Case on life-support as all claims dismissed except equal-protection challenge
MANDEVILLE — In a sweeping ruling that significantly narrows the legal battle over the proposed Sucette Harbor development, a federal judge has dismissed nearly all claims brought against the City of Mandeville by Woodward Harbor LLC and LSU Health Foundation New Orleans.
However, the court has allowed one claim — alleging unequal treatment under the law — to proceed.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long comes just days after the court dismissed all claims against Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, citing qualified immunity.
In this latest decision, the judge found that the developers failed to establish that the city violated their constitutional rights by rejecting a proposed zoning change and development plan for the controversial lakefront project.
The plaintiffs argued that the city’s unanimous 5-0 vote against the proposed 82-room hotel, apartments, restaurant, and marina constituted an unconstitutional “regulatory taking” under both federal and state law. However, the court found these claims legally insufficient.
Judge Long ruled that the plaintiffs lacked a “recognized species of property right” under Louisiana law to compel the City Council’s approval of their project. Federally, he found that the developers failed to demonstrate that the denial of the project deprived them of all economically beneficial use of the property, a crucial requirement under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lucas decision.
Related:
- Sucette Harbor killed, 5-0
- Sucette sues City of Mandeville, council member
- City, Zuckerman file motions to dismiss Sucette lawsuit
- Federal judge orders ‘settlement conference’ in Sucette Harbor lawsuits
- Residents, conservationists seek to join Sucette Harbor legal dispute, file motion to intervene
- VINDICATED: Judge tosses case against Zuckerman in Sucette Harbor lawsuit
The court also rejected the developers’ claims based on the Penn Central balancing test, noting that they failed to provide concrete evidence of substantial economic loss, unreasonable interference with investment-backed expectations, or any overreach by the city’s decision-making process.
The judge further emphasized that the plaintiffs’ complaints about disorganized public meetings, inconsistent application of rules, and opposition from council members amounted to “conclusory allegations” that lacked sufficient evidence to support a due process violation.
Equal Protection Claim Survives
Despite dismissing most of the case, Judge Long allowed one claim to proceed: an allegation that the city treated the Sucette Harbor project differently from other marinas in Mandeville. The developers argue that they faced stricter conditions and penalties not applied to similar developments, which could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, a U.S. Supreme Court case adopted by the Fifth Circuit, such “class-of-one” claims can proceed when plaintiffs allege intentional, arbitrary discrimination.
Judge Long concluded that the plaintiffs’ factual allegations on this point were sufficient, at least at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to warrant further examination through discovery and litigation.
Implications for the Plaintiffs
This ruling is a devastating blow for the plaintiffs, who have now lost nearly all their legal arguments. Their remaining path in federal court hinges on proving that the city engaged in discriminatory treatment by imposing unfair restrictions on the Sucette Harbor project.
The judge’s opinion also reaffirms the broad discretion of local governments in land-use decisions, particularly when those decisions are made through established legislative processes.
The surviving equal protection claim could still pose challenges for the city, especially if it is found to have applied zoning rules inconsistently. However, the overall momentum of the case has shifted decisively in favor of the city.
Download the court’s ruling here.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 