After the plaintiff was denied a conditional use permit to build a commercial complex, plaintiff alleged the denial of the permit “was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, and constituted a denial of due process rights.” The defendants rebutted by stating that qualified immunity bars any economic recovery from the individual council-members. The plaintiffs argued that qualified immunity should not bar recovery because the defendants denied the plaintiffs their due process rights, as the plaintiffs were not given the right to respond to “new facts, testimony, and evidence accepted by the” defendants.
The court began their analysis by stating that qualified immunity protects public officials from liability where said officials do not violate constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have been aware of. The court further stated that due process requires, in the land use context, that an aggrieved party be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Applying the facts of the case to the standard, the court found the defendants are not entitled to the protections afforded by qualified immunity. In this case, the Mayor of the town where the property was located wrote an official letter on behalf of the town in opposition of the application, and the council withheld the plaintiffs’ response by not disclosing the response until after a vote had been taken. As such, the court determined plaintiffs’ complaint was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as the record indicates the defendants denied the plaintiffs their opportunity to be heard.
Additionally, the court noted that the defendants’ motion to dismiss should also not be granted, as the council members may not be afforded qualified immunity as it is possible they acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in denying the application. If this allegation proves to be true, the defendants also violated the plaintiffs’ substantive due process right to a rational decision.
Brockstedt v. Sussex County Council, 2011 WL 1043616 (D. De., 3/22/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/MPTmain.htm.
