Federal District Court in NY allows Fourth Amendment Claim but Dismisses Plaintiff’s Discrimination, Conspiracy, and Takings Claims Related to Commercial Filming Permit Regulations

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.

The plaintiff, 31FO, LLC, purchased a 10-acre waterfront property in the Village of Lloyd Harbor in 2019 for about $5 million. It intended to generate revenue from the property by making it available for television and film production work and other events rentals. Problems soon arose between 31FO, its neighbors, and village officials, however, and when it rented the property for a silent religious retreat attended by mostly South Asian participants in 2019, complaints were allegedly made by some of the neighbors about the “dark-skinned people in all white robes.” The village subsequently enacted two local laws to regulate the issuance of commercial filming permits on residential properties. Under this legislation, the village determined that it would only approve the plaintiff’s commercial filming permits if it obtained consent from the private road association to use the property’s access road for commercial filming projects. The private road association thereafter refused to grant consent for the plaintiff’s filming requests. 31FO alleged that the road association’s denials were the result of a conspiracy between the neighbors and the village to discriminate against it based on racial and religious animus by, and that this alleged conspiracy caused it to lose over $1 million in potential income. 31FO then filed an “everything but the kitchen sink” complaint in federal court, asserting various constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 for racial and religious discrimination, conspiracy, retaliation, and violations of equal protection, due process, free speech, unreasonable searches, and regulatory takings.

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York first addressed whether 31FO had standing to bring claims of racial and religious discrimination. As an LLC, the court found it did not have standing to assert these claims because it did not qualify as a member of any protected racial or religious group, nor were its primary functions centered around any protected racial or religious classes. Although 31FO attempted to demonstrate standing through its associations with an Indian investor, the court emphasized that this investor was not a member of the LLC and the alleged investment relationship was too vague to establish independent standing for 31FO’s discrimination claims.

Next, the court evaluated 31FO’s claims that village officials had subjected the property to frequent  inspections that violated its Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.  According to the complaint, village police began regular patrols of the property after the silent religious retreat in 2019, entering and driving on the property more than 100 times without a warrant and without 31FO’s  permission, and it was also alleged that the building inspector had entered buildings on the property on various occasions, supposedly to investigate complaints made by neighbors about unauthorized work at the property. The village defendants argued against 31FO’s Fourth Amendment claims on the basis that it failed to allege any injury, but the court allowed these claims to proceed since “a plaintiff who has proven a civil rights violation but has not proven actual compensable injury may be entitled to an award of nominal damages.”

The court dismissed 31FO’s Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim, however, finding that it failed to satisfy the factors under the Penn Central takings test. First, with respect to the “economic effect” of the regulations, the court found that 31FO did not plausibly allege that the village had forced it to “sacrifice all economically beneficial uses” of the property. Next, 31FO alleged that it had a reasonable “investment-backed expectation” that it could finance its purchase and maintenance of the property through commercial filming revenues, but the court disagreed because 31FO refused to acknowledge that the property was not zoned for commercial use and any expectations it might have had did not rise to the level of protected property interests. With respect to the last Penn Central factor, the court found that the “character of the village’s action” also supported a finding that no taking occurred, since the village’s regulations were not akin to a “physical invasion” but were rather in the “character” of traditional zoning regulations.

Next, the court dismissed 31FO’s claims alleging a conspiracy to deprive it of its civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 because there were no factual allegations in the complaint showing a “meeting of the minds” or agreement to engage in discriminatory conduct between the village officials and the road association defendants.

Finally, the court concluded that 31FO’s remaining claims violated  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim[s] showing that the [plaintiff is] entitled to relief” and that “[e]ach allegation [ ] be simple, concise, and direct.” The complaint was so broad and deficient that the court could not meaningfully evaluate any other claims that may have remained. The court therefore dismissed the entire complaint without prejudice, aside from 31FO’s Fourth Amendment claims.

31FO, LLC v. Inc. Vill. of Lloyd Harbor, 2023 WL 6385187 (EDNY 9/29/23)