Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clewiston Commons, LLC v. City of Clewiston

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ft. Myers Division

December 5, 2019

Clewiston Commons, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Clewiston, Mali Gardner, Al Perry, Travis Reese, Debbie McNeil, and Kathy Combass, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Clewiston's Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Fourth Amended Complaint (Docket No. 117), and Plaintiff Clewiston Commons's Motion to Extend pre-trial and trial deadlines (Docket No. 143). For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Motion to Extend is granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         This case involves a zoning dispute over Clewiston Commons, a mobile home park in Clewiston, Florida (“the City”). The full factual history of the case has been set forth previously, and the relevant facts are repeated below.

In 2006, Clewiston Commons LLC purchased a parcel of property in Clewiston that was zoned residential and was being used as a mobile home park. . . . In late 2006 or early 2007, Clewiston Commons sought to rezone the property from residential to commercial. . . . After a public hearing, the City's Board of Commissioners passed an ordinance granting Clewiston Commons' rezoning request. . . .
Every year from 2007 to 2016, the City granted Clewiston Commons permits to operate the property as a mobile home park. That changed in 2016 when the City began to deny Clewiston Commons permits related to its use of the property as a mobile home park.
Clewiston Commons then applied to the City for a special exception to allow it “[t]o operate and be able to repair/replace RV/mobile units within the park.” The Board of Commissioners denied Clewiston Commons' application for the special exception. Thereafter, a City code enforcement officer issued two violation notices to Clewiston Commons dated October 12, 2017, for failure to comply with the commercial zoning designation. The Notices required Clewiston Commons to remove all mobile homes from the property within 180 days and stated that failure to correct the violations could result in the issuance of a citation or an enforcement hearing before a special magistrate. The violations were not corrected, and Clewiston Commons filed this lawsuit on May 14, 2018. . . .
On October 30, 2018, a special magistrate ordered the removal of all mobile homes and that Clewiston Commons cease its use of the property as a mobile home park within 180 days, which was April 28, 2019. The special magistrate did not determine whether the mobile home park could continue to operate as a non-conforming use. Plaintiff appealed the special magistrate's order to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Hendry County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 162.11, styled City of Clewiston, Florida v. Clewiston Commons, LLC, Case No: 2018-CA-0777 (the “Underlying Appeal”). The Underlying Appeal remains pending but was stayed by the state court at the joint request of the parties pending the outcome of this litigation.

(Order (Docket No. 83) at 2-4 (internal citations omitted).) The City moves to dismiss Count II of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which alleges a violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” it must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, ” will not pass muster under Twombly. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In sum, this standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

         In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). But “[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth.” Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.