Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

November 15, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 22 , \ I i I I I i \ -1 other property owners for the purpose of developing the land into a 1,200 acre high technology busines~ park. The county agencies obtained a "certification of blight" for Whit- taker's and other property in the development and pursued condem- nation proceedings in court. Ultimately, a state court issued a declara- tion of taking related to the properties in question. Generally, private land could be taken for public use if the owner was justly compensated. Whittaker appealed the state court's decision, arguing that there was no evidence supporting the finding of blight-which undoubtedly factored significantly into the court's compensation determination. While the appeal was pending, Whittaker filed ciinaction in federal court, claiming that the agencies failed to follow prerequisite procedures to establish that the properties were blighted, creating an uolawful tak- ing of the property. The federal claim also included alleged violations of the Fifth and 14th Amendments and corresponding guarantees under the state constitution. Because the state court had yet to decide on Whittaker's appeal, the fed- eral court issued a stay of proceedings on Whittaker's federal claims. Sub- sequently, Whittaker asked the court to allow it to proceed with his claims, and the county argued that the court's reasons for imposing the stay had been resolved in its favor and further litigation would be duplicative. The county asked the court to issue an order of administrative closure. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Whittaker. Generally, even where simultaneous litigation of similar issues in both state and federal courts existed, litigation could proceed in both courts until one came to judgment. Under' certain circumstances, however, fed- eral courts could abstain and defer to concurrent state proceedings ad- dressing the same issue. The county argued that the conditions for ab- stention existed in the present case. To decide if abstention was appropriate, the court first had to deter- mine whether the state and federal cases were parallel. Generally, state and federal court cases were parallel if they involved the same parties and claims. In this case, the court found that, even though the parties were the same and both cases involved identical facts and some identical issues, the federal case raised causes of action under the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the u.s. Constitution and corresponding state constitu- tional claims that were not raised in the state action. In addition, abstention was appropriate only where the following re- quirements are satisfied: 1) there were ongoing state proceedings that were judicial in nature; 2) the state proceedings implicated important state interests; and 3) the state proceedings afforded an adequate op- portunity to raise the federal claims. Here, Whittaker claimed that the county had violated his constitutional and statutory rights; such consti- 7 D" 57