During several stages in the development approval process in a Florida county, the plaintiff alleged that Lander served as both the County Attorney advising the approving body, and as the attorney for the applicant. In this dual role, attorney Lander “made representations to the county board on behalf of the applicant and also provided a legal opinion in his capacity as county attorney that the applicant’s development plans complied with the county’s comprehensive land use plan.” The plaintiff bank had lent money to Lander’s client for the purpose of developing land that had been granted development approval by the county. Shortly after the attorney Lander left his official position, the new county attorney recognized the development was not compliant with the comprehensive plan and issued a stop work order, resulting in the developer defaulting on the loan. The plaintiff contended that the defendant county violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying the plaintiff’s property rights without due process of the law. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted the county was deliberately indifferent to the risk it created by permitting the county attorney to act in an improper manner. In deliberate indifference cases, such as this, the court stated that the plaintiff needs to show that the municipality knew of the risk and deliberately failed to take action. As the litigation in this case was still young, the court denied the county’s motion to dismiss regarding the § 1983 claim, as the plaintiff met the very low threshold pleadings requirement given the obviousness of the dual roles and its potential harm.
Citizens State Bank v. Dixie County, 2011 WL 1335805(N.D. Fla., 4/7/2011).
