iu/1llbout The P<lI'ks tlevelop!l1\1nL Wood Wl'pte that "given the ellrM1t sitlltltltJl1[,]" it wouldu't \lea good idea to talk It> the n1\1dili tit this point aud I1lso tl1<lt hI! aDd 1'ostl!r shlHlhj disl!ltss "tht~ Bruoke Street nj[lll~r" prior It> doing So, (PI.' r, CSMF'I:23 ,) Th\! Brooke Street mailer itlVolved cljnneetin~ "Bewer alld watel' tIJrllllgh BrOi)k¢ Stre\1t tpsatisly the prdilllillary plat approval conditilm,," tis well tiS the subdivision's Second aece"s 1'01' ne~d for <Oa emergency vehicles ouly:' (PI.'s CSI\11"1 ;24) Iu the u1idst oftlw planning pl'Oe¢ss, Plaintiffsollghl!O ijivid¢ the PrtJject into tWI) phaBes, OPINION AND ORDER {KPR} Plll'pOl'!ed1y to rCGolve ali issue' with wtlthmds ,md, thus, ,wold delay. Wooll t"stiflcd tlmt Plainti11's request fbr Ilh~sit%\ 9, prior to thl~, p,wsQd thl'P\ll6h "community dcvelopl1l,"ut" tlnd was dc"lI~d at that polnL Id. til develOPQrs HtJt1lila and SpieGschac'rt had b,'Qil permitted to "split theit' Ilrst phas," iuto two eonGtruetlon phm;es , . , ." (PI.' s C'SMF '1 14.) At Ikpo~itiolt, Wood teclillcd two deve10pnreuts in which a tkvcloper WllS permitted to spl it a siu!?le phase into two plHlses, ~pc'ci fically OAk Hill Selt!enliJllt Htld Pttcifie Grove, He also statcd, howevet, that '\lIWC [a d,lV"lopnl\Ont] Is Htlit?, 11iNO In th" plal1nlpg dlviNiop, testil1ed Ow splining a singlc phaNp dcveloptll"l1t into two pha,ges would Ilot he atl "isslie," IIOt would it tequlte planning; apptoval bl1ctltls" it WliS ill1 issue fbr the engin~eril1!? r!epflrtnwnL (Mol'lJseh Peel., I':x, Cat 3.) Holan also t"stili"d thtit phasing was "Ip]ritnadly an epginetldng is~ue." (Moraseh Decl., Ex, Hat 3A,) Wood testiljed at deposition that a projCt;t ~imilt\r to The Pal'ks woult:! tYPlcullv take sill: or " ; . "(I) diil1eulti,,~ in c~tabll~hing the trllft!< ~eWer aligllnlent; (2) issues l'tllalet! h' David IWI Rot\d iltH] Brook" Street; cn jssllelj relating to the wetlalu] urossing; lind (4) issues lWl'lilil1in!? to the E,u'ly ddtiy. It!. On F'"hrUflly 13, 2()()'1, Wood st)nt un c'n1ilil to Mut)onald illid (lthers r~gtll'dln~ "newly irlslttllctd treestJ illong LlflVkl Hill ROlid ... ," (Morasch Ded., Ex., F tlt 1) The IVlellonald thllt the tre~s ~mailll\lvise,j ,lid liPt (;Or111jly with a l'equirement thtlt branches htlv0 a millimum height OPINION ANP PIWER 14 {KPR} of Mix fevt tme!, thereror~, musl be 1'<:i1l10v~d Aceordiuj5 to Martin, tln IJK' aud repluved with ePllIpliali1 tre"s, /d. McDollald ~l11ploYl;l\ although there Were a!Jpofnjal delays in r~vlewiug others were (reflted tllIrer~nlly PI' (1l1fairly. lhutklps IQsliHed Ihat ,llthollgh h~ 1~1t thot Ihe delays were utllhir to I'laintifL they w~re nol oft!persontJl natllre. He ~ttlted that things beetlll1e "healed" between Plaintiff tUlll J)efeudtlnls Ilnd it WllS tl very "mugh job," but thut J)e!'elidttnts' tletlons were not reluliutory. H~ felt that d"alb!lb with l\llltaltl tlnd rl!6hts"I}I~wtly th~ ttntluillity isBU"S Bhould 1101 hflv~ been pmblelllatle, but FOI'est Grove Sehool DiBldet created pwbletl1,Q, (I<uhn AIT" E". R,) As of ,I\pril :WOl), PltliutlIllwd sold uppmximat"ly 193 lots fllj(j ititelldM 10 sell:' O)elk' C8MF ~16,1 PlalntilTeltlitilS extensive dtllllug<:is ~amed a net pwl1t of urisin~ l)'OlP deltty aud iuct\;used construction requirel11entB ,'ilw;ed by the fllI~g"dIY unhlwful requirem~nls Illlposed by the . " City. Inodditlou to tht: 1Il1egQ\j drop In the purella,,,e ptlt:e paid by Vt!n!prt', lJllI!ntiffabo tlllt~g"dly incuned additlpnfllintt're~t paytlipllts on Its IOHn, iltliOunting to tlPPl'PXllllilt ely $1 ,540,000, as tI tesult of the delays, PI"I!HilJ Illsp dtlln!~ nddithllwl lllljustil1ed costs of $3()O,OOO paid 10 Butlitla and ,ut eleetrkallille tllol1g Dilvld BIIII~.otJd, tl1(lu~h tht! sltmp t~q\liren1C1it was not li1ade of Iluttlllll and hdlltedly ol\kred cnl1slruetlon ol'impl'Ovementsltlong the south ~;ide of L)lIvid llill Road, rtltlwr thlln the north side, illkt \~o(lstnll.'tion pI' PlIvi,1 Hill ({PtIcl was already ClJIl1plt!tQll. (McDonald ML '114,) OPINION ANP OI~DER 13 jKI'Rl Delendants aI'BU~ tbat tlw (Hsput~ with Plainti ffshould tw govel'tied by the Ptll'tili!S' May;!006 publ ie improvements I;'l!lttflet, ACli!,wdittg to Defendants, "[tJhe purpOSe ofttw pUblic itnpmvemcn ts eoatttlct was to have 1)lain!irf'in~tl1l1 the nece~Stlry public utility and trapspOtta!iml itlffflstl'llL'ture to serve the Pl'opos~d resiekntial development and pnw\de connectivity with existing and fUt\,u'c public l'rtcllities," (Uej'¢ndaltt's rvktllOrajtdum ISO Motion Fnr Suml11my Judgment ('Def's SJ Memo,") 4,) [Jpon cOl11pl~tilm, the contl'twt pl'twlded tllltt PI(lintilf would reltlrtt ownership of the imprnvement<l to the City, which would tlwn be r('!~p(lltsible [le!endants stille tbat the contl'twt u!lin1at[.)ly a~teed [bl' mtiil1tenllltCe of the impnwement~. UpOlt was the result of a series 1'1' IImfts attd I'cvisitms, and that th[.) Ilmll tloeUll1etlt ineluded lUI integr(llltm clllUse which agl'~()lnepts guaralit('!~d thllt prior between the ptlrti[.)s werc no longer bit1dlng, tu the ~xtent they wet~ liot bwlUlJed in the publie improvemet1ts eontraet. The (:lallse stat~d, in full: All ol'th[.) t~rl]1s and provi~iops of'this ttgteel11ent al'~ /1llly set forth herein, and tlO prior Hndet'~tandin~ 01' obligation pot eliptesiJly set lhl'tll in tlll~ a!Sl'(;1etlletlt ~htlH \)e bindil1g Hpun the plll'ties, atld no subS[.)qtlQllt !l1odllictttit1tl oflhi~ ttgn~ement §hElH I)c bindijjg upon the pt1l'ti[.)s Ilnles~ it is in writing Illtll (;1~e(:uted with th~ sEll11e Ihnnt1litles as this agre~l11el1t. Ntln<waivcr iiI' ~ithQj' rltil'ty of any bl'~aQh of tllty obliglltiop tlf the other patty shtlH not 0pCfat[.) or be cOl1siclel'ed as a wtllv<1r of any oth()r or S\.lb~eqlmnt hretlch. (Kuhn Afr.. Ex, L ttt 12.) Thus, Detbndflnts eOllt<1t1d, Plailltl fr rnay 1'[.)ctlVel' Imly under th~ t(~rltls or this contraet ttnd etaitns al'islng f!'ltn1 th[.) prclil11itU1ry plat uppnlVld ttre IttPOt. Plaintiff ar&\ues thlll tlte public il11prOV()l11ent1J eotltrtll;t had th() narrow PU!'lWSe of ensuring that Plaintiff cOl1lrllQted tIl() agreed"upPn il1lpfOVeIM!lts, Thus, tllQ integration cltWSQ must [Je OPINION AND OR[)lo:t~ (KPR} vOl1stflwd with thutnal'l'ow purpose in mind. FlIt'th~f'nl0re, Plilintilf urgl1el; that tlw CitY'1; dnty to pbperve PltlintilTI; eonl;!itutipnul rights is not an "understill1l1ing PI' pbligtltipn" that CUn he tlVoided 1ll1pnlVenWlHs eontrtteL provi,lc~ 1)0 Pir.~t, Def'clldlln!.', claim thtl! the only evid(',nee to thit; enect tlmt Pluintiff h a 8itl~le Ii ne n'om WPOtl' II deposition. ~)e~ond, D(',J'cndfll1ts Urglle thtlt the coptritet should inteqmlted units hlee und that it ,Io(',s pot limit its I;cope to ensuril1g that the hl1pt'Owm~l1ls are Thlt doellll1ent, containing the integration clausi2 quot~d flbow il; titled "Agreenwl1t Allowing J)evelopef to COl1struet Public Imfll'ovep,cnt." ld at I , 'fhe general re~itllls slllte thilt the developer will "ConslnH:t publi,; il11provetllel1l~ on property" witbill eity limits tmd "[ulpon t'olnpletlolt and llCeept,"we the 1111hlk itnllfovcl11etlt will heeol11e" city proPerty. It!. The contraet IJnwides tlwt, to th<i extell! th<i Pl'Pji2ct InvolveE; ".~tt'lteW, stoml dfilinage, sanitllry seWer or waterlines, the dltsign sl1l111 In<iorponn~ ull required elements of cllrt'~nt City utility Mtlst~r Pltlns af'ld Tnlltp]Jor!ftti'J\I System As D@f",ndllflts h~n'P It, thll; Is a tUf'l1k~y Contl'il<it, wherein lh<i itt1prOVel11ents at~ tllrncd ovet to the City upon contl'lotlon for ownersltip and Inalntel1l1nt'e, Addlti(iltlilly, b;xhiblt It ((J the eontl'llet tllsp state.'! thtH the inlproven1cllts "shall 00nfoml (us lwplit,able) spociliclJlltllt~ d~sl~n~d to ' , ' [t]h<i apPl'Oved pltllt'l and flnd prepllfcd by LDC Desigp tlroup, lite. oflHlIsbol'o, Oreklon." ld, at 14. Hot!t tIlt' nfltW<i of the t:Ollt!'l1ct ll!ld tlw !\!ct that it itwol'porates plans and spceitklltiO!IS alteady IIP[11'oved In th~ eotlrs~ of the pcnnltting pn1c!'sil e(lI1travcllCS J)e!llndapts' Intltrpl'etation tltat I'lllintit'l"s t:!ninjs are c(j\ltl'olled by tlte t:O!ltnlct. P<1fcndunlp provide nO further untllysis to explain why the tlll1!l'lwt underl11ln<is Pltjintiff's Clllillls. i4eeondly, liS Pll1itltiff points ¢. ~ OPINION ANfl ORDER I? O\ll, the 00ntntc\ {KPR} D(lf0ndat11s rely on does not IJUI'port 10 rel(la,se PeIQnc!E!!1t~ Ihlln their duty 10 observe Plaintiff':> eonslil\ltill11ul tights, In sum, the Pllblie injpnlv\it1\eIl!S l:otttlllet b(w,~ on Jispo~itloll or Plaintlff1> elflims but is not dispo,>itive oralty ofthose elaims amI dOes 1I0t preclude I'laintifi"s I;onstitutiunal elflitns, IL Iltkirrgg A, Ripelless Dd'enclants argue, as a pr~litnitlmy tnatter, tbat Plalntlfl's l(~c!oral tE/klngs elalru Is llot tlpe, D\,I'endants vitc~ Slal~ v. Kennudy, 29S Or. :;i60, 262, (j6(j P,2d I J II! (1983) fbI' the pfPposltion that "llll questions or,slate ItjW be eon,sid\ired and disppsed pnle fot~ n'al1hitlg a \ilaim IImt this sltlte' slaw Hl1ls slwl't ora sttmcltwd imposed by the federal constitution un ltll sltltes." «('itlltinns otpi(ted.) N\ixt, D\'I'endmtts 11I'gUe thut, in ol'del' to stute a takings c1111l11 under statit law, Plaittti II nlu~t Imve "purs(tec! alld beltn deniedjust eOl11penSlttitm under the applicaille stine epl11pel1satwy pnle\icltJI\l~," (De1's: SJ MenlO 8,) hI Sllppott, Defendnnts tlte Outdoor Media GrouP. 1m;. \,. City Il!'JleWlfliol1l, ;O{l F.3d 895 (9th Cit.. 20ll7). in whit:h thl! Ninth Circuit ~tntetl: "We retlulre eXhl1flstio(l of ltdltlinistrtltiw n1111edi~s In the tllking,s context a@ a 111lltt¢r pfripen\'ss: i3el:aUSQ the '!'akill/?s C!Etu@e pnly prnhit)it~> tlw tllking ofpl'operty without just eonlp~nsatlon, II lttkitlg.S claitfl b not ripe (mtil thit claimant hac> pursued tUld been dcni~d just COll1pcmsatiofl un(!or the alJP!\cabk statl! cOll1penS1\lory pl'pc~d\lre~." 1d at 'lOll, Dd\mdants tl0 nol icleuti fy which stat" t\l111jl"ns1\ltlry Pl'Pc~d\lres lire aVilill1ble to Plaintiff, thpll~h nut PI'¢sul1lAbiy they ref~r to Uti~ated its Stat~ Iiti~atiou itl stat~ c'purl. lJel'endants write! "BQcltUS\, Plaintiff hlw luv(lrse Cou(!omnatiop. dall1l to Ilt1ality, tllere is no roouneel1t!l Anwndment clQjll'ivation:' (Del);.' SJ Memo, 9,) As Plai uti f1' points 0111. it oril.\itwlly filet! its \Claim,> iti swte court Ol'lNlON AND ORDER 18 {KPR} lmd Def\onl1antl1 rejlH)Ved the action to fedcml 001lrL Plaintiff pthetwl§e 11gteeS that the (lourt nlllst litst addrt'ss the sll1te t,,\{illgs ehiinlaod, ill the cvent it finds 00 lllk;il1g has o(jeurred lllidel' Stllle law, the fedcral Clllilll tipens and the cumt tHay addre,gS the claim at that tillK, As Defendllllts onltl' 110 intenncdiate state adl11ini,tl'tltive pnNedure~ that should have beeu j:ltll'sued by Plaltlliff, Olltside ol'litiglltion in ,tate eOltrt-whkh Plaintilrs initiated-thc eoUtt a16l'ces that Plaln(jfJ's fedewl I~ltliln hectll1iCS ripe should it fail undcl' the l'equiteUlents 01' the Otegpu Coostitutiun. B. LeMai Sltllldtlrd\ Thl:' UnHcd States ClJnstihnlOI1 pl'\lhibits the taking or privatc prt>pcrty by thc glJvQl'Ili11el1t withoutjttst COllip ¬ll1satiou, .'lei' U,S, CONST, amend, V (", , ,nM plll1lt private prOPQrty be ttlken I()I' public [WC, withpurjust ClJflll,cllsa!ion:'). Appliclitil'l1 ofthis principle to a physical takitlg Is Ihldy stl'l1ightfol'\vard, "Wheo the glJvcrmncnt physically talces PPsscspion pfllll il1tenJst in pl'operty Ibl' sOniC public pUl'jlOpe, it has H~Ht~gprlt;al duty to compensate thl: formet pwnef, reglirdle§s pfwhethcr the interest that is tllk(Jn PI'~sen'tl1i(m eonstittlt\l~ an entirt: !Jan;el Of l\1Crely 11 part thel'eof." Tahot!-,'I';erl'a CUlI/iSerl), 'lt1lwe Res/tlnal Pfann/nlt Agency, ;3; U.S, 302, 3;2 (2()()~~), Byeontrast, the Supten1e CUUtf h,IS chllt'i1Ctl'rl:Led analysis pI' reguhltory taldngs by government as "essentially lid hoc, fa\lfual!tlqtlirles ' , . ," Penn Celltr(lf v. New fork City, 43 ~ U.S, 104, 124 (1978). The COlli'( gave f'ul'th(Jr gu!tItUlee as tu sHeh inquiries: "The \lconolnic imlJad of the regultltion 011 the claimant lmd, parfi\lplarly, the extent to which the regulation has intcrfere!l with distlnet il1wsttu\lnt"bllcked (Jxreetatiojls lite, of eourS(J, tel(!vltnt eonsideratlol1s. So, tot>, Is the ehat'ltett~r of tlw govenuJlental lletlon." fd (lntel'tlal citation IJITIittt,'tI), Thl'! Or(Jgon Constitution f\ltjO pl'\>seribes gt/v(Jrnmt!nt !tlkitlgs without eOlllpensa!ioll and OfllNlClN AND ORPHR { KJ'R} B1t\les: "Pdvtlte pl'tJp~rty shall not b,~ takc)j\ n,l' puhlit; \I5e,. witholltJpst c\jI11IJejlsatinl1 ... :' OR. CONST. An. I; S~Q, I~. With regan1w phy~kAI to P'iI'!h AtnQnchllelll 'physical' 19(5) (dting r~gjJltltory P~r.[JII~oll takin~s law." lIoeckv. C'/ly ufPorf!tII/tI, §7 fJd ?8 t, '187 (9th err. tal9llgs; Iwwevel'. Cln,WJl1 Illw provides le§s pwtQction to prol:Jel'ty OWIl(1rs tlwn that Anwndl11~nt A gov~l'l1l11~n! may also ellce-t II pfpdvt\tc pnJPel'ty, "OI'~g()I1law ie idQtjtkal " Ofy of'lvflll City, 11001\ APt'. :nO,20? (1993»), With regard to proteetiol1 pmvidell hy the Fifth with takill~s II of the United ~>tates Con~titution. ld. at 788, tl1klng whet! it c\Jn\litiol1s t/CVeloPIMnt upon cClInpliill1j;e 'ilu ]l1tler the specific requirement. That is, w\Olksettlc~d doctrin~ conditions: thc gnv@rntncnt I1lflY not rQqulre a person to give exchang~ Illl' tldiscretional'Y beneHt conferrell til) of 'unepnetitutional '1 cOl1stittltlplltli right. , . II) hy thc govefl1tPent wher" the tlcnc!it sought Ims lillie or no relilt!Plwhip 10 the pl'operty," DO/CIII \\ C'I'.\' olTigord, 512 U,S, 374, 38.5 (1994). [n lJfllan, the C(jUl't was relJelTing to the ri~ht to bIt cOmpel1Silled for the USc und\Or 111\0 fedet'Etl IXHlsthu!ion. couditions lllil property o\Vn~r. liSe Tlws, ut1d~1' of privat~ propcliy Oli cel'taiti the t:oul'l nllls1 d~tcnnin~ tllkin~ of priv;tte propcrty for pt1blic such cjrcllmsllll1ues, where thc govcnunenl l1ccpmnwdllti(Jjj~ wlwther tlw r~ql1c$ted of the puhlic inter"st hy the ,lCCOilllnodatlpl1 is sufl1elt"l1t1y t'teltltcd to tlw pnJperty itl que§!ipn to permit impo§ition of such cOl1llitiol!. The Coun llct~crlbed the nrst st~p of this inquiry AS "determin[ing] whether the 'm4sential nexus' exists petw,"ctt thc '1e15ititlliltc stilte interest' 11nd thc permit conditioll eXllI;ted by the city," /(i. at 386 (quotinl;l Nol1a/l v. Co/ifilJ'llia CptFfal Cotnll/ 'n, 483 U.S, 825, 837 (l9g7)). lI'this I'eqllirenleltll~ mct; the court nWst then consider wlwthet' tlw expected impllct ofthe ,kv¢loPnletll. eontmry to tlw publie inter~sc b~llI's some ~ql1ivaknue to the conditltJl) tlmt burdeps thtllllndowntlr, eonsi,gtellt with thc public intel'\Ost. (lPINlON AND ORnER The .glandl1rd used to dcttcl'inltIc whether the 2() <lxtlct~d {KPR} nO/rill, the COll!'t wrote: We think a feflll 811\:h PS "i't'ug;h pl"l'portlouality" h\Ost el1CllpsllhItetl what we hold to b\~ the rcquiren1ellt tlfthe Iqfth Amendl11~ot. No Pl'~eise nwthemalktlI epltulttllt>l1ls requil'ed, but the city lj1l1~t lnllke sunw sort of illdividl!lllit~d dctetll1lnution thutthe requin,d t1ctlicptloo is relflted both In nat\1re and \Oxtel1t W the ImpHt't nf th\3 pt'OPOsed \h~vt'lnpmel1t. esttlbllshlng cnl11pllillWe with tlw I>I1\h Anlt!I1(Il11el1f. ,'let! J C, Ntiel'~S v. Clue/(mlu/s ('Ol/nty, 131 Or. APp. (j 15, (j1 B(1994) ("the 'blll't1on' ofshnwing cnmplial1lco with Ow applklible P'i!\h Al11el1dn1()tlt wmdttrd 'ptopet'ly tests' 011 th~ gov\Ol'!lI1wlUal bodytht1t has 'litade lm ttdJudkntive t1el5islol1' ttl place l5(lu\litloliS un (lw approvlll of (1 pel'!nlt 1()1' the developmt!nt 0 rpnl'tlculal' pl'Operty. ,. (tluoting Dolail, lIt n,8). Tlw fIndings lPa\1e by the s;overnIPot1tttI eotity l'eglwding the rdt1tiontlhlp bctween the tfatlic ant1 the ne~d for the lmprtlvQnwnts," !d. tIt 622. As to auothel' conditlpn, the eourt fOUlltl the Uttle t:o(lid s"eli1 t:]elll\il' thun tlmt the locution PI' « ~ Hot subdivisioll with un intetnnl rOlldw<ty can hilv~ profound Impacts on 11~0lPss lind tmfl'ic. Here, the sllbtHvision will nt!cossltl1te th" phl\:eIMt1t of a neW stfeli!t in prtlxll'l1lty to the OPINION AND OlitDFI{ 21 {KPR} Rotltherly ploperty, a;; well a~ the tjxlenRion tIl' tlll ~xjstltl!l strel!t to hltl!rSl!ct with the< nl!W OM. Tlji) hearings ot11el!/"s fil1dhl!l~ are amply .~ldtidcnt to ,iCltlOtlstrate II1 ¬' reltuisit~ pml-),wtiotlality Ij~twetPtl thl! iltnmct ofllw subdivision ilnd the ,;ojlClition thur th" strip be e<lil!liljat~d. '1'11(1 I!on>!itiw l~ an twpnJptlattP device for pruviding thrr (\djaeent propet'ty with Hw aC'AJSs that tlw propo~ed dtlvr:loplllcnt wO[Jld otherwise eliminate tll' itllpalr. let ttt 12.1-24. The Oregon Court oj' Appeals t;ot\clud~d thAt thtl Ildltlinistratiw Hntlings sutlkielltty spet:i!ie to tl1ltlW th~ tourt to dettlrnlhtc that the reilitlon~hlp COlldlthm were rotlghly pj'oporlhmall1illl Df!/(/n'~ hetwe~n W~te the hn\wet <\I1d thl! r"quil'enwnt was tlws IlWI. COl13tiWtlPl1 diverges h'Ol\1that 11lialysls ttpplied undcl th~ Unltetl States ConstiwtiOlt The Orcgon SuPttoltlC COtlrt has h~ld thAt if"a lonin~ d~slgnAtion allows 11 11111downersome .\'uilsltlI/fial/wnetkia/ Iisf Of his property, the landowtle/' is not deprived of his propel'ty flor ill his Ijropetiy 'tttketl, '" Podd v, /ltwd River C:O/llllY, ;\ II Or. 17:2, 2112 (k 591, 609 (l07~») invel'~e cOj1d~l1Jl1tltilJn, (1993) (quoting Filth Awn/le Corp, v, H'{lshil1gNJII C'tll/my, (emliI1l1sislillJrigil1tJl), Such II claim is often referretlto St'e Boise C'ost:ade COIjI v, BOON/ tlfFo/,esIIT, .1:25 Or. 185, (the t:Ollrt deset'ibt:d tlw appli~lttioll (ll~ t~stlbr itlv~r,3e \!olldenHlatioll: "'I'he property owner n1Ust U~ l1litkitlg by 197-9~ ~ht1w ( (90?) Hun the ofthe goVetrllllel1t's partleular eholce deptlves the own"r ofttH tocrlllol11icuHy viable IJSe oftlw propcrty. Irthe tlWl1er has 'sonj~ substtltltial benefidal use' ofth~ propetty rettullnlng, then the< ownet fails to nwet the t¢SI." (eilitjg Ootid; .117 01'. at 184,86),) certain t;it'l;UlIJstanc!"s, That is. "a 'ttJll1porary' takin~ of all !"conomlc USe ofa pie~c of pnm~rty may c(m~titute a 'taking' under the pertinellt pwvlsinns or thc sUlte anti redenll eOllstitutiollS," Boise OPINION ANI> OIWl>;R 22 {KPRj We hold thil!. in ()j'der to l1s,~~rt a l)!l1bll Ii)]' t1 'leI11P\jrary lakjl!~' under the Oregpn eotlstltution, thc etlmplai nlng; ptlrly nll(4t allcgc HUH It has bcen dcnittd till eepnPllik nse orits PI'PP~I'ty under Illttw, 0I'dh1all(:c, r¢gllialion, pr other govcrnment ilCtiolt lhat cither is pCl'lwlllenl on its ttwe or so long Hllc"I ttS to Imlke any prcscnt eePIlPlltk plans f\lI' the propcrty impraulkl1L Lurlhcn1jol'e, \.Inlicr OregOil IllW, il ~oVCtnltleflt tlCtion 11111st b¢ hltcntioniliin prdet to qUill ify liS il takll1g witlwutjust t)ompensatioll, The Orttgon ,~Uptttll1l~ COItrt "lung; hl\S held that II Chlil11 for of priv<lte propcrty wltre cltme with the intt'nt to takc tht' IJfol,erly fot a pubHIC usc," VokoUl/ v, City ofLake Oswego, 3:13 01'. 19,27,56 p.3d 396 (:2002) (citillg (Je(ll'in I'. ,yJarhm ('OImly, 11001', 3l)() (19:24)), Howcvel\ the r~qtJisite intent l1lay bt; established vilt infefene\J, that is "the 1111!Hlnder I11tly 1/1lbr the intent-1o-take \Jletnent ofa elaim fill' ItlV(!rse COI1delTInatlol1ll'0/li the /1atlll'l\1 Ellj(l ordinary eOl1setjUtmees or the goveflullent's tiC!." VU/(UU/I, j3§ Or, al 2N (;Jitlng Morri,I'o/l t' Clackamos County, 141 Or. 5M, IN P,2d 814 (1033)). Althongh Plaintiff l6ellerally !i:arnc~ its tl1klng;s ehlim in tht' !tillgllnge and llllltly pis or DIII</I1, Ilelenda/1ts point Ollt tltt1t, under Oregon IElw, tWlllies only to it1V~rije Hlklng~ claimij are (lot <U1alyzt'd ul1dt}j' Ljolon, whit:h condemnatioll in violatjol1 oHhe United ~tateij COI1§titlltjOI1. As a ~\Jlleral l11atte!', Oregon t:ollrl.s ret:og;nize tlml t\1e erHeda Il)I' ewillating takings lInder the Ol"~gon Constitutioll are diffcrentthal1thos¢ used nlr daillW ari,sing und\Jr tile Unitcd States CPI1~titlitlon. See Suhoortover \I, Kit/llu/til C'UllliI}\ 105 01. App. (i II, 614, 80(j P,2d I §6 (1991) ("Thc Oregoll S\-lPI\1/1W Court htlS observed that tilt) '\)[I.s!l: thfllS!' ofrhe two eoo,stitutiunttlljrovisio/1s iis generally the Mljje' but hilS OPINION AND ORDi'\{ 23 [[{PRJ Cautioned that til('. 'priterta' used to determine iVa '!lIking f<H'IWblic nl~atling u,~e' ha~ UCClIi'fcd within thtl pflhe Orcgon ('pn@tinltilll1 'lire not ll~c~sMartly identical to tlto~e l'I'unuuncct11!'<lIjl till1tl to tiloc by the Ullitcd 8tal~s SuprcnjC Coun ull~ler thc fif\\1 anwndnwnt, '" (dtitlg SUfS\' Utll/rlers v. City q!'Iieawl'loil, d,94 Or, 254, 259 11,5, 656 P,~d 306 (l (82))). Furthel', thc distilwtipo adv11l1Cl!d by Pcfctldtlot~ was impl icitly rccognitct1 in a reccnt Orcl6on ('purt ofAppctlls dct'islon, In Ilotnebllildf-I',\ ,{.'soc, o.l!\detI'Ujltllltml POl'tland v. Tualatin Hills Park, I ~5 01'. Apli, n9, 62 P.;!d 404 (200.1), occurred whcn, in ol'dltr to develop th~ th~ir Ijlaintlff's allel6ed tl\1 exaction, and thll,~ a takinl6, had proljerty, tlw r¢c\,calio\1al district required lhem to ptlY 11 systCll1 dcvclopoWllt chatl6e, This chatl6e ~1l1Ouot~d to "a (llW-tiow f"e impo~cd by a fStWefIl111Ctlt tlnit Onlltlw d()vc!opments, used to lwlp offst1t I10llPcial co~ts tl1PS~ new developments," lei. at 7.1 I, 'fh(: eourt Ctll1~titution and COllCluded that. of all e~ollomkally viabl~ u~e[,]" bcel1\ls~ re~ultiljg fir~t from the I,!rowth asstlCil11.ell with ani\lyzcd the (l\alm under thc OrCl6on tlte reg,u!lltion dilli10t "r¢ntlcr[] thcl'eal prop~rty devoid the fee dit1not amouot to a takio[i. Jet at 7.14, The ~tl\lrt wtlnt Oil to analyze the pantll~1 fhlcml eonstitutional tllldngs c!llinl under lhe "rough proIJPrlio[1ality" test set fbrtb in j)o/{m, As Hmn?b/lildu/,s such, and Ac~orditlgly, ~ceoljd the CPUtt will llntler the ll~re, Ihl(~1'111 tlll1ke~ (}leijr, tlw apalyses al!alyz~ Pll1lntlfj'~ Itlking~ al'~ disthwt llntl SllOllid b~ trcatetll1@ dalOls nrst lInd()r tile sttlle fl'ltm!lwOl'k framework, Plaintiff as~el'ts fblu' takiniSs as~ot,iatetl with thc developownt Itt que,stitll1, elteh of whkh tails i\1\(i the t:ategory of "¢Xllet!ons." 11Pd is tlllls 111lt~jeet to tlJ1(dy~is lllid"r 00/<1/1, P!llintiff dncs not tfispure Ihttt the exactitJflS conttlitwd in the IJrcliminaly plat a~l'(lement Rlithcr, Plaitlliff objects to the ei'plll1siotl nf tlJe exadioos in the Hnal rcrf11it tl~ were legitil11atc. inelll1.4istent with what w~s inlhe preliminary plat lll,!reemellL Plaitlliff ,Jlso eontends tb~t ])efelldljOW Ittikd to JustifY OPINION ANI) OIWER {KPR} State takings analysis C. Ot'egpl1law dictalljs thut u rcgulalPl'Y Hlkltlg occurs only wh~u a property own~r is t\cllrived ol'all bendlt'iul use of its propltrty by the goveflllUcpt'S ullegedly Ullltlwl'ul ac(inos, wllS ttble to t~(lillplete Het~, Phlintirf the development und sell til(! lll<\lorlty of the pal'cels of land, As Phlinrifl' Ildrl1hs, sales to dute have nct\(jd l1ppro)(inltUely ~J million itl prollt. Aceottlingly,l'lllintiffwllS llot Detcndltllts' motion 1'01' sllnllllllry judgment as to this (;Iaim is gHlIlted, D, Federal takings mlalysis As a preliminary mattct', nef~lldatlts nHlV~ to strike" the allit/avi! pI' 13r1c I:ruits ("rruiW") on thtl grolllld that l'(lulfh pwpprtlona!ity analysis, pI' which the atJ1davit is pdll1lJrily irt'~levl1nt lit rhe SUlllPlltry judgment stage. Fllrth~nl10re, D~fclltillms itt'gUe, this is (;OtlCenl~d, f1 l~gElI is tluli'stion upon which Fl'uits CllnMt tc~tily lllld, wel'C it un issue, it would he I'01' t1w CPUl1 to dcvidc. Pll1i ntiff ilrlfU\1S that the Ninth Circtlit has held that thli' q\.le~ti(ln II I' rough jlf'oporiiopality is "u lii iXlid tlucstlol1 orth~t lllld luw," thllt luay b~ put to a JUl'y, Dt'llvlontt' [JUlies v, ('Ity (!lJ\4,mfel'/'(IJ', lj5 rJd 1422, 1430 (9th Cir, 19 06) (Dt'! Atome If). III thftt I:u~e, "the issue submitted tt' the jury (eltiug Chl?w v, Chiles, '2.7 FJd 1432, I,14:l (Oth Ciir, ]994); Park\ v, Wrlt~ofl, Wl1S Iftl'lfely a 716 1',2\1646, 6§4 11.4 (9th Cil'. 1983)). I DeI\enclauts also P10ve to strike Jlal'Ilgn11jh l') of Roy Hall!dus'@ afJ1lluvit on tlie ~rolJnr.l that it 00utalns il1ilthni~xibl() IWat'say. The t~ol!l't dues not ndy on that evitkntiaty submission alld, thus, n'l¢d nut nIle Ull its 11dl1lissibillty III this point OI'INIt)N ANI) ORPlm, {KPRj The CtjU!'l a~nleS with PltlinlitYthat this we~,.mts an i,~,nlt' ofbpth law antj lhct. ,At ,~lIlnn1(lJY jlldgI1WI1t, the COllrt nWst eva/illite whether a rea80llabkjllry I;Ollld tlild tlUll thQ c.'\adiOl1s w~rQ not "roughly pl'PIJPrHofjal" til tllQ IQgitimnlQ publiC I'IH'POSQ for which they wt're el\actcd, The Qourtls not t:allQrlupot1 to del;;l'Ipinc whethcl' 01' nllt the cx:actions met the l1pplicllble statldlJrd butlll1!y to dctel'minc wh"tber there is a geHUlt1e issue ol'llJill"rilll fact sllfl1clcut to putl)C!lll'e ajury, However, the coprt IHilY not ~onsillct IlVidencQ that is othcrwiBQ itwdmissible, HerQ, the Fruits afll,llwlt pUtports to b" IliY witness te~thnony admissible umlel' Feckral Rule pI' fMd"nee ("Fit]"') '7() I, FItE 70 1 l'rovllje~ that a lay witn~sg may proviclt' opinion testimony sO long as it i~: "(a) llttiOf1ally ba~elt Oil tile perception of the witt1e~s, and (b) help ItII to II denr under~tllfldlng ol'the witnes~' tetltittlouy PI' the d~tern1inlJtit)n or it l'itet in or other specinlized knowledge within thc ,~COPe iSBU~, and (e) not based on sci\lntUk teclll1lcl1J, ofRul\l 702," FED, R. IN. 701 (:2009). It i~ dcnr tt'O!1t t\Ie al'tldavit thllt I'llllJHill rl'tained Fwits beCllwe his e1(p~rtise in the mea of rtml cstate vulualion lllirportedly lj1al(e~ Iliol compet"nt ttl testify ~p,"clneillly 011 the issu" of rllugh prollortillon1ity, See Fruits Arc '14 n 1I11W beel1 dllll1ages and DohltHYIJP rough proportilllllliity r~tainl'd 1~811es by PlalrltitI In the matter til evalpate . , , at an Iwudy mte of $;~5(l[,]"L Tlte afJ1davit ~tlltes that Fruits istlw IJrcs/(l¢nt ora r~onsultlpg group that ''It)CII81'8 on \lC\\IlOIl1!cs, nnatle~, and Stlitl,4t!es:' (Fruits All ~:n Fruits Is alsll a pi'Pfl'sIjPI' at I\lrtland Stute Ulllvci'sity l'IltO "teax:hles! epurses ill rlial estatt' Ilnape," ,uld hwetltu\enls, urban e(:onlliPies, Illtd stat~ lIild 101'<11 pobl ie 1i pape\l." It/. The tl'gtlJ110PY olTered bv F!'ults falls nutside the ambit ofthat alhnllt\ld 1I1vjer FRI;: 7t1l and is ilt~tead gnwrt1~d by FIU~ 702, On thc record PQlxlI'e It, the cnult ellnnot conclude whethcl' Fruits is till expert ,\tId, OPINION AND thu.~, Qf1ltPIJI arlmit th\! t\lstlnJPny under ]iRE 702, FmthlPntlore, cven ir Fi'ults OIU)m~. {KJ'R} l\~a80ti, is inadmissibk See Na/hlm!'!d,! 'th.msfI. Fin. l' ('as,s if/Iii. ilys, 523 I"Jet 1051, 10§8 (9th npltiiou ('11 RI1 ultil1lat.e it;sue of law. "') (quotlt1l! lfangw/er F. pruvl(!ef1/ Lili: tIC Act'!dt!l/llns. Co., 37J F)d 998, 1016 (9th Ci r. 20(4) (ltllerntll "i!lltions aljd qUt,ttt(ion !\larky om iltetl)), Acconli I1gly, d~tCl'lnit1fltion§ that applicd to fl 16el!cl'RI annl and not "adjudktllivc, Indivithltl1 llct~l'lnillatlOItS ['crmit approval Oil tlw gl'tll1t of propcrty SIIllIl/~r,S4B 1".3d 1219, 1226 (9th Cir, :20(8), Pillinli ff ll1aintl1in§ that the Illioged (lXllCtlol1s wcrc sjlC\liflc to !'hlinlin'm1d, tlws, tII'~ right~ to tho public," MeC/lIl/g v. Clly I!/ eOl\lJitionil1~ subjcct to rouiSh proljprliot1lliity analysis, Flr,st, PlaintU1'chtll kngcti th~ city's requlrelt1etllti tlllltlt "include tl11 ~xtra f(ltIr ICIi! In ri!Sht-ot~ way width ulotlg Pavid IIi II Road," (lJlaintiffs MenJtlrllUdmH in Opposition to Defel1dtlu('S Motion nIl' ~) (ttnl11tWY .Iudgn1ctll ("Pl.', (jpp, Momo,") at 25,) This rcquirement, PI~il1ti [J' ()lall11,~, Is ,:onlrtu'y tile (;\lPstfU0tltm perl11itting p!'oees,[.!" 1<1, at 25-26, l)efcndtlljts cltllt11 that this ("cqulrelllOlll. like tilc ollic!' alleged ei<al;tit)l1s, Wtl§ llC\tIally iIllpose[i tlndc!' the City', 'l'ftll1SPOl'ltlliOP , ('iT~,P") tlnd, thu~, tWINION AND ~otlld ~Y8t"rn Plan not 1\ll1(HWI to eXtletions, Dltl'epdllnts (;ite to a portion o!'rhe plan itselfbtll OI~DHR 27 IKPR} the dtQll pol'tioil dOQ,~ not "ppNII' to !'iUI1Port ()e1\lIldttnt~' ill'glHMtll, and pefendants do tlOt PwvidQ 1",\(lit\()nalanttly~i8 tel e;;:plilin their evidentiary ~upP(lrL A~ I'll\il1tifl'pllint~ out, IJefimd,ult'l b(\[1t' thQ burdQn pI' lle(lHJOstrating l'on1plil1t1eQ with the (ough PWPPltiot1alfty sllulllal'd. Bt!cau'li.: l;lljrendl\tlt~ I1c!thi.:r!'iuhstttntiate the claim th"t thi ~ cKuvtion 'NliS nctuttlly II tJilrt oftlll~ lS P, not perlbnnlh0 I'ough pnlpurt!oliality ilIUllysi", thNe i5 a genuine! issui'l elf nltller!al fUet tiS tp whvther lhi~ n~qtlil'i'lmelit waN II COlltp"nsable taldnts undel' t1w FiHh AlnendljlQlit 1~ct:of!d, P!iIinti 1'1' chnllengt!s the additiopul dghHll~way cpn:oltnlCtioli requill!nii.:nts impoNed by til ¬' City, niU1wly e){!I'" tJavemeut width, th" Q1<!dnNioil ofthe v1ectl'leul t(unk lilil!, lll1d cOI1Ntntetion of tt t:entrul 1l1cdiap. Again, Dl!I(lP(\(lIlls provit1Q 00 l\Jllgh pnjportie)nttlity lJnt!ly~is and rely on thQ P"l!I1j\SQ tliilt ttll rcquircmQnt- weI'" illclud.::d ill th¢ lSF t\lltL thu.§, Cl1l1tIOt b~ cPIl1PQn811ble tnktng;s, Therl!liJrc, fiJI' the rCltS,ln,§ sl1ltcd tlbove, thero is 11 g~l\llille bsve of n111teri,11Ihct as to wbethQr ([liN rcquirenlctll \Na~ a eOllipQflNttble l111dng ulldc;r thQ Fifth !\nwnt!meIH. Third, Plaitlti 1'1' ~hltlIQngei'i DeJtmdlll1lS' requirett1Qflt that it pbtaitla utility Qt'\Sl!I1ii.:Ij( involving Brpok<.1 St!'OQt at a eo~t PI' $405,O(]O, d'c'~pite tlw thet thttt th<.1 prellminltry plat approval authotizQ(l It teljlpPl'liry utility Q"st!nien\ I\'om thc ~chool district. Pel0l1dltnt~ IlItc!' rQfu§ed Iti allow thQ pltiCQnwnt of ptilitieN PUISllllllt tP a tQllipol'ary QI1SQm~nt. j'\gAltt, [)Q!<)lldapts pt'ovid¢ no rough proportiollality tllilily~iN and rely on thc pn~1jjisl! thM all requjl'Qrn~l1t~ WQrp Itleluded il1 tlw TSII lllIll, thus, CltlitlOl bQ e;otnpetl~a\JIQ takingN. 'f1wrQflxe, fllr the reason,§ stEltQll libovI', there I~ a gQnuitlt! i~sue llf lJ1ljtQtitll !}!<.1t lt~ to whicJther this reqpit'ement wa~ a eompcnsllbl" tElkitlg utld~r the Fifth All1endnwnl. FOlll'tb, I'laintiffehallenge@ the (equired improvelnents tthHlg Dlivlt:lllill Rpac! whQrQ lht' road llbtIts s0hool di~tdet lllr~ady I:Jc~n c(J!lstnwtQd. Al6ain, P<.1fClldliU(S JjI'ovide Ito rough propot'tionality l1!111lysis Itnt! tl!ly Oii property whieh erellted ttdtlit!ol1<l1 stagillg 28 eost~ aft<.1r [)avid Hill Rpall had TIWl'dfore, fbI' the rel1SOtlS sliltcd l1bllvc, thel'e l~ u g"tluin~ l~suc of 111utcdal fttct a8 to whelher this I'equil'enlcnl wm> a cOll1pellsab!tt !liking undcr thc Fifth Apltmdlll~nt, !\e(:otdil1gly, De1cflthmls' !TIlltlllll flJt' SUnltflary judgij1cnt 1m Plaintiff8 (Cdenll t~klngs t,lalm Is deuicd, A. Legal ,'i'londal'd I'lalntiffaliegeN tlmt p()fendant~ rclalit\ted agalt1s1 it whcu it ex~n:is"d ItN First AIMl1lhnl'nt 6ghl "10 pelitlon Ihe O\JVcrlllMtlt lot a l'edress ofgrl"vallce8," U.s. CONST, amend, 1. SIJCl'ilkally, Plaintiff alleges thHI II was rcta!ialed agalt1st I'llI' "reflls[ing]10 extend the S\1Wdr to thc Ilorlh, l'illher IhllO the west:' contrary to tlw wishe~ ofIhe City, but c(m~istent witli tite City' ~ mastc!' N\1Wtll' plal1, (C(}J1jplilint :2-3,) Pialtlliff ehlin1N Ihilt Increi1sing Ih~ D~f\mdmlts lopk sevcrn! r~laliatotr ilctions itwluding righl of way dedietltitlJ1 on L}fw[cl Hill Rotld by NdVet't11 feet: t'cquiring t1 ht1I1~8treel il11pl\.lVl'mcnt on D~vld Hill Roud ne~1 to propetty owned by (hti st:hoo! dl~ldel: holtHng; III abcyance PlaintifFs ,>ewer plan; lind reftl~ing 10 llPllnlVC a lell\porary ~a~elt1(,Il\ Lor utilit.\' i!1~tallatloli relalf-ld to Hwoke Slt'eet, al11(lni6 ()th~rs detaUet1 belnw, tl dahn raised by all e1l1flloye~ of a pUbUf; cntity ~g,liljSllts employf-lr, [)ef"ndants Icit~ Alpha Eijel',f5Y Savel"\', Tne. 1', Hansun, 381 FJd t;) 17 (9th GiL 20(4) for Ihis Pl'l'pus!tion, Iii th~1 ca~e, Ih~ Ninth Circuit wrote: When a bwdneM vf-lndo!' operait's l1nder a \;Orltr(let with a pul~lit; agcney, \\It: ~11(llyzQ its Fir~1 Amendment ret~Ii~llol1 c1llim under § i9B3 using; Ihe ~all1C bllslt: appl'oacll lhat we woulij nsc if the claitn bad b~en rllis~d by fin employee pI' th~ ugC!1cy. OPINIoN AND OR)}l;R (I(PR} I\ccol'ljillgly, the cOl1tractor tnust c~tablish thilt (I) it eli~ag;ed Iii e)q)j'es~ivc conduct that Htklt'es~ctl UmaHCI' of public c\mcel'l1; (2) the goVertUllenl of'ficiaLs took [111 advel'sc fiction tlgllil1~t it: ,Uld (:1) Its cxWest;ive \:ot1(1\1cI W'l.9 a subsltllltiul or 1110tivtltltlg 1l10tor I'pr the atlVel's¢ actlot\, /(I, lIt 923 (Intel'l1al pitilth)jj~ omitted), Ifthis Ilul'den is IMt, the /Sovenu11CIll may still avoid Uability under tho hillil1wing; h!st Set Ibrlllill Pickain,[J" tid oj'Et/uc., i91 U.~. ~6:1, lilotiws 111111lysh set \'onh In/v/t Healthy City Sc/t. Dist lid qlHdw:, p. S68 (1968),01' mixed Doylli, 429 U.S, 2'/4, 2~7 (1 1)77). Plalntlfl' cOPlitel's tllat this ca§e cOtlcC'I'llS ltot a pOl1tl'lle\ fbr services, IJllt II l'egu1uted entity of tbis I'eiatlolishi p difl'ers from Eillllly§is 0 fthtlt of It gtlVOI'IiI1U)I!t cl11ployee i11 thtlt it does liot require tbat the speech he Ii IWHtct' of PIlhlic cone¢rtl, t¢st 01' thc MI. 11~t1lt/ly 1101' does il implicate eithcl' the Pit'k~ring Ilalal1c1ng 111lxcd tl10tives atlalysls, Hat!1cl', II regulated tHllity §eekltlg to estahli§h l'¢tuliatiol1 ttlr tho eX\!rei5e of C\lIwtitutlonalll' pmtet:ted rights hiUst initially show that the protect\!tl COllduct WltS fI "substantial" 01' "motivating" facto!' itl the dtlf'endllllt's decision, If the IJlaintlfT 11111k¢s this !nitial showing, th\! "burden §hifb to the def'l!l1daat to ¢slllblish that it would htw\! I'tlach\!d the Slll1W decision even iii the ahs¢nce pI' Ih\! 11l'ol~cted eonduet." To IM¢t thl§ hultl\!li; a dd' ¬ndflntlltust sbow flY a prepPl1tje!'ane\! 01' the t!vlt1el'lce that it would IHIVe I'¢a(!h\!d tht! Slll11¢ decisitm; it is itlsurHehmt to show Inerely that it r;ol,!d htlve reachcd the Sllllll1 d,:e!siol1, C<ti'epm'ln~I'S LtC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d ~61, ~71 (9th Cll', 20010 (¢Itlphas!s In (Jri~inal) (quoting court distinguished the [,Iuim or a retlulflt\!d ¢ntity fl'om that or a public cmplnyce. "Antllysis of a government enl\Jloyet!' s sl)~eC'h,ba~etl retaliation claim !s §imilt1r to sPe~ch-has(;d relalil1tlol1 eltliols ()I'IN\ON ANIl ORJJ)'R 30 {KPRl lDutter of public concern uod the t'ickcriilS ~alflll(:illg test. 545 F.3dllt HSO, Th<t kity qu¢stio!t, thcn, l~ whcth¢I' the relationship bctwecn PlaltllHl'llnd D¢lbndanls wa,; that or "a busines~ vendor operat[ing] under u contract with a public Ilgt'ncy," Alpha E,1ergv, 381 F.:ld (It '!21, or 11l'i::gull1lcd entity a11d It l'¢gulttting agcol)y, CarcpC/rtlIeIW, 545 P.311,tt N77. The I:Ourt CO!tChldcs thattlw rcltlti(.nshlp was that prll l'tigulatcd cntity and a reglll,lt!l\g 'lgency. First. there was ItO emploYl11tint relatiotlshlp bet:w¢cn Plttlntiff and Pefendllots. SetXlIltC the eOfjtl'llcl between the pal,tie~ did not Involve the Pd()fjdant~. pl'(jvl~ioo PI' serviceH hy I'lllinliJT ill e1lChl1l1gti Itll' compensation by Third, Plaintirf sought pennissioo (tOlD Pefcnd,!I1t§ to develop its pl'operty, I.e" the I'eillthmship between the pal'lie§ was gPWl'l1ed by the permitting process. Ddbndimts ,lrgue that Plaintiff~ atlitast In pal't, llcted <\s a puhlle lmpl'tlwment epntl'l1Plor IlIld th'lt itH elai01H "revolve t!1'(1Unp its pbligllthm& to eprwtl'llet publie hl1prOVltments to City standnrds:' (Ddf's R~ply 1].) 'lhe dourt di&agn.1its tlmt the e1<tirns arise Stildty frol11 thi) l'ublk irnproverneots elmtrl\t:t. Rather, the dall11~ arise 1\'0111 the permittinll proees&, hlpartietJlrl!', the events pedurring between is&lHtnCe ofthe preJiltlinary plat allprOVill,ll1(1 the public Improvd01\tnts contrllct FutthErmol'c, ev\tn ir the cl<litns were govcrnEd solely Ily the puj-llil: II11j1rOVe01entH coutnrct, It \Vuuld Utlt COI1V¢rt the parties' I'cltltltlnship hlto ojle oJ'\)tl§incM wnt!or ajld l:ootn1cting; ageocy. Aecordiflllly, tlw court l1Pplies the 'l11111yticalfhunewurk set out by 1'l'lilltiff. H. Analysis Plalntlffn1tlst show lhat its refitsll! to comply with the City's Ikrl1allds reiSarding tll¢ sewer tnnik line, i.e., its petition (or redl'<tss of grievllnees, was a sllbst'll1tinl or t!1otivating factor in Pdeudants' llllQgedly rt:tlllintol'Y eonduct, ntll1lely, deltlylng and Nhcrwlse frustl'a!lng the goals of Plaintiff with rltgnrd to The Plwks. To est'lblish I'ctltlilltory I11Ptive, a plailltljT rnllst OPIN[ON Al\m ORIlI;R 31 prov~ thc [KP!~) dIPfend~IH h~d knowledge PI' lhe protected e,ll1du01, as w¢1I as: "(i) eShtbliSh pro:<:illiitl' in time bIPtwcen [lhe plaintiffs] e1<pressive eoodtIet uod the flllegt'dly rett1lifltory aetinns; (Ii) pl'oduee expre~sed evident:,) that the defcndtlllls d"llIOt1~ll'~le hl~ speIPch, eithot tn him ill' to that tiw del'¢lllltutlS' pl'\lf1cfed e;;.:planation8 Ibt tlwit pto\¢xtuML" Alp/lll Energy, (9th Clr. oproSitiilll to ~(JOJ) and Keyser 3~ 1'. adver~IP a~t1p(j~ olhei'~, ill' (iii) weto (aif;\,) ~IH:l I FJd at 929 (clling ('oszalter v City qfS!olem, 3:!() FJd 968, 97'7 ,Ilal'rW/Il,nto City Un!tiedScll. {Jist., 265 FJd 741, 751-752 (9th CII'. 2(JO I», DI:f1:mdal1ls flrgue that "Plainti 11' s illf(jrJtj~1 insistel1(:e pn contl'aelUtll dghts dnes nnl HtlH)Ullt tn a petitlolj of gl'ieValjces ... ," DIPI),,' SJ M¢nlo. 12, ulld tlws PlttinlilTe,illtlot stflte II pl'ill1,t Ihck case for this claim, Del'¢ndmlls cite lhre\1 CtlS\1§ in support pI' Ihls PI'tlPIJsitioll. The Ei1l'rgy, as Mddre,~sed wilnes~\)s injud!pial Mild m!ljjinlst!'ativ\1proeccdillgS." al1 ilw\1stigalitJll by the CllUtity Ott hI" OWIl this WlIS "eXPl'~ssiv¢ epndlll:t," I'deVlllll to num~fy, that the )'luintH'!' i.s nut in 3~1 f~del'l1l F,jd at 920. In that ca§\), a public diserinlinat!on suit ,Ultl had inltillted I'ehalf regarding lItilhir treattMI1t. The COII!'t nlllljd fhut th~ analysi~ a e'lIltraet witll thc ag~IKY, This cas\1 dl f[bfs ahove, /llp/1(I "llw sl:ope pI' ~011s1itutltlntlt protcetion affb'ded to public ,:ontrfletOl'~ who serve contractor hild agreed to teslify tisainsl the fl/6¢lWY in ,t IIt\d~r lil'.~t, [t 6'001 uf ar~ta!ialiol1 claim by an entity uperlltins the present CllS\1, fbI' the reilSOn" a!'tieultlted ePlHract [01' sctvie\1S with Pljfcl1dtJnt~, 1)1I1 mther is a reSll!ated entity see/;;,ing redress fhml fl regtllating tlg\1uey. The ~e0011d 1991\ involved ,:asc dtIPd by Ddbnd<Ults, Rendish \' C'ity lif1actJlllil, 123 FJd !2!6 (9th Cir. ,I city ell1p)uy\W seeJ.;:ing redre~s under section 19Bj fur violations pf per FirMt Al1wndnwnt dlSht tlJ fi'~e ~pt~ec)t Again, a dirlcr~nl sltll1tlard ltPpli\1d th\1t'e bc,:atlse there the lK\rtie~ had iln eli1111oyme1jf rdationshil1. Accordingly, the Rendish OPINION AND OHDER ePllrt'~ ePIWlus1tll\ th,lt th\1 right tP {KPRi The tblrd qjSO dte\] b DIII'ondal1(s is thl' Imly (Juse IhlnJewol'k ilPplkablc to tb\.l pl'~sent I~it~d Cll~e, h1801'({I1/10 's ([(/,ITO; Ifw V. that en1ploys the llflltlytlcnl lvflll"~(J/I, the pluintiflt allegcd thilt the del'ondants retallilted ill,Winst tbc:n1I'or "publicly eriHe\;z;itlg the det\:ndaots aOlj initialing di@tl'lbuting pctroleum PWdtH.its in eenlral ('alll;Jfniil" Id. lit 1312, The plltintiiTs' phlnt@ "op~rllted under permits i@sued by" 10\.la) regullllO!'y entities; hI. M1', SOH\nIIO puhlidy cdtieiz~d the I'egulatory BIISed on the circun1@tilne~s oflhe regulatory \.llltllie@' lIctions, the eOtt!'t sttltt:d: "It It> e1ellnhat 'stale Al11endmel1[. ". ld. at 1314 (quoting GlbsOIl v. UNitEd States, 181 ji,2d l1H, 1338 (9th Cit'. 1986)). 1'11\1 COllrt dc:tel1l1bwd IImt botb p1l11li;; eriticl~m alld initlllli\1n tlI' litlgatiop \jlll1lil'ietla~ protccted conduet ftlr pllfPose@ of n retnliatioll claim, Pillintiff dl\~@ C'<II'eplII'llI~rs Opp, Memo. 33,) In C'ar~pllrll/el'S, fbr the pwposl!ion thtlt "the right to Insi~t thtlt ()[.Iblie officlah; thc plaintiff etlgagc\1 in Jiw actlojjs thtl! thc id"t1lit1ed <IS falling "withlu the First /IUlcllchnCllt's protcetlon pfth(~ rights to f}\.lC adnlllli~lt'tltivct1ppettl, di~tl'ict ~p~cch court t\l1d til lobbyiulf thc legislt1turc, "t\dVOCilCY related to his intefPMtttion ofthc building rcv\ll:atiotl. H,'rc, Plaintiff lwgU\.lS that It OPINION ANI) OIWER "\.lxcrci~ed :13 [Its] dght by l'~p,:atedlY insisting; that th" City 'KPRl \. . J reg;ulilturs CU!l1IJly with I:he City's ~'allitllry Sewvr Milster plattlllld pt!iel' cudes n:,gulatitl!? the location pHhe seW\ll' Elild tJunk lin!:' thl'ough The Ptlrks subdivisioll," (ilL's OPt" :33) Under ('at'e!J(trtners, rhe First Ament!n1¢11! r1l'ot¢cts this right tu in~i8t Oil proper applieillion of the law by t'uHi0 orlkials, Thus, thel'll Is a question (if thcr whetlwl' Plnintil'!' Cllgttged In pnjtc\:'ted spe~dl when It obj~eted tll the requirenwnts Itnpo,s,od by DEI(!fldflnts nftcr issuallce ofpl'dltniflat'y Ijlat apPl'ovpl Mit illsifited thai PefendltntB 0on1ply with ItPpligable permitting eudes, Ne"t, llel'Endnnts al'g\l~ thlll Plnlntiff did Ilot slltTel' adverse r"tlljill!Ory Iletioll because, flltllO\lgh PltllntlffhHs nright to air it~ grieval'\()es, it does not hl1Ve a tigbt to tedrells (if Its !5ri~Vtmeell ifthey ure not Ivgitit1late, A\;c\m!ing; ttl [Jetendt\tlts, the public hllpnWQlnent euntl'aer gPv~ms the riglns of the parties bel!illtse, in slg;ning the Itgteelnent; Plail'uilTf\greell tp its eonditiuns, including thllse th,lt were l;ontnll'Y to the r~qllinomel1ts t;OIHttined In the preliminnry plat npPfovuL Del'endants ElSsert that tile preliminary pllit .~pecifielitiOIW al~proval Wfls eUl1ecptulll only and subject to nl<H'C definite prior to final aliPwvlll. 'Ihefclbrv, Defendantf; llrgtle, they acte,l IIPtJropdateiy iti w!lhhoilling tll1f\lllppnWl1! pcmjing Plaintiffs comlJIi,inee with 'ill of the City's conditions, In the "vlmt the colll't 11nd~ there WllS llClvel'se action, LJ~I'endant I1rgt1ei'J that PlaintIff Cajllwt prove II rew1illtury nlPtlve bet;llllSe, first, PlaintilTpwfl'ers ojlly eone!twory lll1eglltions lind, set:oI1d, alleged fetfllilltipn pjce¢dlng the protected llet C'lnllot liet liS evidene~ tjf reltllilltory 1l10tive, Defendant pruvides no I1nlllYi'Jis 0 rth"se Hfgunwnts, l1owever, I'laintifl'flt'gut)S (hltt it may pwve r¢tlllintory tl10tive by direct or cil'ellnH>llll1tial ~videnee and thtlt an itlferen\;E 111ay be dl'awn in light ofthe cl reumsliUlecs sUtt'oundinf?; the City' ~ actitlils, I'laintitl COlltends thai "I)e!'el1dl\tlls were unhllPI'Y lInd l'fustl'l1tcll with [PIIEliutiiTs refusal (0 \;al~ittlll1te to tht:' CitY':, d~tll(1l1dsl~jr tliC sewer, Tlw timing oftbe City's other unlttwflll demllnds (like the width and OPINION ANn (JRDUR {KPRj th,tt CElSe, the t:ounty ,guspef!lltJd [I "vapot recovety tlevic~" installation Ctllltraut aft\Jr the plainti ITs had pubHt:ly erlth;ized and initiated Iilh\tttion[lgttin~t thcm, Thc court recognized that ,t veilcd tht~at to (lotiet''' received by plaintifi\ aN well aN the l!OUnty'N their (;u~tol11c'rs, wet~ Nuflident ttl l'iliNe tUl disN~lnintlti()11 il1lel'~l1t'e o!'tlw I1laintill:g' suspmlslol1 to of retaliation that should bc evaluated by a Here, P!flil1ti ff etll1tendN tlun Defendttl1t~ <wted in waYS that did tlOt confol'm to its tlwn uodes , tUll! for whkh Ikfendants hllve 110 innocent expltma!io!l. In p<lI'tieIJlar, P!flintiff ,~tttle,g that Clty'§ attorney, PlaiutilfcontetldN that Oef\wdtl11ts oflttecl 110 Justi l1calion for applyil1B its bodeN ill \treil, FurtheL Plaitltiff l,ointN out that Det\Jmtants must not only establish tlmt they could have tlcted lawI\llly, but must al~o establish that they would have acted in thes<Une n1tlnuer in the 'tbsence of of Plttintiff's allellcdly protceted ar-tivity, IJct:ause it aetet) only to el1§Lu'e COtl1pliance with fill 'tpplieab1e rules. Th!p ('ceLlrd, with tll1 intel'!pnties dntwn in lhvnf tJf l'laintilt cPlltai!ls sQv\1!'al OJllNIC1N AND OR[)JiR 35 ill~ltlnces of {l{P1Q tJe!1en(illtlts' P!·opo.~ed nlle~elltetll!illtion. De!@Ildallts Initially a\JPtpved but IEller disllPprovell of PllliIlt\fj's S\iwe:r fl!ihlnt\1,H1L DeI@l1l!ants,jid n\lt I'ai~e \lbJeclions to tlw I1ft,'el1-foot tl'IIll10ntl'Y utilily e(lsenWIH ptiOI' t(j a!JPl'Pvinb\ the 11I'eli111i nat)' plat bnt obJe:ct¢d only 1l1l¢1' PlllimHTii tst bl'~nlt to spl'nk 0iI1 (llwUI Del\:tndants' altetled1y iJ11PWper haudlinb\ ofthl' pl'tll'ess. lhe Sl'w"r toutillg lli'(lPOsetl by Pln!pliff should havc been a t:Olll'ertj for Pefundnnt~ (jply if it Pl'cstmted l11ainlel1al1ct\ !ssues thllt would a/iN't lhe City itt thl' f\lttll'e, but (jther evidence ~lIPP(jrts disllPproval (jf Ililtlnllft's pWPos!id sewer all!ll1lnel1t WllS in!en~l1cc the i\1t1uen~l'd by the lhnt Pefe\1danj§' itltere~ts of othe:r di'Jwlopers, There ilisn is evieknol' thallJef"ndants were I1nrespnnsive to PiltintHTs efforts to I'esolve the wcth1Pd~ i~sue. 11lunQly ttll'ir re/llsi'll to phllse the develllPtnent ali(ll)lilure tn sign and !{)jward a letter ptepured VPt Hoil1l1 Def~l1lhil1ts re~mdittg tlw wetllHld~ i~s\!e. The rcel'l'd flJtlhe!' del1iJll\stfates thftt hdd !VIt5Dpl\ttld in low E'steel'P und wished to thWt1rt his efforts. it) the develpptl1ent have alleg~dly eXt)l'e~sed Vflripu~ pr~ol·)le involved their npprehclis]Pn aboul testifying agaitlst Dl!fendants tUld in (llVo!' of plaintiff. A string pf emails nisI' S\lghlel1ts tl1llt IkfendantiJ wanted It' find a wny to lt5gfilly d~ny building P(5ntlit~ t(1 Plaintiff f{!t' tiS 10jlg as !1psiJible. Finally, ))l'fendttl1W urdel'(5d Platptifrto feljlOV0 i'lm1I'eplaci'J trees with an inappl'opritlte bl'i'lnr;h h"ight, deiJpit:e thellwt thnt otlwr di'JWlopljlC\1tiJ w"re allowed ttl keep trees that weti'J nOI il1 C\l!llt>lil!l1l?e. 111 sum, the t~el'rd supports llreasl)J]ttbli'J itll'ere!'le" that p"fendtjnl~ treuted Plai\ltiH\1ifi'i'Jrent\y wilh re:gtlrd to gnl111ing II Ofteen-fuot utility easement, the tequired width of atl e!lle:rgelH:y ae\:ess wad, the r"qu!red width of n llli'Jdlan 1\1 David llill Ruad, nnd entbrC~ll1elH of the bti'llwh height tequir(5lt1¢nts. The "vidence S\lgb\el1ts Ilmt !:lefcl\dailts w~re resptmsible for the deltjYiJ ofthe proJeot, and nut !!lninHfV tH' al\other I'l!gulnt:ot)' e:ntlty, Tlws, the court agrees thnt n reasPI1llbie tuetfindl!r c(1uld iMet fnJl11 tlw Ihew OPINIOM AND OlzDER pre~cntetl thm Def@ndants (etfillfited 36 ljgain~\ PlnintifI' J{l1' oPl10,l1inb\ t!toge IKPR} u c1flhp In Village of WlIlowhrook v. O/ech, 52~ U.S. 562, 564 (2000): (lUI' qlse~ hav~ r~cogniz~d slwc('ssfu! equul wotedion elalIm, brought by It ''(;Iass of uno," wber~ the plr1inliff rtllt1lSe~ that she has htten i!Hen!iolwlly treate\l diflcrttully Itom uthttrs similarly ~itU\lled aud that there b uo rallol1al bn~is for the \liITel'el1l;e in lrentnwnl. In ~n doing, we haw expltliljed thilt "lhe I'lu'pose oftlw OqlHll prlltQI:tlon clausQ of the Fourteenth Amilndmeut h; to securo CVQry pQrSon within the Stilte's .Jlll'i~tHction against inlentionul aud (lI'bltrmy tlispl'imlnulion, whether occusi!med flY el<presS terms of a stiltute Ot by its il11pl'Op~r ~xtteutiou through duly cpn~titlltttd IlfSellts. (Iwpting Siollc~ City Bridge Co. v. Dakota ('O/liJly. 260 U,S, 441,445 (l923) (citiltlou~ nmlttod)). I)isparatil treatment by 11 govet'nll1enllil entity is permlsslbl~ so long u~ it bean! a ratlolil1l rell1tloushlp ttl 11legitilllat~ slate illtere~t. Potel v. Pe/1nl/m, 103 F,3d 868, 875 (9th Cit', J996), And, withoul mllre, sQlet:live enlbreement of valid laws Is inS\lJlkknl to show thut there was no ratiolllil basis fbI' the action, Squaw Valley Develop/tle/7t ('t}, v, otlwr hanc!. "lhe're is no rational bljsi~ (ioldb~rg, 375 F,:3d 9:16, 944 (91h Cir, 2(J04). 011 the Ibr stlite tlC!tion 'thai is tlrbitnlry, '" 1(1. (Cjllotinlh Armendari;; v, l'?lwu/n, 75 F,3d 1.11 \, l11alicit)lI~, 13~!6 Irmtiontll Ilr pltJinly (9th eif, 1996) (en bane»). Thus, ~lIt:h a daim muy tJri~e where' the law i8 seIeetively cnlbreed and "a tJ1aintift'can show that the clefr,nclal].ts' tf\tiol1ld ba"is for lt1otiv~. 'co ~cl~clivdy oofbrcing the law Is a pr"tQ){t for 'ttn impermis,;iblQ 375 F.3d at 946 (quoting ,J1'/tle/7dWlz, 75 F.:ld at 1327). In Squaw ValleY, t1w plaintiff \jllefSoll that "!t wa~ singled out hlr lInic]tW OPINION AND ORDER t~gt!htloty 37 and elllbre~mellt treatl1iCnt," wllh rQ~ard to lKPR) trelltnlejJt by [Wu etllljloyeC's uf II local wat~1' review board who "subjected Iif] to ~e)ectlve aljd pvC'r c tCIl!oPS reblllliltory OVetsight ' , . i' 37:5 IUd at 944, 93H, Thps. the dl\.~S pI' Pf1~ equill pnll\1lctjou I!lalnJ hijs been reeoj,!pif,ed in the land use regulation CiJilte>;t. FwtlWl'n1ote. whet¢ the dd~ndUl1t ijSSicrtS a ratiol1alllllSii'l 1\11' i'luch u'etllltjen(, the pltlinti !Yll1ilY tebut till! proffered busi;; as pretextuaL "!n [hi§ ('Jnwit it is clearly ¢stl1b!bhed that a plainti!T ll1ilY plit'Slie ttn eqllal protectiol1 etainl by ntisJpj,! a 'tdable is~uc of fllCt as to whctlwr the ckl\mdilnts' tlsscrtcd [nHlpnltl hasisl ' . , Was fPCtely It ptctext' 1\)1' \liffctcntiallt'etlill1cnt," Sallow Lull?}" 7:\5 FJd at 945 (quoting ,{/'IM/ldt/I'll. '15FJd ilt 13;7)), Thus, a pltlintiffl11ay I'ebut a pl'o!Tcl'ed rational hasis on the grounds thut tht) ,athljlal busis is "objectively f(l!SC," of by pn>vlng the tlefendmll l!Ctcd with "<IIi itllj)l'Opel' nwtive:' fd. at 946 (eitinbl PaN!!, 1\IIt! Lr)t'~(//Y 1'. 11, KuyMz, 917 F,2c1 USO. 115~ \(n FJlj at 876; 111'/ll<'lld(/l'12, 75 FJd lit 1327; (I)th eil', 1(90»), AI1t1ly~i8 PlalnHlralleg~s 1'01' tbe I'~a~otis Ddcpdtln!s trClltClj it dfff~l'ently li'ot1l othel' silililady ~itUat~d devdotiel's, "ntJl11ill'i\ted hy tlit) coun itl it~ I'etalilltiop analysis, SUpl',1 at 3.3.:l4; thcre is a lbeaulpe issue p f 1111!terial filct PI' di~pl1rate treutmen! sufficient ttl SlliVi v~ sut1imary j udg:nwnt, Ae\:ordil1gly, the court Illust npw address Del0ntlants' purported rlltiopa! bllS0S !tl\' the di§!llirtlte trell!Jtlent Plaintiff cxpedenccd, Dd0ndill]ts lil~plltil to meet this bllrdep 01] 110 jlt,~tillel!tion ~ltH1ltlat'Y jlld!?menl. Dl!fcndlmts pmvlde for their allQbled upndut:t rlillside pI' prlnllidly \cotlcllls(lI'Y ullelbatlolis that Plaintiff lts()1f Icallst)d tht) delays Ihut fhwttElted tlit) development of Tht) Pllrks, Ftlt'tlie!', Pelet1daPt~ dll itO! uddress the 11\llllet'PUs ilisllllll5es alfeged by Plaintiff in which Jllalntlff Wl1.S tl'elile,l diff~relltly fl'llnJ \lth~1' \.It'Vefop~I',~, wa~ e()nsj~\ejltly treated in a luanller 1:<lIItlllry to the nsnill practice or the building code, 01' was stlbjectetl to h¢ight<'lli!d l'equlrCttlellts subs"quent til prelinlintil'Y plilt Elppl'llval. At best. ()l'tN [ON Al\!\) ORPI:R (KPlt} f)e!lmdnnts insist t\lat the prelili1inill'j' plat aIJPI'pV(tl Wl1~ npt IJindll1g and cOlicllld(i that any condnct IPattcr ofcClIltnl\.'t lilW. However, this is mlt sufl1clcnt tp e~tl1blish SUPlI11l1JY jUelglllCllt c)]ltbls tlalm liS there is It g<el1\.line ISslle of nwtcr!at thct as to w\lether Ilelcndnl1ts' conduct hl1tJ II rutiona! basts, bas<ed Oli ret;ord t'vjdellcc~ thaI Dcftl1dMts nctdd In, flt lellst,an ilTatlotlf\1 PI' tirbitwl'y, Ifnllt tJlnliclolls, JllalntitT nllegr;s claims pI' blHh sul>wlIitiW lmel procedul'llt due lJfoeess violatlolls. Undel' both theprjes, Jllalntitf m(lst !list show thaI It h.ad a pl'olierty Inter\1st WOlectiUl1, SI!e Wlj(~~?.\'/Ledg?,\, R/,C'u1iliJrilhl sll~j\lct tn cQllstitutional v, C'ily R/Ph,)[!I1ix, 2;1 FJd 56, 62 (9th Clr. (994) ("A t\ll'llsllOltl rt'quil't'llietH tu a substflntive or pro~edutal du<e lirtJ,;ess elnim is the plaitllU'fEi ShOWi!lg pI' li]'(lteetecl property Interest is a gtlvertiPlent benetl!, "a perSrlll(;lear!y nlu~t have tllOre thl1n 11l1llbstl'llct need or desire tbr it. Ife must h,wc I1iOI'i~ thtUla unililtetal expet:tttlion til' it. He nitIS!, instcud, lliegitimate claim tlfenHth;.m~lit to it." BOIII'(I o/Regen/s, 4()8 U.~.llt ~llve 577. The SIJpren1c Cuutl hilS cmphllSI?cd that Pt'Plj~l'ty intereEits arise only when the rclCVltl1t slllte law provisions tnttke col1l'el'j'al Of the bcnefit truly tlllllldatory. Town RICos/l? Nouk 1'. (lo/j2o/{'S, 545lJ )iL 748, 7110 (2005). III (Jther words: A pm tc\.'tell pn'porty hltcretlt is pres(Jn! where an indlvitlut11 has II rCliEioliahle ex.peetatioli of ejltitlctnent derivinlt It'om ex.lEititlg rules 01' understflndings that stem Ihnn itn itidePePcl~l1t sOllrC\1 ,guQh as stllte Itlw, A l'easOliithle expQI;ttttion of entitIl'l1it'ut is d ¬'tcl'l\llned largely by the langllilg~ of the stlltule and the ej{teOl to which tlw eutitl"motllt is couched in ti11111dlltory terms· OPINION AND ORUr\['{ [KPI1.) H'r:t~ges!tr:dl?es, ;\4 f.3d tlt 62, 1l«rc, Plaintiff 11lkgvs thatlt "had 11 Notvct?d prOp?l"ly Iptel'<)@t lla,qed Ojl tilt) Septvmber 2005, prc!imil1ltry pif1t (tpproval." (]il.'@ ()pp. 40,) I\cepttliljg to plalnofC this IllWlTtletlitnc ItpprOVltl trigg~red a properly interest !Jeeau@c th v eode ,lrUcultues a s!tjlldal'l1 suffic!0ht to Blve ris¢ to (! rCt1stmabl? clqwctatlpll ofenlitlement. In Pltlhjfi Irs ~stimatloll, lle[¢nthmts' dist\fCt!OIl to revil"w the' final plan !\Jr th" tlevelopment did not 8Upet'c"L!e Ph1illtilf,8 property ri~h[ lirislng. from the' prditninliry plat upproval, D"t(mdllilts ~rgu0 that tlw preliminary pInt appl'oval di,j Itot ct>nl'er a Pl'l'tected property in[et"st Ojl plaint!fJ~ Del\;l1L!al1ts cite HateS,)!1 v, GtiiSSe, 8:\7 F,;\d I3(lO (9th Cit. 19S8), where the' plllintiff dain10d 11 [)f\lleeted property il1tel'?~t ill tI prppOSed pltit IlPplioatlol1 tHld, that in d"nyh1!J apPwwl of this proposal, the city deprived the plaitltlff pI' this int"rest contt'al)' to hi~ ril6ht !l1 PWO¢dUl'lil due pwc"s~. Th" epurt extlmilldd the swtute govcll1it1g sUl~h applicti\loP8, n,'til1g Ihnt if "gl'lil1ted tI) the Nevada Gtnninl6 COl11mis~iol11illl alld tth~oltlte authority 10 deny Any ilpplkl1tion fbI' any eaus" decmed r(laSOllilble Ily sUl~11 cOll1lllipshll1," ltnd gflV¢ the Ilg"lwy ''tlt1bridled dlsercHolt , , .:' {d at \305 (tluothtg Parks v, Watson, 7 t6 f,;\d 646, 657 (9th ('.jl\ 1\)8.1): citing Jat'bosen t' HO/mijin, 627 1'.2,1177 (9(1t Ch'. 19S0» (inlernfll quotatioD Illal'kii 0111itt:ed). Her,,; how¢v"r, Piltintiff docs not elalll1 elltillcl1lellt to 11 gn\l1t of tlw welimimu'y plat apPl'tlvttl. Rathel, Plaintiff 1~lail11s fI pl'Pp¢rty iPtere~t In the preliminary plat approwl that hadlilready been Bl'Ilnt¢d, Pt?litninmy plat approval, although "till! eonstililtUng] finill Ilwcptal1ce' nf the plttt of tlW pl'Pptlscd @ut1dlvision or partition lbr l'"cordhl~r,I" is, und"r ()re~oD ItlW, "binding ll\lOll the oity oj' county fOl the pmpo§es of the preparation oftlJe subdiviiJlon 01' Pflrtltion," apd Ill!!y only tlc cl1tlngetl by tlte city or county to the ¢xtenllhat such clJangc@ lIrc ;'n?C¢Siiilry lbr \:olllplittn\'? with the tenljp OPINION AND ORDER 40 {KPRj 01' its approval onhe tentative plan fbr the PI'op08ed subdivlsion 01' partition," Olt REV. ~;TAT, 92.040 (2001). Plaintiff point, tll /lienz y. City qlD(~yton,2<) Or. ApI', 761, 566 1'.211 904 (1977), in suppprt or it~ elaim thllt the pt'ellmimuy pltlt tlpproval ereilted n proteeted prpp~l'!r lntere~t. Itl Bien;:, the eOlil'! deseribed the signil1eanl'e of prelilllinary Illat appl'ovlll: The land 11S0 decision i, l1lild~ Ilt the time or the IlPprovll1 or disapPnJviJl PI' tile' tenttnive plan, Th~ action~ following approval are (a Implement thp (en(ativ" plait Before the suhLlivid~r call 8ubmlt a nnal plat, he li1U~t pl'~pllre a O<i!tailed 8urvey, obtain cenain perlulls cOIK~nlin~ water and 8ewa!J;e, comply with any conditilm, impo~etl by the city in it.~ approval of th~ t~ntative plan and pay eer(aijl l'¢eg. The! ~nbdlviller is not I'eq\.lired to subnlit th~ nnal plat j{)I' 1;2 1ll0l1ths following 11PIlrovai pfth" t"nttttive plan, The city engin"er /l1\.lst nl)t only I'(wiew the t1l1ltl[,lat, hut nwke! 1111 on-sight inspe0tion to en~lIre that it eomplies with th~ t~ntatlve plan appmvi\L Mol'" significant, .approval (,I' the t\!ntLttive pilln is binding on the elty tinder ORs 92,040 ,1I11j thl'!'c is nothing ilt ORS 92,0 I0 to 92.160 which wCHI111 wcvetlt lIw ,~ubdlvirler front then proeel)ding with ~ollstruljti()n, The 611ng (md rel'orditlg pI' th" final pltlt I~ only nee~ssary H) enalll\! the 8ubdivider to sell the proppl'ty. Ind,,~d th" dty ordintlnec I!xvre~sly "ontcmplales thM illt~r ilpproval of the tetltlltive pi un, the! ~ufJdlvillel' !11ay Pi'PC(~ed with the eonstl'lIction of the sheets Itnt! other llUprOW!lI1\!nt, or he !11lly tile the rintd plat stlbj~et to an agreement and bond to plirtbl'l11 the rCljulred work, 'fh" decision to ,1pprOVe or disapprove II tentlltlvc pltln is "a lInal [orderl . , , which determin~s the rights oflhe parti~s that no t\lrther qlietitions elln,11'i8e helbre tlw ClHlIll'endering it, ,'xeept ,ulil1ils are nece~sllry hl be dptermlnr.d in cafl)'itlg it huo eft't!et . , , ," ,0 29 Or. API'. lIt 16~ (quoting Winters v. Gl'inws, 124 Or, 214, 2/\4 p, :159 (I n~); citillg ORS 92.010, 92,()(iO, 92.. 100, 92.160; Onl. §§ 16-2;), The eourt explaln<i!d that prelimit1ill)' approval i8 mudc bitlding so Ow the develope!' Cltnl110VQ t{)rwllfll with construetion of'th,c pl'ojed, "with thl! a~sun\llce thl! city cunnPl lat~r d1llnge Its mind," lei lit 7(i9, The cOllrt made dellr that the prelifj1inat,y plait is i\b!ltlrloll thc pltln alto!J;ethel', revise thc plan 11I1rl reapply for preUmll1ary ajjpl'owl, 01' apply for modi6tlttlon of the plan, ilubjel:t to the pn1ccdural prol:etis required p!'~lltllitl{lI'Y lP Itpprnvl! tlte odginal plan. lei, OPINION AN!) (lRDln~ 41 {KPR} Pelendal1ts dispPte the flt1E1lity l,fth Qpl'ell111lnarl' plat approval, but do not dirQctly tid dress the signifkaltlce of lJi?1/2 ttl the Instant case, Defimdttnts ltfglle thtlt th0 apPI'IMil Wll~ l10t filial unfil JilalnHffgain(!d tipproval ofa sewQr pItlit and prpvjded pnwf of pn euseltlQl1t. at which tim~ Plaintiff WOllld be ¢l1titl¢d to bt<gil1 I:Ol1stful,tion, This pOFiitiol1 is C(mlnllY to Btew!:, which states that lOl1s!t'u\CIion IfUly begin Plwe ptdltnipary apwoval Ls gl'fltited awl rhut prelimil1!uy apProval the developel' tht1l "tb¢ \Jitl' Cllnnot itl(~r t:hang:e lis Initlc\''' ~9 flssUI'~S Or. APli, at 769, Funhern!Ore,On:gpn cOllrts hlwc rept1Ptedly deelal'~d tlmt "[lIhe appl'()VflI t'1'lJ IjfeHmlnt.!J·l' pltlt 101' a subdivision is a final l1Ppealable ol'dct', whhch nmy be ,chttlleng:ed by writ ofreview." IIfCotJllni,\witJ17l1f's, 46 "chamet~ri?etl ~47, 01'. App, Bmel',\'o/1 \\ D?schl//(w ('PIlI1lY lIpurd 249 (ltJ80). Sitnilllfly, the Lund Use Hpat'd pI' Appeal~ hfls the filing of the Hilal plat in the \ilerk's pffice a~ [1 liJinlsll!rltil tICt." lIall/nt~I' v. Cluckm/las Cpl/my, 19() Clr. App, 4,3, 478, 79 PJd 394 (2()03). A(:eorcUngll', haVing: e~tt1\Jli.slwd the threFihtjld requirenl¢nt of II prutected fjroperty interest, the eourt will fll1lill'ze the pllt;gl!d SUbSltlntlve and procedul'l1l dlle pn>c:\!SS violations in t\ll'n, A. Subs/antiv,J Dt[~ PI'ot'ess Unclel' the due lifol!ess dlWS\! of the Fourteenth Amendment, "stllte at:tipo which 'neither utilizes 11 suspeet c1assi I1ctUioil llOl' dl'[lwS dls!inethtl1S anltjllg lt1div!dtlal~ thnt il1lpHcute fundl1nwutal rights' will vlplute SUbStflntiv~ due ]1I'Pc~Ss oilly if/he atlt!t111!s 'not r[ltipl1ll1ly rt<lutctl to a legitimate govenullental!llIl'pos¢. ,,, iv/a/sllda\! C'i/y «Wi Coul/ty (!lHonolufu, 512 FJd II J8, 1156 (9th ('jr. ~0()8) (etting BI'~wswr V. 13d 0/1\,111(:., 149 f.3d 971, 9M~·983 (I)th ell'. 1998)). This presents ttlt "extreml!ly hiiSh" burdeli fur the plflhjti ff. DrJI A:f0l1le DWl(!s v. lv/on/(!I'('Y, 9~O F.21j 1496, 1508 (9th Cil', I ll 90)). The plailltl ff tnust ~Fitflbjish a depdvl1tionlll' property thut '" ~hocks the conscience' PI' '!l1tedetl!s with dghts ihlPlidt in the l'oneept pI' onlel'ed liberty. '" Mlllt''? 1'. ('ily ofLus,4ng,'/es, 1J7 ()PIN()N AND ORDhR 42 [KPR} !'.3d ~61, ~71 (9th elr, 19(8) (quotitlg United Slules v, Salerno, 48! t f.S, 739; 7'\6 (198'1)), More tI]Jecilie,llly, "[w]hen executive ae!iol1 like a discr~t(' ]Jermitling deelsi(lll Is lit Issue, only egrelJil1uiJ ofl1citlll'onduct can be~aid to be [lrbitral'y in the \;onst[tutional sen.tle: it nnlst atf!lJi.\nt to an tjbuse \'f \lower lacking; allY reusol1alJlc jlIsti fielllitm inlhe sCl'vlce 0 rale gitil11ate govelnUlel1ta! objective," Shanks v. Dress?l, 540 F.3d IOS2, 1(l8~ (\Jth ell', 20(8) (lntlOrllal qUOlltliOIl nHll'ks omitkd). Also, lliegally el'fOlleuUs interprclation i~ I1(}t l'leeesSatily arbitrl1lY, inlhc C\lt1iJtitutlol1[l!~ejjse, Jd. at IOg9, l)efendllPls argue thut each of I'luintifl"s claims Is l)J'emlsdl:l on the Iwblic int]JI'ovements eontmet and, t1wrc[ore, beelillsd they ag;rdlOd to tlw contl'ltct hsdf, they ellntlot elElitl1 a violtttilll1 of their constitutiol1allwolJerty rights. In the altel'tllltiw De!'enllantil argue that the ltlleged cOl1duct or the county el11ploy~eil is not ilultlciently cl1regious tn meet: the high stl1l1dtml. J)cfendant mltintainiJ tbat b~cauile thc City tictions werc fatfonallY bailed Olt thc lCt'lllS ofthiJ contrllct, as w~lI as th~ C'ity's desire tn fuU1l1lis duties to the put.lk, their conduct ClUUj()t IJe vicw~d tis ~h()eltitlg the COl1s\:ienCt:, ,\cnll'ding to Ddfendtull, Plaintiffbm; not produced ,8uffi cicltt CVlt:!CllC\J tn el'elltc EI genuine iSiJlle of Inat:edal fact; rath\J\', PluintilY hilS made only conelusory tll1\Jglllioos thill thc C'lty WEiS ttrbiWuy lwd eapriciolls, finally, Defcndaltts assct1 that PlttintitT itself WllS rCil]Jlmslble 1(11' the delays iii constl'udinn lllld, thcrefore, tbe City Catllwt be held liable lhr said delilYs. to Del MOIll!! DWll?s, citcd by Plttlntifl~ the \:OOl't deni~d whel'c "thc city cOllIWi! had given apPl'oval to the 190-Ullit Ipillintifn substantially mct t\l1(1 that the City' . ¢ a Inotion lot sunll11ary jut:!glnent pI'o.l~et. profe~siOt1ltl with [l1tleel1] COl1ditiOI1S that piltntling ~ttlff llgre\~d they Iwd substtmtial ty Incl; yet t1w SLime Itlelnberil oCthe city council abruptlY ehanged CljUI'~e lind r(~e\;ted the 111al1, giving only bro\ldl,] ,'OliClllilIH'Y reamJm:." 92.0 F,2.d tit 1508, Plainti1T tll'l-\\leS that Detlonllants ttct~d similarly by "sudden [Iyl c:hang[ing] CoUI'SC in March 2.006 by l'e!\lsil1g to lbllow thc OPINION AND ORIlJ;R 41 (KPR) preliminary plat arpl'oval cotldltlrlD,~." (I'l.'E; t'PI" 40,) PltlintilT eltes lla"'sl)n, g§7 F,Zd at I:Hj], for thQ PHlposllion thllt wh,oN aU permitting requirQnlellts are jTIQt, yN lhe governloent refuscs to is~u¢ II p,otlpit, 11 violatioll has oceurrQd. In f)rIl,'Sf)n, th¢ City of Hillinhls bat! udopt<!d the sllbs!lltltlw due pnlQQss Unil~mnAdH1inistlative Code which, in rel¢V1l11t part. pl'pvlded that UpOtl demollstnlHng, e(>lljpllanC'1 with Ilw lwil\iing (:ock the city must Issue a permit HI ap I1Pplicallt. I3QlcallsQ the rcglJ!l1tions did hot prpv!dQ for any rQvic<w prior to issuanQc, tlw city's depitll of t> pennit to [\ qualiJ1cd applicatlt was the "sort of arbltl't1l'y tJdmini!JtnHion of the local rQ!&ullltions, which sltlgle,~ tn~[\t~d out 11pe hKlivithml to be disl;rIminalorUy, [tJlld] tJH1011!lts 10 a vhllalion ufthat indivlthml's substatltive dn~ process rights," rd. TIll' court I'¢cogniz~s thut Pla!ntlff\JQtJrs a I',U'liQularly high burdeu with respect 10 this claim, Thtlt said, Pillintiff hilS alleged, LUld the recPI't! stJppotts th,o 1',oa~oltahIQ (,ourse: of ti'ealnl~nt el)l)8istin~ of vildou~ and lI1ydild effons b DQfetldttnl~ W 111' The inferencQ oC a suswined fl'Ustrtlle develoPlllQ1lt !lad" and fUrther the intercs!t> of othe:r (ievelopers at Plaitltlf}' ~ ej{p~n8Q, Defendants have failed W estabHsh that thel,o Is flO g¢nuine !SSIIQ of 111tHedai thct to lhis Qnd ;:Il1d, Pefel1dtlllt~' fl. motion lor SUl1ltntlry judgment ou this ~ll1jlll should b~ dcmi,od, f'rocedllral Dut' Process "A secthm 198:1 daim lxwed upon proee!:lural due pl't'eess . , . has thre,o libc'rty Ill' th~n,i(lrQ, ~lements: (I) a l'!'0perty interest: protected by the CpnstItution; (.2) a dQflI'ivatioll of the inlel'cst by the hlovernmellt; [and] (3) ItlCk ofproces,'>." Cit. I11t)3). A~ POl'/IIItllj v. CUlm(y fJ.1$01Ut/ ('1<11'0, (ietennillet! fjbove, Plaiutifl' IjOS~essed iI property 995 F.2d g9g, 904 (9th lolere~t prpteet"d by the CoostItution. OPINION ANn ORI)J·:R {KPRl Tbe Sllpr(m1~ Court pa§ statC'd thut "wherlt a depdvafion of propelty is the' rltsuh pftIIW1t!0t\1 alld ul1t111thori"cd aut by tl Ntat\') \1mplUye\'): that dtl~ woco§s requircuJerll,'j m~y ll1~lUliugj\tl predepdvtltion procd§s is not IXlssib!c, ~nd t!wrufore 1)0 satisli\1t1 by Hd\1ljuatlt IJOsh!\')Pl'iviltipn pl'Oe,odt\rds njr obtilinin~ a remedy." St>I'Ufl/l0 ',1 (fulco, 874 F,:2d at 1317 (quuting Pan'ull v, lily/or, 451 \J.S. 5/'?, 539 (l98!), ov~rrulc:d 011 citation umitted». PI~itltifI otbcl' grounds by Dunhd.\' v. Will!rlllIS, 474 \J.S. 327 (1986) (iltternt11 Hrguc§ tpat thcre is d(jpl'ivtJtltll1 Pe,lril1g§ tll1d, tIlOl'l:lthro, Its IJ\"(J\:edllt'al 110 such Iwovisiol1 in Oregon 101' prol11pt ItPst- du~ procc§s rigbts were vlohlled, Di:ll\mdauts tlrgliO thill t'lalntill'd\Jes not hilW apnltectcd pl'llpe1ty inter~st becuus\') its itHercst iu thc pn,lil11il1lu"j' plat approval WIlS !nrwflicicnlly central to it~ intcrcsts to call1'ot, cunstitutional protcctiorL Dofcndant I"cliotl 011 Srm Brl"l/wdil/o Physh;ians' S?I'\!i('t!s lvlrdlcal CiroUjl,lIjf. \.'. County q/Stll1 Bmwl'dil/o, 825 F.2d 14()4 (9th Cil'. 19~7), tn thar OtlS\J, the Ninth Cir"uit poit1ted nut the primacy of ~n1Plpyrnent contracts when it property Int~rosts <wising ihltn eontnt0t. supplied 11011rly 11I1 of th~ NUel;ossl\.11 Ctlm~ \t) Se~ the typo of elmtra"ts giving ris~ to protet:ted /d. lIt 1409 ("'rhe' prin1c pmtetlted eat\')gory, which hl1s ~Ul1lt'iM-bilsed so"tilm 198:\ a(jtit)])s, I§ thut uf empluyment ctmtnu,t."). Thc tlotJI'\ did nol, IIOWCVC1', foro,;)oso Ot!I01' types of uOlltmct§ trom giving d§o to due prOees§ Ij\"Olcotion. As illww, tho epult J1nds propcl'\y dUll the' pl"clitnillllry plat apPl'Ovill is ~ prute0tod Int~\"(Jst. Flnully, Del(lnda\1ts at'lo5u~ that P!flinti ff was nut dcnied pf()t,CNs bCOilUsc l'htinti f'j' euuhi have availed itself PI' Stllte judicin1 procesN@s, whieh would hHVO sl1tisl1ed hs dllO pt'OU\')sN dghts, Defendants cite Nitlth CirUlli[ pt'ceedi:lnt that an atletjllt\tc sttlte rem\!dy willlll1r proces,~ elail11 in felIel'al CUPIt, until tllat avenUe is exhauSfcd. So'll tI prol;()thlt'al due LUA? N<ICill1i('(lfU Nrll/r/t Ct>. 1'. ('rJilnty (ifStin Luis OlJispo, 841 1'·.2d ~Tl, 879 (9th Cil'. 1987) (althpu~h the st~to law ronlotlies wel'c OPINION AND OIU)E:R dll'fef(nll from those ava[lufi!e under sedlOll 1%3, the I,rocedural dUll process e!tJi!tl was "flatred hecHus~ there IWlJS! an available sH1le remedy,"), However, Pluintitl ttJOk steps ttl punnle its s!tll~ refl1Qdl~s when it Origilliilly filer:! thl,; eas~ In state ~Ol.ll't; it Wllt; Udbndaills that suhs~qtlelltly nor been denied pnwess, Phllntilfs pt'Peedllntl due pfpeess clflil1111lils tW Hmatter oflaw," (Pel's,' Memo,2t) Ihll, Pltlinti rl' did pursue rel(efin stlite etlUt'll1lld Defendtlnts provide no analysis as ttl why this i, alt Insufllcl~l1t efibrt on Plalntlf!'s patt to avtlil itself' tIl' state ret11edi~s, or why i, it genuine Is,pe ofnlllterial fhet a, to whether Pla!tltlthvl1s d"pl'iwd ofproeedufltl due pnjeess ttncl D~fendant,' A, motion fbI' ,ullimAI'y Judgnwl1t onthl, elfllm is dented. Legal SI<lf/dt/r,[ DefendAnt argucs tl1ftt, to tilt: c.xtent Plailltltl's ,,,etlon 19M:l e!tllm, are tlilowed ttl proeeetl to triaL Plaint!I'!'s dtJmflg~, should be limited UntlCI' thl') ,lttlJdl1rd scI fbl'th III NOI'lh Pacifica, LIC v. 5 Il efendul1t, fhil to speci!'y ttnlnt~rlj1cdltlte pn'Cess thtll I'lltintilTshould huve pur,\led prior to l1Iini? hl statl! c(Jurl. FlIl'tIWl'll1orc, Plaintlffarguef', and Del\mclatlts do not tlis!"'ute, thut tid, cltlinl i, not one appt'PpriUlely brtHlght !lelbl'e the LUl1dUse 130rlttl of Appeuls ("1).!BA') tJndl1r Orel?on sHltute. "granting appnlVt!1 or withlJPlclitl!? tAPProval ofa f1mll subdlvislot1 or partition plM, ' ,is nut a land use deCision ur Ulitnlted land use tledslcJtj, as tit,11t\et! und,,1' ORS 197.015." Ott. RHV, SlAI. 9:;\.100(7). l"lll'thennore, [lIsp not itwiudetllllthe tlefiuition pf"land use declsipll," tIre decisions that "detl!rtlline IIIml engitwerlni? d~sI211, epnlltl'Uctl<lH, opel'l1tiotl, Itlalntel1tltwe, repalf' Of' pre,ervl!tion of a tnUlsl10l'tatioll fllCility that is otherwh,e tntthorit.ed hy and Conslst"nt with the eptnpl'eheu~ive platl and lattd use rei?ulatlous;" Of "l1P[)I'OVes or d~llie, appnlVtt! ofa tlnal suhdivision Pt' pal'tltloll platr·r Ol{, Rtv, STA!', 19"1.0 15(h)(D) lind (0), Aecordingly; sueh decbions at'l!n(Jt within the Jutisdictiotl ofLUHA, as LUllA only rcviews J1nttflttnd use t!et'i,!ous, Se~ ()It REV. STAT, 1tJ7.B3S(l) (2007) ("The Laud U,e Board PI' AIJpea11l shalll'cvlew tlw lund tWe tleuislou or IItniled httld use deeislim tlncl prepllre a 11nal order aft1pnlng, revel'sitt!? or l'enllu1(!ing tlw Iilnlj usc tkel~lon pI' limited lajld u,~ dlic1sion"), OPINION ANt) OIUlER 46 {KPRI Clly fl/Pl/cljica, S2(i FJd 478, 486 (9t[l Cit. 20(8). 1110 !,tancltlrd allows compensatol'y dalna[i;es in set:t\(lll 1981 snits only wherc~ actual injnry is sho\\~t "lUther, "Itlh" I11CtlSUfC of damtlges 1'01' an eqiJltl Ilfotel'tion dllil11 allc[ling that II discritninaWty toning dedslpn tcanpolflrlly d"prlveid the plailHiff's blld of its ckvdoprnent Ilot~ntial is reillslll1l\hle int\:,rc!'t l)]\ thE tl'dncHon in willc to thei projePt l;realed I)y til" zoning deei!,iOI1, Inltol11y f~jr th\:' period ()ftint\') the pOlldition liclUlllly dc,layed th" cl,wl'lopltlent of the pwjeict" ld (cHing !ierrll1gfo/l 1', ('olll/ly o/SunOl/ttI, 12 f'Jd q() I, OO§ (Oth Cif. 1993 )). Phtintiffagrees thltt section 1983 ealls (01' cOI11INnsalol'y daltla[!;es oilly whore there is tlettI,ll (njul')' and cites thc~ ~llpfcnrl(l CI>U!'t hI Memphis ('PlllllllllJity School {)iXI. v. ,'Jtacltlll'tl, 471 U.S, 209, 307 (19S()): "Cong!'r;s8 adopted this cOl11mon,lllw sYs(Q1t1 of tee(lWty whlHl it o~1tlblish~d Iitlbility t~)I' 'constitutional ((ll'l,.' Cottsequenl1y, 'the basic PUfPOS,,' of [sect 1011] r:amfJen~l/te t'el'!icJnsfill' 19~3 danltJg"s is 'to injuries that al'~ l'ilu~ecl by tho deprivation of uOllstituti(Jlial right~. ", (r;iting Cart'y \', PipllllS, 43:\ \1.8, 2cl7, 254 (I 07~) (emphasis ildded itl Memphis ('ollll/ilmity), However, this UilS~ dif\~rs jJ'om North Pa(:i/ica in [\11 itnportant n~spect. In NImh flocijlr:u tlw l'ourt behj that PO autulil dlllnUi!:e oueurUid hel;a\lse a p"l1dinl! lIPtloll bef()re hlllTelj lfcveloptncnl, aud thllS th~ disputed condition th~ CaHt~jI'nia il'Ppos~d COilstal C'tllllmission by the City diel not cltUs~ tlcl\lal dllll1ngei by ddaying ,Ioveloplnent bOPupse the develoPll1eut was oth~rwise barred. Here, thtlre is no OVI1I'ltre!1il1g prohibition. 011 developlnent sUI:h tllllt Phtilitiff was otherwise unl1hl" to develop The Parks, 1l0twHhstanding Det0udallts' Ilt'ts alle!\cdly il1 violllticm of st'ctloll 1983. It PlllimiiT is Ililt prccilided from establishiltg IMUltl dill\1<lges consist~llt with thos~ Ihl1ow~ that claims. Pillintif\' further argIles that the dun1lJg" eillullhllion Ill'til'ultlted by NImh Pur:i/ica and 111tributt'd to flerrin[5/(/n WltS merely thE dalliage calculation UPpliUflhlc under the ntpts of that OPINION ANn OI{J)ER {l<:PR J pllrtkulur cas". The (:OUtl agre"s tlmt the tbrl1iulll stet forth in North P'lt'ilk pUt'porting to be the "tnea.~I-It'e of dllillages for un equal pwteetlon e1ainl ulleglpg tlutt tt disCrimlitatory zt)l1ing I{eITlug(pu, (kel~iun which sets forth tin testrctnely emnplex and facHpeci!'ie fonnuhl for cllkt1latittg dderrnit19d by tl19 t\let-t1ndtel'. tl19 Ibl't11ula for whidh shlllllJe [established hllsi2d on thlt SPCtUle tl:tdlS ofthi.~ clise, Plaimilrs Ilvla/lun/hl' P(1/'{io/ Sill/unary Jud,[4I1It!flt' response, netj;ntitlllt~ htlYi2 withdrawn tlmee of apprOIJrltlle in the fUlul\:. IM'endants lhe~e ~p<lelfie,IIIY di2fens"s, with kave to rellssetl thetn if withdraw the utl1tnttltive defenses rehMd to mandatmy ,Irbittatlpn, e)(htllwtion of adminlstnitlve retner-!ies, and the notice requiret11etlts of the Orego(1 TNt Claims Ad. Plaintiff rnOveE; tbr summary judgment on the remaining arnl'jl1Utive dd'enses, I1Itl1ldy, thut the dllln(s Itre burred I)y tlw statutes of lil11itlltion, thte pUbliQ iIt1provejj1\jjl( eontrl\l:t lIS II Whole, atld ~et!tion 6(1'1) or th" publiQ itnprowments \;Ot11t11et. Defendants opptlse the " The f0l10W!tlg ,unounlt> ((l tfte l-!tJrl'in,iJ/OIl eOllrt'~ claimed ~implillcatiotl ofthe dltn1tlges e[i1elllittltlll: "Boiled to its e,~senC<l, the Ibrl11ula Ina>, be ~Ulnrnarb~<Id as IbJlow~: Thte court nt,~t multiplied the nlllslnwYll vlllnc of the Property (i.e., llSSll\1iil1g approval of the :!2,ultit tlPpllp1tioj!, $1.3 million) by tllw-thitd (Lt:" the cll~tt'iet cotm's 0a\(;1Ilatiol1 of the probabiHty ol'the appli0atjolt's appto\!tll). Th¢ court then subtl'aeted jtom the ptodud the purpotted lItld¢vdopetl vahlt! or the Propetty ($490,OOO,()(J). Next, the court multiplied thi: dilTcn!l1ce ~)y the product of tile (ntete'st nlle (i.e" btlsed (In thlt- IHlIOlll1t the l11ol1tly t:o\lId hlWe ellnted) tUld tlw dumtiul1 of/htl dtelay. Finally, the Celurt l1dcled to tlw prodwt whlltcver Ittctea,;ec! ch=w1opl11ent costs were likely to htwe rCSlllteli t\'(jjl1 the delay," Htll'l'!ngtol1, 12 ]i,3d at 90S Citations hetellndet, \Illlel3s Pthet'Wl~e spteelfied, eite to the milh!riuls fili:d il1 aSSOI:iutiol1 with Plaintl ff,> 111/Hiott tbl' ~lIt11l1ttlt'y Judglt1ctt1 I'DIi,t. #20), 7 OPINION AND OlitDEIl romtlindor of Plntntlfl's ll1utiun, 1 Slfitl,Ll&!.9j' L!mJ1LIMll~ PlaltHilY t1rgcs the cOllrt to dQ0ide, its a I1ltltter of ItlW, tllat it" applicnbl¢ ~lal\1c" ofli!ll!ta!lon· I'Ii1intinO~ c1aitn~ are uot blllTed by the prinUlry eonten!iOll L~ thAt tho e1aitns ditlnot tlegrue \IntI! March 3, 200(j, wl1l'n 1ltQV0 Wewd SetH tll1 email tel 'rim Md)uIlald, in!cmning hipl of it vadety uf decisiuns nlllck by tho t::ity regflrding develuPtl1c'!lt c)fThet PArks, i\t:cmding tu Plall1li fI~ prior to this email there Wi1~ llP retason tu S\lsp~et tliflt pofelldnnt~ were m:tillg to fl'\lstmto PlailltW'" detv\!lnpmel1t plans. Cunsequontly, the oli1t1il 1!1t1fks the dat~ uf discovel'y uf tile ht! my and govern" the "ltHute of limitations dotel'll1itltlHon. Defelldttl1t tll'gues thtH the sltltl1to ofliltlitlltipn~; detormimHloll pl'csetnts a que~tiotl of 11101 tlnd lI1l1t tho Mlu'th :3, :2006, eli1l1l1 is an Ill.'llJ!1'ieiem bllSis for this dotetl'ljlin,1tJon. The parties do liOt d!f;Pllte thet applicllble stntut0 on Itn itatiol1s Uf the standanl t\ir detetl'lt1lning when the time pcrio\I begin,'! t\l fUP. Pltlintiff's slttlC law ltlklngs claim' is subject to fl six.yetlt' ~ttl(lIte oflil11i!atlolts, pl'opcny, SI!R in~ludilig Olt RtW .I'lTAT. 12'()~O(4) (" AI1 action (t)j' ta~ing, detaining or h*lI'tPg p\1rSfJl1al itlt uetiop I'm t1w sped tic fCe(}v~ry thet~ol', , . , ; shull b~ I~Oll1ntencetl within sij{ years."). All oth\1f dalms tll'C pl'(;ll1lserl on section 1983 Illltlal'e (hus subject to a two,yetlr ~ttltu(e of limitations, 8,!e ,4ddl,\lI v, Fred lvfeye!', [ne" stiltute of Iilllitations l~)r 19~ 1".3(\ IUO, 11;10 (9th Cir. ~tOOO) (stating that the section 199, ltetions Is Ilovel'lled by thet state statute of limitations t(jr pttfsol1i:lllnJllty dui!lls whith, in Oregon, I~ two y\!ars), The s!tlnt!al'd 101' when this the shtllltet of limitations accrues is rktel'lniltcd by federal law, 8,ie Bailey 1'. ,~;/2e1(on, No. cv Or-I 005-CV, :WOt} U,S. Dist. Ll-:XIS 5U, til "8,9 (D, C}r, Jan. 6, 2(09) ("Tho question of when a cltlim al:crltc!S is governed by (ellOt'allaw.") ((:itingJolJilStm 1'. Cali/limia, 207 F,jd 650, 653 (lith Clr. ~H)(lO», Under 8 The court hus granted De(~nda[lt8' mottolJ (br ,~lIH1mal'Y Judgment on th\,iJ tlalm, OPINION ANI) ORDI3R ,19 {KJlR} I~d~ralltlw" the ba~is the petiod b~glns "wlwn f\ljlaintifT knows 1'1' has reason to know of tlw i'\/flry whicb is of his action." (tlutltlng flpesle,.ey l', Mc(~o\' l' ,'. Son F,'ancl,\co, CilV & ('ol/nIV, 14 F,:1d 28. 29 (9th Cic 1<)9,\) . . c· ,', CallJedrll! (iI\" 04§ 1".2,1 :117, .lla-19 (9th Cit\ 1(91)) (intertlf\l quotation Illarks ollliHed). Plaintiff cit~s Norco Cor1.\"/r" !tw v. King ('PI/f/ly, J1I'opo~ition tlwt the stlltllte oflinlitfltipn~ doe~ ~o I F,2d 1143 (9th Cit\ IIJ86) for the 110t be~itl to run untO the government htl'> gIven finAl llpproval j(,r the developnwnt. hi Nt>rt'o, tlw county's ruling IlIl th~ dev&:!oper's preliminary piAl appiietltipn WiiS unlawfnlly ddayet1 by the Ctllllity Ibr IIPIJfOKittllHely flve eOUllty Ilnllily approved the pt~lhnil1atY plat ltpplkalion, the d~v~loper y~ars. Sllol'tlyafterthe tUed (HIlt l'pr damllg~s ltlellrntd AS AI'(;suil ofthe t!¢layell approval, The Ninth Citcuit held tlllll, prior t6 the rulin~ a~ to the of limitutions could not have been ttig~ered prior to lhllt date bel:allse "[ elollrt~ have held eon~islently that a eause of action does not accrue lmtilti PArty has a t'ight to ~nlol'l;e the clai!n." lei, nt 1146 (t:i!lltiolltJ omitted), On thl p pren1ise, PlltintHT l1~sert.s thilt Its Clllill1s (lid not llCCI'U\t ulltil tlte nnnl pennitting de\tision was n1lidt' on June 15, 200(). Del~n(laf1ts till1~-baned. ret;pPlld that thilY dn IlOt clJPtend that th\t slnt() Additiollally, Del~n(lants point (Jilt lhnt It i~ illv~rs~ condenmatiof1 claim is their llrglunenl that the [cdel'l11 invertJe tkfense Is Ilot Iwserled Agi1inst tlw tAkings dnims. Next, Pcfl1!ldlJnts point out thnt Plaintiffs !·\tlllflillinl5 t'lalDls did nI'! hinge np II Hnal det~rnlillatlon by the CIty, dtll!g C'(lI'pil1!el'ia Va/hcy ral'll/S. Ltd. v, COl/my Ii/SOl/ta fJarbol'a, 344 l' 3d 822 (9th Clr. 20(3). In (;aI1Iil1{@l'io, the Ninth Circuit distinguished the develolJcr's takings claim.s alld hij othe, elaitll.'l adsillg fl'Ol11 COllstiltltiollAI OPINION AND ORDER 50 {KPR} violaliojls by tlw 0Plmty. It wrote: "Simi!al'!y, Nl!sbill'S tdlGged First AUlelKfment. pto0¢dllral dU0 PI\lC0~S, and equal Pl'lltccliPn inJurles st\~1l1 lhm1 the I'¢taliation he u!aill\§. As in Hal'l'is, these allegcd In.llll'i~s ar(l separate fnnu anY pUl'Porled takinB. They ate alsp indep\!l1ltel1t of wh~thet or not the County's decisiondl1akin~ has b¢el1 con1pl.elc<cL" It! III 831 (I'efenin!\ tP Harris v. CUl/llly II!' Rive/'side, 904 F.21j 497, .SO I (9th eil'. 1990)). '1I1e cO\.ltt agre~s with Oefojldttnt that the e1aitns at iss\le ate not subjeP to the Norco liuality requireillent On the 001'(0 issue pI' when the dahn§ aC0rued fot slillute oflitnitations BOt's to gr~at lengths, fillet Plaintil'!' with great llwtual detail, to outlljle the eonditions giving rise to its eoncl\.lsiol1 that the Mateh 3, 2{)06, enwillil'st revealed the devel\)jJtnent ofThe Patks. purpo~es, Plalntiffl~huraeteri:r.es City'~ unlawf\.tl actions with re~;p(lct to its relationship with D(!f\ipdlmts us positive priot to tl1\1 n!l~cipt ofth\) ot11ttil, citinB i~;suauee of al1 ourly gradil1g permit, efl1ciellt resolutiol1 of' a ~tup, work of(jel' that WflS btt§ctl on tin itwot:ent Ini~\lllderstal1ding botween the parties. and Pillintift's IISSlllltptiotl that the dlf'!1cu!ti",s l'egunling the~ewel' alignmel1twc\'(l typit:al to th(l perttlitting t]\'(l(:egs, Only upon recoivillg th(! elllttil, Plaintit1'tllainltlilts, Ijid it realize that Dofefjdttnts had no intentipl1 ofl'elyitig on the pl'e!intinl1ry pInt approval. 1'laintifl't1wn de6el'ib(!s the Vl1rioug purported n"ftll'ioUg Ijctlvitie~ going On behind the s(!enes priol to the Mareh 3, 2()0(i, "mail, dlsepvered subsequ~nHy as tl r"sult pfdiseov\lI'Y in thi~ lpatter. Howevol', the quest:iol1 belbre the l'Ourt is ~il1lply whether a rea~onal")le lind"r of fact would IIeceS6al'ily condUtlc thut Plaintiff Iil'§t learl1ed of Pefel1dtlnls' int\lnt to d\lviltte from thl! prelimInary 11lat apNoval and I'rugtntt\l PltjintifCs dovel0ljm~nt it1 ntvol' ofthe illtere~ts orth Ird parties onlY when MeDclllttld receiv\ld th\l Mi1\'\lh 3, :;10()6, email. lind(!\' the applicable legal gtandard, the court must draw lill rellsol1l1hl~ itll"nmces in favpr of the I1\lI1,nwv\ng pnrty. Here, the extcnsiw fhctultl r\lconl OPINION i\ND ORPLR 51 {K.PR) c(lI1t;lil1s ~ul'tieiettt ~videflc¢ that the dilIiel.llHes b~twe\!ll the pllrtles W¢fe preS~1\f Ion!! belbre the Man;h 3, 2006, "mail. Dlle @u"h eXMjpk nf thb i@ the attel1dl1nce sheet at a Septembee 200) meet:ing nn whieh Heity el11ployee misspelled Hill Cox's flame ill all il1appropriute and nl1'¢n"ive manner. Another \1xamlile i,~ tlw City's treatl11ent ortljo3 wethurd~ i,~su" by being ul1re@pOll~iw to Plairlti ft' ~ attempts to eesolve the issue alid Hvoid delav. In i\!ovembrcl' 2005, Wirth lorwarded llletter to the City for Holnu'il sigtlllluf~ tl' .~en(1 to the l'c1eval1t ltgt1l1cies in all attempt to iwoid a nJltior hunlle, The letter was never s¢nt amI. 011 the recol'tI b,~I\lfe th" cpurt, otlterwi~e igWll'ed. The epUl't recognizes that Plaitltilfhas th" dWkult task oflJroving ulnck orknowlcdge priOf l\J Mareh 3, 2006, hr'wev"f. PI!lintiff I\lih: to nleet the high burden tlmt the coprt n,quircs to gfalH ~llmlt!ary Judgment and prevent Dcfend!lnts IrOl11llSsening the sllttnte pI' limitations as lUI aftlrnwtive defctlse. Al:~l'fdingly, the ('ourt ilgrees with l)el'¢11l1tll1ts th,lt this i.~ an intensely faetutll det~nl1ilJation, and, on the record hilthre it, thil ~ourt r:annot eondLlde that no reasol1tlble jury would c1i§agree with Plaintiffs IJPsition, Plalr1tifJ'" 1l10t!onlW \(> this aHil'll1l1tive dell:lwe is deniQd, I I. llLlLfulillc !~Y&tll~lJliL(.'QIl!rll£1 D~lendanrs !lsserl thaI the tenns or the pu!Jlk !tll!Jl'oVCmCtlu, contract btlr spnle or all of Plaintiff,~ claims, Plalntlff,~edks SUl111l1uryjudgment on this afl1l'1l)atlvc c1Qfense 011 the grmmd that its claims are ,:onstltutional In naturc and, therclhre, uot governed Ily this l;orllt!lct. Pefettdunts fe~p(ll1d pubUe tllut Plaintiff" claint~ "dirt-cIlY ImpJlcalQU manY ofthe e)(press il1jpwVQI11~nls ('Olllt'lIQ\," (IJel);: Opp, 9,) As (Ii~eussed t~nl1S ofthil MllYU 200p ahove, tht- ej'(istellce of thc publit; itnpl'oveljjents COfl!t'acl, though alonc nol dispositlVQ or Plaintiff'" claims, n1ay bilrelevanl to tlw as~crted elulms. .'leu SUjll'a I'p, 14-16. Therelllrc, Plaintiff ~ t\lotion Ibr SUtl1l11aty jlldgntellt on thi@ al'finnlltivc t1eletl."c is dQtticd, OPINION AND ORDER {KPR} Sedioo (i(w) pi'the public i111prowmenls (;Olnntet sttlte~: The City of lcorest Grove is ntll respO(1sible' fpr overgig)Jts of City's revie'w¢r 01' omissions by the' Develpp!:'r's engineer dUll t11tly have oel~urred clurinl6 t)Je project dcslgn Or thc City's pll1n rcview pn>ees,g, Ii. is tlw intent ofthe plan apprpvllll1l1d this Agrcement thtlt the project be eonstrue!cd itt e0l1f0l"l111111l!e with the spedl1catioos 1'¢leretle\3d PI' pOl1tail1e'd herein, (Plttinti/l's Memo., I\;'c J at 29,) Again, white pot disllPsitive tlft)!ttint! ff' s claims, this eourt do¢s not find liS [ll1iaHer onaw that t)Je plttllse has nl\ b!:'adni6 00 disposition ofPll1il1tilf's ell1ims, Thus, Plaintiff's Illotitlil ft1l' summary jUt1gtnent ou this ufl1rtltative defense i~ dettled. ('O/ldl IS i (J 1/ 1"01' tb!:' reason~ above ,;tttted, Defettdnl11s' ItlOtiotl fllr Slltt1111ttl'YJtldl6ment (N I (j) on I'lainlifCs sl,ltt,) !tIW tllkings elaitn Is GRAN'IED, Delendants' 1110tion fl\r slll11111al'Y ,/lKll6111ent On I'lail1lifCs I'r,:deralltlkiog~ elalm, First Anwl1dment: Malittlioo claim, etlunl woteetitln pnwess (;Ittim, ttnd proeedullli ,jut,) pnlce~s 1~lttim, substantive dtle cltlirn is DENIED. PlllitltlH'g motlol1 for summary JtJdl6l11enl (1120), to the \txtenl that the Ilfilrt1l1lliw delE:l1ses wete t10t alt'el1l:ly withdl'llwl1 witho\lt lJrcludlee', i~ 1)],;NlED itl its Imtirety. Defendllllts' nlo!ion to strilce (#i\8) is GRANTl!/) as to the l"rults Atlldavit ,mtl deemed moot as to tht,) Hankins Af11davit, DArED this :;t31'd day of Febnmry, 2010. ()PINtON A.ND ORnER 5J jKPR}

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.