Fed. Dist. Court in CT Finds Individual Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Challenge Denial of Permit Extension Since they Had no Ownership Interest in the Property

This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, JD

In a lawsuit filed by Handsome, Inc. and its officers (“the Plaintiffs”) against the Town of Monroe, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and former town officials (“the Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had requested a five-year extension for a permit to construct an industrial building, which was denied by Defendant and Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court of Connecticut (“the Court”) based on alleged violations of their constitutional rights.

Plaintiff owned a ten-acre parcel of land in Monroe, Connecticut, on which they planned to construct a 20,000-square-foot industrial building. Plaintiff applied for a special permit in 2003 to complete the scope of work, which was granted by Defendant with 36 conditions. In April 2008, Plaintiff requested a five-year extension for the permit, but the site was only partially excavated, which made it impossible to construct the approved building without excavating for all three of the potential buildings originally planned for. Defendant discussed Plaintiff’s request for an extension at a hearing on April 24, 2008, where they expressed concern about the lack of progress at the site, the permit authorization, Plaintiff’s failure to file progress reports, and frustration over lax enforcement of zoning regulations. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s extension request, and Plaintiff appealed the decision.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants alleging a violation of their constitutional rights. Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs were not deprived of any constitutional rights and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court ruled that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the Defendant’s grant of extension because they had no direct ownership interest in the property and acted in their capacities as corporate officers representing the interest of Plaintiff. The Court also found that Defendant did not violate any constitutional rights of Plaintiff and its officers.

In conclusion, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Plaintiffs were not deprived of any constitutional rights and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also ruled that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal Defendants’ grant of extension because they had no direct ownership interest in the property and acted in their capacities as corporate officers representing the interest of Plaintiff.

Handsome, Inc v Town of Monroe, 2023 WL 2742315 (D. Conn. 3/31/2023)