Coleman v. District of Columbia, No. 13-1456 (D. D.C. Sep. 30, 2014)

8/11/2019 Coleman v. District of Columbia, No. 13-1456 (D. D.C. Sep. 30, 2014)

1/48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________)

BENJ AMI N COLEMAN, t hrough hi s )

Conser vat or , ROBERT BUNN, ))Pl ai nt i f f , )

) Ci vi l Act i on No. 13- 1456 ( EGS)v . )

)DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A, )

)Def endant . )

________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, as i n many ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons, a

homeowner who f ai l s t o pay pr oper t y t axes r uns a gr eat r i sk. A

del i nquent pr oper t y- t ax bi l l becomes a l i en, hel d by the

Di st r i ct , on t he homeowner s pr oper t y. Cont i nued f ai l ur e t o pay

t he del i nquent t ax bi l l creat es t he r i sk t hat t he Di st r i ct wi l l

sel l t he pr oper t y t o sat i sf y t he t axes. Thi s pr act i ce of

engagi ng i n t ax sal es has l ong been r ecogni zed as a gener al l y

val i d exer ci se of t he gover nment s power t o col l ect t axes.

The devi l , however , i s i n t he det ai l s. I n D. C. , t he t axsal e

pr ocess begi ns wi t h t he sal e at auct i on of a t ax l i en on t he

pr oper t y t o a t hi r d par t y. The homeowner may sat i sf y that l i en

by payi ng hi s del i nquent t ax bi l l , but t he pur chaser of t he l i en

i s abl e t o add on t op of t hat bi l l var i ous cost s, i ncl udi ng

at t or ney s f ees. I n Mr . Col eman s case, t hat caused what began


2/48

2

as a $133. 88 t ax bi l l t o become a t ot al of over $5, 000, al l of

whi ch needed t o be pai d bef or e the l i en woul d be sat i sf i ed.

Once t he l i en i s sol d t o t he t hi r d par t y, a si x- mont h wai t i ng

per i od begi ns, dur i ng whi ch t he homeowner may redeem hi s home by

payi ng t he t axes, al ong wi t h any penal t i es, cost s, and i nt er est

t hat ar e owed. I f t he ent i r e bi l l i s not pai d upon expi r at i on of

t he wai t i ng per i od, t he t ax- l i en pur chaser may i ni t i at e

pr oceedi ngs i n t he Super i or Cour t of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a t o

f orecl ose. The Super i or Cour t i s empowered t o ent er a j udgment

vest i ng a f ee si mpl e t i t l e i n t he pr oper t y i n t he t ax- l i en

pur chaser . I n t hi s way, a smal l sum pai d t o pur chase the l i en

becomes f ul l t i t l e to a pr oper t y wor t h hundr eds of t housands of

dol l ar s ( i n t hi s case, appr oxi mat el y $200, 000) . The key det ai l

i n t hi s case i s t hat D. C. l aw pr ovi des t hat any sur pl us equi t y

t he homeowner has i n hi s home i s i r r evocabl y l ost , no mat t er how

smal l t he t ax bi l l nor how val uabl e t he equi t y.

Mr . Col eman br i ngs a l i mi t ed chal l enge t o t hi s l aw. He does

not seek t o r egai n hi s home, does not di sput e t hat t he Di st r i ct

may use t ax sal es t o sat i sf y del i nquent pr oper t y t axes, and

agr ees wi t h t he Di st r i ct t hat he owed $133. 88 i n pr oper t y t axes,

pl us penal t i es, cost s, and i nt er est . Mr . Col eman s cl ai m i s

agai nst t he Di st r i ct s t aki ng of t he ent i r e equi t y i n hi s home.

The Di st r i ct , he asser t s, has provi ded hi m no compensat i on f or


3/48

3

t he l oss of t hat equi t y, even t hough i t s val ue f ar exceeds t he

t axes, penal t i es, cost s, and i nt er est he owed.

Mr . Col eman cl ai ms t hat such a pr act i ce i s f or bi dden by the

Taki ngs Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed Stat es

Const i t ut i on. Accor di ngl y, he f i l ed sui t seeki ng an awar d of

j ust compensat i on, as wel l as a decl ar at i on f r om t hi s Cour t

t hat t he Di st r i ct s st at ut e i s unconst i t ut i onal . The Di st r i ct

has moved to di smi ss Mr . Col eman s Compl ai nt , ar gui ng that t hi s

Cour t l acks j ur i sdi ct i on f or mul t i pl e r easons and t hat , i n any

event , Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent hol ds t hat t he Di st r i ct s act i ons

do not vi ol at e t he Taki ngs Cl ause. The Cour t has consi der ed t he

Di st r i ct s mot i on, t he r esponse and r epl y t her et o, as wel l as

t he appl i cabl e l aw and t he ent i r e r ecor d i n t hi s case. The Cour t

al so hel d a hear i ng on the mot i on t o di smi ss on Sept ember 26,

2014. The Cour t f i nds t hat i t has j ur i sdi ct i on over Mr .

Col eman s cl ai ms and accor di ngl y r ej ect s al l of t he Di st r i ct s

j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gument s. The Cour t al so r ej ect s t he Di st r i ct s

argument t hat pr i or Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent has f orecl osed Mr .

Col eman s cl ai m under t he Taki ngs Cl ause. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

DENIES t he Di st r i ct s mot i on.

I. Background

A. Statutory Background

The Di st r i ct of Col umbi a s l aws gover ni ng t he procedur e f or

col l ect i ng del i nquent pr oper t y t axes are codi f i ed i n Chapt er 13A


4/48

4

of t i t l e 47 of t he D. C. Code. See Revi sed Real Propert y Tax

Sal es, D. C. Code 47- 1330, et seq. On the day that a t ax

def i ned as unpai d r eal pr oper t y t ax . . . i ncl udi ng penal t i es,

i nt er est , and cost s, id. 47- 1330( 2) becomes del i nquent , t he

D. C. Code decl ar es t hat i t shal l aut omat i cal l y become a l i en on

t he r eal pr oper t y. Id. 47- 1331( a) . The Code f ur t her di r ect s

t he Di st r i ct t o sel l al l r eal pr oper t y on whi ch t he t ax i s i n

ar r ear s unl ess ot her wi se pr ovi ded by l aw. Id. 47- 1332( a) .

Such t ax sal es f ol l ow a pr ocedur e set out el sewher e i n t he

st at ut e. At l east 30 days bef or e any such sal e i s t o be

adver t i sed, t he Mayor shal l mai l t o t he per son who l ast appear s

as owner of t he r eal pr oper t y on t he t ax r ol l . . . a not i ce of

del i nquency. Id. 47- 1341( a) . Once thi r t y days have passed

f r om t he mai l i ng of t he not i ce of del i nquency, t he Di st r i ct

must adver t i se t hat t he pr oper t y wi l l be sol d at publ i c auct i on

because of t axes. Id. 47- 1342( a) . At t hi s publ i c sal e, t he

Di st r i ct must sel l t he pr oper t y i n i t s ent i r et y, id. 47-

1343, t o t he pur chaser who makes t he hi ghest bi d. Id. 47-

1346( a) ( 2) . Sal es are not t o be conduct ed f or l ess t han t he

amount of t he t axes, however . Id. 47- 1346( c) .

The pur chaser r ecei ves a cer t i f i cat e of sal e, whi ch

descr i bes t he pr oper t y and t he sal e, and i ndi cat es [ t ] he amount

of t axes f or whi ch t he r eal pr oper t y was of f er ed f or sal e. Id.

47- 1348( a) . The si x mont hs f ol l owi ng t he dat e of sal e ar e a


5/48

5

r edempt i on per i od, dur i ng whi ch t he pur chaser may not f orecl ose

t he or i gi nal owner s r i ght t o r edeem t he pr oper t y. Id. 47-

1370( a) . The or i gi nal owner may r edeem by payi ng t o t he Di st r i ct

t he amount pai d by the pur chaser . . . excl usi ve of sur pl us

wi t h i nt er est t her eon, as wel l as ot her t axes, i nt er est , and

penal t i es pai d by a pur chaser , and expenses f or whi ch t he

pur chaser i s ent i t l ed t o r ei mbur sement . Id. 47- 1361( a) .

I nt er est on t hi s amount i s cal cul at ed at an annual r at e of 18%.

Id. 47- 1334, 47- 1361, 47- 1377. I f t he or i gi nal owner makes

suf f i ci ent payment s t o t he Di st r i ct , t he pur chaser of t he

cer t i f i cat e of sal e shal l r ecei ve a r ef und of t he payment wi t h

i nt eres t . Id. 47- 1354( b) .

Once the si x- mont h r edempt i on per i od has passed, a pur chaser

may f i l e a compl ai nt t o f or ecl ose t he r i ght of r edempt i on of t he

r eal pr oper t y. Id. 47- 1370( a) . Thi s act i on must be f i l ed

wi t hi n one year of t he dat e of sal e of t he l i en, or t he

cer t i f i cat e of sal e becomes voi d. See id. 47- 1355( a) ( 1) . Even

i f such an act i on i s pendi ng, t he or i gi nal owner may redeem t he

r eal pr oper t y at any t i me unt i l t he f or ecl osur e of t he r i ght of

r edempt i on i s f i nal . Id. 47- 1360. I n adj udi cat i ng an act i on

t o f or ecl ose the r i ght of r edempt i on, t he Super i or Cour t may

[ v] est t i t l e i n f ee si mpl e i n t he pur chaser . Id. 47-

1370( b) ( 2) . The pur chaser of t he t axsal e cer t i f i cat e must br i ng

t he act i on agai nst t he or i gi nal owner of t he pr oper t y and t he


6/48

6

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, as wel l as any ent i t y wi t h a par t i cul ar

i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y. See id. 47- 1371( b) ( 1) . The l aw

per mi t s t he Super i or Cour t t o i ssue a f i nal j udgment

f or ecl osi ng t he r i ght of r edempt i on, whi ch bar s t he or i gi nal

owner f r om r edeemi ng t he pr opert y and vest s i n t he pur chaser a

deed i n f ee si mpl e. See id. 47- 1382( a) . I n doi ng so, t he l aw

per mi t s t he t aki ng of not onl y t he amount of del i nquent t axes,

pl us any cost s, f ees, and i nt er est , but al so t he ent i r et y of t he

or i gi nal owner s equi t y i n t he pr oper t y. 1

B. Factual Background

Benj ami n Col eman i s a 76- year- ol d vet eran. Compl . , ECF No. 1

26. At al l t i mes r el evant t o t hi s case, he suf f er ed f r om sever e

dement i a, id. 27, and t hi s act i on i s brought on Mr . Col eman s

behal f by Rober t Bunn, hi s guardi an who was appoi nt ed by t he

Super i or Cour t t o manage Mr . Col eman s l egal and f i nanci al

af f ai r s . Id. 15.

I n 2006, Mr . Col eman f ai l ed t o pay a $133. 88 pr oper t y t ax bi l l

on hi s home. Id. 28. The Di st r i ct pl aced a t ax l i en on Mr .

Col eman s home and added $183. 47 i n penal t i es t o hi s pr eexi st i ng

1 The Cour t not es t hat subsequent l egi sl at i on by the Counci l oft he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a wi l l al t er t he pr ocess i n many ways.Most i mpor t ant l y, l egi sl at i on t hat i s schedul ed t o t ake ef f ecti n Oct ober 2014 grant s homeowner s whose homes ar e sol d at t axauct i on and subsequent l y f or ecl osed upon a r i ght t o r ecover asubst ant i al por t i on of t he equi t y t hey had i n t hei r homes. SeeResi dent i al Real Proper t y Equi t y and Tr anspar ency Act , 62- 31D. C. Reg. 7763 ( Aug. 1, 2014) .


7/48

7

t ax obl i gat i on. Id. 29. The l i enof $317. 35was of f ered f or

sal e at a publ i c auct i on i n J ul y 2007, when i t was sol d t o

Embassy Tax Servi ces, LLC ( Embassy) . Id. 30.

Embassy f i l ed an act i on t o f or ecl ose Mr . Col eman s r i ght of

r edempt i on on Febr uary 28, 2008. Id. 33. I t demanded $4, 999 i n

addi t i on t o the l i en amount of $317. 35 f r om Mr . Col eman. Id.

34. The addi t i onal amount was f or cour t cost s, at t or ney s f ees,

expenses i ncur r ed f or per sonal servi ce of pr ocess, expenses

i ncur r ed f or ser vi ce of pr ocess by publ i cat i on and f ees f or t he

t i t l e search. Id. Embassy f i l ed t he act i on agai nst Mr . Col eman,

as wel l as t he Di st r i ct , al t hough t he Di st r i ct di d not f i l e any

speci f i c cl ai ms or def enses. Id. 35.

On September 24, 2008, Mr . Col eman s son sent a handwr i t t en

l et t er t o t he Super i or Cour t i ndi cat i ng t hat he had r ecent l y

moved back i nt o t own and had di scovered t hat hi s f ather was

l i vi ng al one and had not kept t o hi s medi ci ne. Id. 37. Mr .

Col eman s son of f ered t o get most of t he payment s i n on Oct .

3, 2008. Id. The Super i or Cour t ul t i mat el y hel d a st at us

hear i ng on Mar ch 11, 2009, af t er whi ch i t gave Mr . Col eman unt i l

May 27, 2009 t o compl et e hi s payment s. Id. 3839.

On May 26, 2009, Mr . Col eman s son sent another l et t er t o the

Super i or Cour t , not i ng t hat hi s f at her had been under t he

weat her , but t hat hi s f at her had pai d al l of t he owed t axes.

Id. 40. Mr . Col eman s son al so of f er ed f or hi s f at her t o make


8/48

8

mont hl y payment s of $850 begi nni ng J une 1, 2009 t o sat i sf y t he

addi t i onal obl i gat i ons t o Embassy. Id. When no one appeared f or

Mr . Col eman at t he May 27, 2009 st at us hear i ng, t he Cour t t r i ed,

unsuccessf ul l y, t o cont act hi s son. See id. 41. The Cour t t hen

adopt ed t he pr oposed payment schedul e, st ayed t he deadl i ne f or

Mr . Col eman t o redeem hi s pr opert y, and di r ected Mr . Col eman and

hi s son t o appear f or a J une 24, 2009 hear i ng. Id. That hear i ng

was r eschedul ed on mul t i pl e occasi ons. Id. 42.

On March 31, 2010, Embassy moved f or a def aul t j udgment ,

not i ng Mr . Col eman s f ai l ur e t o appear , f i l e a r esponsi ve

pl eadi ng or f i l e a not i ce of i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y. Id.

43. The Super i or Cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on f or a def aul t j udgment

on J une 11, 2010 and i ssued a j udgment ext i ngui shi ng any t i t l e,

r i ght s, cl ai ms and i nt er est s t hat Mr . Col eman had i n t he

pr oper t y. Id. 4445. The Di st r i ct of Col umbi a execut ed a

deed t o Embassy on August 31, 2010. See id. 46. The home at

t hat t i me had a f ai r mar ket val ue of appr oxi mat el y $200, 000.

Id.

On December 16, 2010, Embassy f i l ed wi t h t he Super i or Cour t a

pet i t i on f or wr i t of possessi on because Mr . Col eman cont i nued t o

r esi de i n hi s home. Id. 47. On J une 9, 2011, Embassy f i l ed a

compl ai nt wi t h t he Super i or Cour t s Landl or d- Tenant Br anch and

obt ai ned a def aul t j udgment on J une 22, 2011. Id. 4849. Mr .

Col eman was evi ct ed on August 5, 2011. Id. 50. Embassy sol d


9/48

9

hi s home f or $71, 000 i n Oct ober of 2011. Id. 51. He cont i nues

t o r esi de i n D. C, but now l i ves i n a gr oup home, a mi l e f r om

hi s f or mer house. Id. 15, 52.

C.

Procedural History

On Sept ember 24, 2013, Mr . Col eman brought t hi s l awsui t

agai nst t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. See Compl . , ECF No. 1. He

al l eges t hat t he Di st r i ct s t axsal e st at ut e vi ol at es t he

Taki ngs Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed Stat es

Const i t ut i on by t aki ng a homeowner s surpl us equi t y and

t r ansf er r i ng i t t o a pr i vat e par t y wi t hout j ust compensat i on or

publ i c pur pose. Id. 2, 7. Mr . Col eman br i ngs a t hr ee- count

Compl ai nt agai nst t he Di st r i ct . Count One seeks damages under 42

U. S. C. 1983. See id. 7078. Count Two seeks j ust

compensat i on under t he Fi f t h Amendment . See id. 7986. Count

Thr ee seeks a decl ar at or y j udgment t hat t he provi si ons of D. C.

l aw causi ng t he sal e of a home and al l of i t s equi t y t o a t hi r d

par t y ar e nul l and voi d as a vi ol at i on of t he Fi f t h Amendment .

Id. 8790.

On Oct ober 18, 2013, t he Di st r i ct moved t o di smi ss. See Def . s

Mot . t o Di smi ss ( Mot . ) , ECF No. 5. Mr . Col eman f i l ed hi s

opposi t i on on November 22, 2013. See Pl . s Opp. t o Mot . t o

Di smi ss ( Opp. ) , ECF No. 8. The Di st r i ct f i l ed i t s r epl y i n

f ur t her suppor t of i t s mot i on on December 6, 2013. See Def . s

Repl y i n Supp. of Mot . t o Di smi ss ( Repl y) , ECF No. 10. The


10/48

10

Cour t hel d a hear i ng on t he mot i on t o di smi ss on Sept ember 26,

2014. The mot i on i s now r i pe f or t he Cour t s deci si on.

II. Standard of Review

A.

Rule 12(b)(1)

A f eder al di st r i ct cour t may onl y hear a cl ai m over whi ch i t

has subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on; t her ef or e, a Rul e 12( b) ( 1)

mot i on f or di smi ssal i s a t hr eshol d chal l enge t o a cour t s

j ur i sdi ct i on. On a mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on, t he pl ai nt i f f bear s t he bur den of est abl i shi ng

t hat t he Cour t has j ur i sdi ct i on. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U. S. 555, 561 ( 1992) . I n eval uat i ng t he mot i on, t he Cour t

must accept al l of t he f act ual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt as

t r ue and gi ve t he pl ai nt i f f t he benef i t of al l i nf er ences t hat

can be dr awn f r om t he f act s al l eged. See Thomas v. Principi, 394

F. 3d 970, 972 ( D. C. Ci r . 2005) . However , t he Cour t i s not

r equi r ed . . . t o accept i nf er ences unsuppor t ed by the f act s

al l eged or l egal concl usi ons t hat ar e cast as f act ual

al l egat i ons. Cartwright Intl Van Lines, Inc. v. Doan, 525 F.

Supp. 2d 187, 193 ( D. D. C. 2007) ( quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A mot i on t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e

12( b) ( 6) t est s t he l egal suf f i ci ency of a compl ai nt . Browning

v. Clinton, 292 F. 3d 235, 242 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) . A compl ai nt must

cont ai n a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m showi ng t hat


11/48

11

t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef , i n or der t o gi ve t he

def endant f ai r not i ce of what t he cl ai m i s and t he gr ounds upon

whi ch i t r est s. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 555

( 2007) ( quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) . Whi l e det ai l ed

f act ual al l egat i ons ar e not necessar y, a pl ai nt i f f must pl ead

enough f act s t o r ai se a r i ght t o r el i ef above t he specul at i ve

l evel . Id.

When r ul i ng on a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on, t he cour t may consi der

t he f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt , document s at t ached as

exhi bi t s or i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence i n t he compl ai nt , and

mat t er s about whi ch t he Cour t may t ake j udi ci al not i ce.

GustaveSchmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 ( D. D. C. 2002) .

The Cour t must const r ue t he compl ai nt l i ber al l y i n pl ai nt i f f s

f avor and gr ant pl ai nt i f f t he benef i t of al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences der i vi ng f r om t he compl ai nt . Kowal v. MCI Commcns

Corp., 16 F. 3d 1271, 1276 ( D. C. Ci r . 1994) . The Cour t must not

accept i nf er ences t hat ar e unsuppor t ed by the f act s set out i n

t he compl ai nt . Id. Nor must t he cour t accept l egal concl usi ons

cast i n t he f or m of f actual al l egat i ons. Id. [ O] nl y a

compl ai nt t hat st at es a pl ausi bl e cl ai m f or r el i ef sur vi ves a

mot i on t o di smi ss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 679 ( 2009)

III.Analysis

A. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over Mr. Colemans Claims.


12/48

12

The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat t he Cour t l acks j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear

Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms f or f our di st i nct r easons: ( 1) Count s One

and Thr ee of t he Compl ai nt are barr ed by the f ederal and D. C.

Tax I nj unct i on Act s, 28 U. S. C. 1341 and D. C. Code 47- 3307,

as wel l as t he r el at ed pr i nci pl e of comi t y; ( 2) Count Two of t he

Compl ai nt i s not r i pe f or r esol ut i on; ( 3) t he case i s pr ecl uded

by t he Rooker-Feldman doct r i ne; and ( 4) t he case i s bar r ed by

t he doct r i ne of res judicata.

1.

The Tax Injunction Act

The Di st r i ct s f i r st j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gument i s t hat Count s

One and Thr ee of Mr . Col eman s Compl ai ntwhi ch seek damages f or

t he l oss of sur pl us equi t y and a decl ar at or y j udgment t hat t he

r el evant pr ovi si ons of t he D. C. Code ar e unconst i t ut i onal

chal l enge t he l egal i t y of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a s syst em f or

col l ect i ng pr oper t y t axes i n vi ol at i on of t he Tax I nj unct i on

Act , 28 U. S. C. 1341, and t he r el at ed pr i nci pl e of comi t y, as

wel l as t he D. C. Tax I nj unct i on Act , D. C. Code 47- 3307. Mr .

Col eman cl ai ms t hat Count s One and Thr ee do not chal l enge t he

Di st r i ct s col l ecti on of pr oper t y t axes at al l , but i nst ead ar e

addr essed at t he separate taki ng of a homeowner s sur pl us

equi t y. See Opp. at 2629.

The Tax I nj unct i on Act decl ar es t hat [ t ] he di st r i ct cour t s

shal l not enj oi n, suspend or r est r ai n t he assessment , l evy or

col l ect i on of any t ax under St at e l aw wher e a pl ai n, speedy and


13/48


14/48

14

r ef l ect s t wo cl osel y rel at ed, st at e- r evenue- pr ot ect i ve

obj ecti ves:

( 1) t o el i mi nat e di spar i t i es bet ween t axpayer s who

coul d seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n f eder al cour t usual l yout - of - st at e cor por at i ons asser t i ng di ver si t yj ur i sdi ct i onand t axpayers wi t h r ecourse onl y t o st at ecour t s, whi ch gener al l y requi r ed t axpayer s t o payf i r s t and l i t i gat e l at er ; and

( 2) t o st op t axpayer s, wi t h t he ai d of a f eder ali nj unct i on, f r om wi t hhol di ng l ar ge sums, t her ebydi sr upt i ng st at e gover nment f i nances.

Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U. S. 88, 104 ( 2004) .

I n Hibbs, t he Supr eme Cour t ar t i cul at ed t he nar r ow scope of

cl ai ms t hat ar e subj ect t o t he Act , hol di ng t hat i t does not bar

cl ai ms t hat r el at e gener al l y t o st at e t ax admi ni st r at i on;

r at her , t he r el i ef sought must di sr upt t he col l ect i on of

r evenue by oper at [ i ng] t o r educe t he f l ow of st at e t ax

r evenue. Id. at 105, 106. Upon r evi ewi ng t he Act s hi st or y, t he

Supr eme Cour t concl uded t hat Congr ess t r ai ned i t s at t ent i on on

t axpayer s who sought t o avoi d payi ng t hei r t ax bi l l by pur sui ng

a chal l enge rout e ot her t han the one speci f i ed by t he t axi ng

aut hor i t y. Nowher e does t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y announce a

sweepi ng congr essi onal di r ect i on t o pr event f eder al - cour t

i nt er f er ence wi t h al l aspect s of st at e t ax admi ni st r at i on. Id.

at 10405 ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n sum, t hi s Cour t has

i nt er pr et ed and appl i ed t he [ Tax I nj unct i on Act ] onl y i n cases

Congr ess wr ot e the Act t o addr ess, i.e., cases i n whi ch st at e


15/48

15

t axpayer s seek f eder al - cour t or der s enabl i ng t hem t o avoi d

payi ng st at e t axes. Id. at 107.

Cour t s have consi st ent l y appl i ed t he l anguage of Hibbs that

t he Tax I nj unct i on Act bar s onl y cl ai ms i n whi ch st at e

t axpayer s seek f eder al - cour t or der s enabl i ng t hem t o avoid

paying state taxes, BellSouth Telecomms. v. Farris, 542 F. 3d

499, 501 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Hibbs, 542 U. S. at 107)

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) , or , phr ased sl i ght l y di f f er ent l y, t hat

t he Act appl i es onl y t o a l awsui t when t he r el i ef gr ant ed by a

f eder al cour t wi l l oper at e t o r educe t he f l ow of state tax

revenue. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Tax Commn v. Intl Reg. Plan,

Inc., 455 F. 3d 1107, 1112 ( 10t h Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng Hibbs, 542

U. S. at 106) ( emphasi s added) ; see also Luessenhop v. Clinton

Cnty., 466 F. 3d 259, 266 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ; May Trucking Co. v. Or.

Dept of Transp., 388 F. 3d 1261, 1267 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) .

Mr . Col eman does not seek a cour t or der nul l i f yi ng hi s

pr oper t y t ax obl i gat i on. I ndeed, t he Di st r i ct conceded at or al

ar gument t hat a rul i ng i n Mr . Col eman s f avor woul d not al l ow

hi m t o avoi d payi ng any t ax. Mr . Col eman f ur t her not es t hat t he

D. C. Code pr ovi si on at i ssue def i nes t ax nar r owl y, t o

encompass unpai d r eal pr oper t y t ax . . . i ncl udi ng penal t i es,

i nt er est , and cost s. D. C. Code 47- 1330( 2) . Mr . Col eman

concedes t hat t hose amount s were due; he seeks onl y t he sur pl us

equi t y t hat r emai ns af t er t hose amount s are pai d. Accor di ngl y,


16/48

16

i f Mr . Col eman won t hi s l awsui t , no t ax woul d be r emoved f r om

t he Di st r i ct s cof f er s. For t hat r eason, t he Tax I nj unct i on Act

does not bar hi s cl ai ms.

The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms must nonet hel ess

be di smi ssed because thei r success woul d f r ust r at e t he

col l ect i on of t axes by hol di ng t he pr ocess by whi ch t he

Di st r i ct col l ects pr oper t y taxes unconst i t ut i onal . See Mot . at

1011. Under t he Di st r i ct s vi ew, t he l aw s t r eat ment of a

homeowner s sur pl us equi t y i s i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he

pr ocess by whi ch a t ax l i en i s sol d t o a t hi r d par t y and a

f or mer homeowner s r i ght t o redeem t he pr oper t y i t sel f i s

f or ecl osed upon. I n essence, f or f ei t i ng t he equi t y i s an ext r a

i ncent i ve f or t he payment of t axes.

Cour t s have r ej ected t he ar gument t hat t he Tax I nj unct i on Act

bar s chal l enges t o such i ndependent i ncent i ves. I ndeed, t he

Supreme Cour t i n Hibbs di scussed such a case, J udge Fr i endl y s

deci si on i n Wells v. Malloy, 510 F. 2d 74 ( 2d Ci r . 1975) . See

Hibbs, 542 U. S. at 109. I n Wells, t he pl ai nt i f f had f ai l ed t o

pay a st ate mot or - vehi cl e tax and, as a consequence, t he st at e

suspended hi s dr i ver s l i cense. See 510 F. 2d at 76. The

pl ai nt i f f br ought a sui t cont est i ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of

t hat act i on, but di d not di sput e t hat t he t ax was due and

owi ng. Id. J udge Fr i endl y hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f [ c] l ear l y .

. . i s not seeki ng t o r est r ai n t he assessment or l evy of a


17/48

17

t ax under st at e l aw. Id. at 77. The st at e argued t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f sought t o r est r ai n t he col l ecti on of t axes, but

J udge Fr i endl y r ej ect ed a r eadi ng of t hat wor d t o i ncl ude

anythi ng t hat a st at e has det er mi ned t o be a l i kel y met hod of

secur i ng payment . Id. I n usi ng t he wor d col l ect i on:

Congr ess was r ef er r i ng t o met hods si mi l ar t oassessment and l evy, e. g. , di st r ess or execut i on, t hatwoul d pr oduce money or ot her pr oper t y di r ect l y, r at hert han i ndi r ect l y t hr ough a mor e gener al use of coer ci vepower. Congr ess was t hi nki ng of cases where t axpayerswer e repeat edl y usi ng t he f eder al cour t s t o rai sequest i ons of st at e or f eder al l aw goi ng t o t heval i di t y of t he par t i cul ar t axes i mposed upon t hemnott o a case where a t axpayer cont ended t hat an unusualsanct i on f or non- payment of a t ax admi t t edl y duevi ol at ed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s, an i ssue whi ch,once det er mi ned, woul d be det er mi ned f or hi m and al lot her s.

Id. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The pl ai nt i f f i n Wells was t hus not

bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on Act . See id. For si mi l ar r easons,

Mr . Col eman s chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct s t aki ng of t he sur pl us

equi t y i n hi s home, above and beyond t he amount s t he Di st r i ct

has def i ned as t he t ax, i s not bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on

Act . 3

3 The Cour t need not r esol ve t he di sput e over whether a chal l enget o t he adequacy of a f or ecl osur e not i ce i n t he cont ext of a t axsal e i s bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on Act . Compare Luessenhop,466 F. 3d at 26061 ( Second Ci r cui t hol di ng t hat t he col l ect i onof t axes was not at i ssue wher e [ n] one of t he pl ai nt i f f sdi sput e[ d] t he aut hor i t y of t he gover nment al body to col l ect t het axes due . . . . Nei t her d[ i d] t hey cont est t he assessment s oft hei r pr oper t y, or t he amount of t axes cl ai med due) , and Burnsv. Conley, 526 F. Supp. 2d 235, 241 ( D. R. I . 2007) ( pl ai nt i f f schal l enge t o t he adequacy of not i ce of a pendi ng t ax sal e was


18/48

18

The Di st r i ct f i nds super f i ci al support f or i t s posi t i on i n a

handf ul of deci si ons t hat concl uded t hat chal l enges t o t he

l egal i t y of a t ax sal e i t sel f , whi ch sought t o r ecover t he t axes

t hat wer e pai d, ar e bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on Act . These

deci si ons ar e easi l y di st i ngui shed. Most pr omi nent l y, t he

Di s t r i ct c i t es Wright v. Pappas, 256 F. 3d 635 ( 7t h Ci r . 2001) ,

wher e a pur chaser of t ax l i ens br ought sui t al l egi ng t hat t he

count y f r omwhi ch he pur chased t he l i ens had mi sr epr esent ed t he

val ues of t he r el evant pr oper t i es f or r aci al l y di scri mi nat or y

r easons. See id. at 636. The pl ai nt i f f sought a r ef und [ of ] t he

pr i ce he pai d f or t he cer t i f i cat es. Id. The Sevent h Ci r cui t

hel d t hat [ a] l i en sal e i s a mode of t ax col l ect i on; and so an

act i on t o enj oi n i t , or decl are i t i l l egal , or resci nd i t , or

perhaps even j ust obt ai n damages on t he gr ound of i t s

i l l egal i t y, woul d be bar r ed. Id. at 637. The pl ai nt i f f was

bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on Act because he chal l enge[ d] t he

mode of col l ect i on, and he sought a ref und of t he pur chase

not bar r ed by t he Tax I nj unct i on Act wher e the pl ai nt i f f s donot chal l enge t he power of t he t own to l evy sewer assessment sand t o conduct t ax sal es; t hey woul d have pai d t he t axes hadt hey recei ved not i ce) , with Dist. Lock & Hardware, 808 F. Supp.2d at 4142 ( chal l enge t o adequacy of not i ce or a tax sal e wasbar r ed by t he Act because i t sought t o set asi de of undo thesal e and was t hus a chal l enge t o t he col l ect i on of t axes) . Acl ai m r egar di ng t he adequacy of not i ce of a tax sal e chal l engesan acti on t hat , ar guabl y, i s par t of t he t ax sal e i t sel f . SeeDist. Lock & Hardware, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 4142. Mr . Col emanchal l enges not hi ng i n t he t ax sal e; r at her , he ar gues t hat t hei ndependent st at ut or y t aki ng of hi s sur pl us equi t y was unl awf ul .


19/48

19

pr i ce he pai d, whi ch was t he f unct i onal equi val ent of t he t ax

payment . See id.

Wright does not af f ect Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms because Mr .

Col eman does not chal l enge t he Di st r i ct s r i ght t o col l ect t he

t ax owed; t he amount of t he t ax, i nt er est , expenses or penal t i es

owed; or t he r i ght of t he Di st r i ct s t axi ng aut hor i t i es t o

f or ecl ose on hi s pr oper t y t o r ecover t hat debt . Opp. at 27. Al l

he chal l enges i s t he taki ng of pr oper t y t hat was i ndi sput abl y

not owed f or t axes . . . t he amount i n excess of t he tax owed.

Id. Unl i ke t he pl ai nt i f f i n Wright, t hen, Mr . Col eman nei t her

seeks t o recover any t ax t hat was pai d ( he concedes i t s

val i di t y) , nor t o enj oi n, decl are . . . i l l egal , resci nd,

or obt ai n damages on t he gr ounds of . . . i l l egal i t y of t he

t ax sal e. Wright, 256 F. 3d at 637. 4

4 For si mi l ar r easons, ot her cases ci t ed by t he Di st r i ct ar edi st i nct . See Schulz v. Williamson, 145 F. App x 704, 704 ( 2dCi r . 2005) ( Tax I nj unct i on Act bar r ed act i on wher e t hepl ai nt i f f s sought t o enj oi n def endant s f r om enf or ci ng st at e t axl aws by addi ng t hei r names t o a l i st of del i nquent t axpayer s orf or ecl osi ng on t hei r r eal pr oper t y) ; Miller v. District ofColumbia, No. 06- 1935, 2007 WL 1748890, at *34 ( D. D. C. J une 18,2007) ( concl udi ng t hat t he Tax I nj unct i on Act depr i ves t he Cour tof subj ect- mat t er j ur i sdi cti on over pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t ot he sal e of hi s pr oper t i es at a t ax auct i on and over hi s r el at edr equest t hat t he t ax sal e be set asi de ) ; Dixon v. Oisten, No.02- CV- 72379, 2002 WL 31008840, at *34 (E. D. Mi ch. Aug. 20,2002) ( Tax I nj unct i on Act bar r ed an act i on when t he pl ai nt i f fsought t o ei t her r edeem hi s pr oper t y or pr oper t i es or t o setasi de t he t ax sal e) , affd, 62 F. App x 105 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) ;United States v. Boyce, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1196 ( S. D. Cal .2001) ( f i ndi ng t hat a f eder al di st r i ct cour t i s not t he pr oper


20/48

20

2. Ripeness

The Di st r i ct s second j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gument mai ntai ns t hat

Count I I of pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt , whi ch seeks an awar d of j ust

compensat i on under t he Taki ngs Cl ause, i s pr ematur e under t he

r i peness r equi r ement i nher ent i n al l Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai ms. See

Mot . at 12. For a Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m t o be r i pe f or j udi ci al

r esol ut i on, t he pl ai nt i f f must show t hat : ( 1) t he gover nment

ent i t y char ged wi t h i mpl ement i ng the regul at i ons has r eached a

f i nal deci si on; and ( 2) t he pl ai nt i f f has sought compensat i on

t hr ough the pr ocedur es t he St ate has pr ovi ded, whi ch must be

r easonabl e, cer t ai n and adequat e . . . at t he t i me of t he

t aki ng. Williamson Cnty. Regl Planning Commn v. Hamilton

Bank, 473 U. S. 172, 186, 194 ( 1985) ; see also 13B Char l es Al an

Wr i ght & Ar t hur R. Mi l l er , Federal Practice and Procedure

3532. 1. 1 ( 3d ed. 2014) ( Ther e must be a f i nal deci si on t o

t ake, and t he pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t her e i s no ot her

r emedy t o pr ovi de adequat e compensat i on. ) . The Di st r i ct does

not cont est t hat t her e has been a f i nal deci si on, and ar gues

onl y t hat Mr . Col eman has not pur sued avai l abl e st at e remedi es.

The r equi r ement t hat a pl ai nt i f f exhaust st at e compensat i on

r emedi es exi st s because [ t ] he Fi f t h Amendment does not

pr oscr i be t he t aki ng of pr oper t y; i t pr oscr i bes t aki ng wi t hout

[ f or um] f or any chal l enge . . . r egar di ng t he val i di t y of t he[ St at e Franchi se Tax Boar d s] t ax l i ens) .


21/48

21

j ust compensat i on. Williamson, 473 U. S. at 194. Accor di ngl y,

t he St at e s act i on i s not compl et e i n t he sense of causi ng a

const i t ut i onal i nj ur y unl ess or unt i l t he St at e f ai l s t o pr ovi de

an adequate post depr i vat i on r emedy f or t he pr oper t y l oss. Id.

at 195 ( quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t t heref ore

f ound a t aki ngs cl ai m unr i pe wher e st at e st at ut or y l aw per mi t t ed

a pr oper t y owner [ t o] br i ng an i nver se condemnat i on act i on t o

obt ai n j ust compensat i on f or an al l eged t aki ng of pr oper t y. Id.

at 196.

The anal ysi s l ooks t o pot ent i al r emedi es under st at e

substantive l aw. 13B Char l es Al an Wr i ght & Ar t hur R. Mi l l er ,

Federal Practice and Procedure 3532. 1 n. 43 (3d ed. 2014)

( emphasi s added) . I n t he absence of any such r emedy, a pl ai nt i f f

may i mmedi at el y br i ng hi s cl ai m i n f eder al cour t . See, e.g.,

Arnett v. Myers, 281 F. 3d 552, 564 ( 6t h Ci r . 2002) ( t aki ngs

cl ai m was r i pe wher e [ t ] hi s cour t s r evi ew of Tennessee l aw has

r eveal ed no r easonabl e, cer t ai n, and adequat e pr ovi si on f or

obt ai ni ng j ust compensat i on t hat was avai l abl e . . . at t he t i me

of t he al l eged t aki ngs i n t hi s case) ; Clajon Prod. Corp. v.

Petera, 70 F. 3d 1566, 1575 ( 10t h Ci r . 1995) ( where a st at e

i nver se- condemnat i on act i on was avai l abl e onl y agai nst

government ent i t i es wi t h t he power t o condemn l and, and t he

chal l enged government ent i t y l acks t he power of emi nent domai n

meani ng t hat i t was not subj ect t o Wyomi ng s i nver se


22/48

22

condemnat i on pr ocedur e, Pl ai nt i f f s t aki ngs cl ai m i s r i pe f or

r evi ew) ; Hoehne v. Cnty. of San Benito, 870 F. 2d 529, 533 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1989) ( i n an act i on al l egi ng a t aki ng i n connect i on wi t h

t he deni al of a subdi vi si on appl i cat i on, cl ai m was r i pe because

at t he t i me of t he deni al Cal i f or ni a l aw pr ohi bi t ed act i ons

seeki ng j ust compensat i on as a remedy f or r egul at or y t aki ngs) .

A pl ai nt i f f cannot i gnor e pot ent i al sour ces of st at e r emedi es,

however . Wher e, f or exampl e, a st at e const i t ut i on cont ai ns i t s

own t aki ngs cl ause, cour t s have r equi r ed pl ai nt i f f s t o br i ng a

cl ai m under t hat pr ovi s i on f i r st , even i f t he avai l abi l i t y of

j ust compensat i on has not been cl ear l y est abl i shed. See, e.g.,

Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 337 F. 3d 87, 93

( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( The Rhode I sl and Const i t ut i on pr ohi bi t s t he

t aki ng of pr i vat e pr oper t y f or publ i c use wi t hout j ust

compensat i on and Rhode I sl and st ate cour t s have l ong al l owed

r ecover y t hr ough sui t s f or i nver se condemnat i on. ) ; Southview

Assocs., Ltd. v. Bongartz, 980 F. 2d 84, 100 ( 2d Ci r . 1992)

( hol di ng t hat t he Ver mont Const i t ut i on r ecogni zes a cause of

act i on f or a t aki ng gener al l y, even i f i t has yet t o deci de

whether r ecover y can be had f or a regul atory t aki ng, meani ng

t hat t he pl ai nt i f f must f i r st pur sue such a cl ai m) ; Austin v.

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 840 F. 2d 678, 681 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988)

( same under t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on) . Si mi l ar l y, wher e a st at e s

supr eme cour t has i ndi cat ed t hat i nver se- condemnat i on i s


23/48

23

avai l abl e as a separ at e subst ant i ve cl ai m, pl ai nt i f f s must f i r st

br i ng such a cl ai m even i f i t s cont our s ar e uncl ear . See, e.g.,

Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F. 2d 506, 513 ( 1st

Ci r . 1987) ( cour t deci si ons had i ndi cat ed t hat t he cour t wi l l

ent ert ai n an i nver se condemnat i on act i on f or damages when i t

bel i eves t hat pr oper t y i s t aken by unconst i t ut i onal l y

excessi ve government al r egul at i ons, al t hough damages had never

been awarded under t he act i on) ; Littlefield v. City of Afton,

785 F. 2d 596, 609 ( 8t h Ci r . 1986) ( cour t had i ndi cat ed t hat an

i nver se- condemnat i on act i on exi st ed, al t hough i t was l i mi t ed t o

cases wher e an i nj unct i on woul d not r est or e pl ai nt i f f s t o t hei r

or i gi nal s tat us) .

The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat [ l ] andowners can br i ng an i nverse

condemnat i on act i on i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a and t hat Mr .

Col eman s f ai l ur e t o do so r ender s Count I I of hi s Compl ai nt

unr i pe. See Mot . at 12. Mr . Col eman cor r ect l y not es t hat t he

sol e ci t at i on pr ovi ded by t he Di st r i ct i n suppor t of i t s

ar gument t hat such a subst ant i ve cl ai m exi st s i s a ref er ence t o

t he t er m i nver se condemnat i on i n a D. C. Cour t of Appeal s

opi ni on whi ch addr essed onl y a f eder al Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m

br ought pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983. See Potomac Dev. Corp. v.

District of Columbia, 28 A. 3d 531, 55051 & n. 9 ( D. C. 2011) . I n

t hat deci si on, t he D. C. Cour t of Appeal s emphasi zed t hat

Di st r i ct l aw i s not t he basi s of t he cause of act i on pl ed i n


24/48

24

t he compl ai nt , whi ch i nvokes onl y 1983. Id. at 550. The Cour t

not ed t hat ear l i er i nver se condemnat i on cases appl i ed Fi f t h

Amendment pr i nci pl es i n deci di ng whether a t aki ng has occur r ed

and what compensat i on i s j ust , and t he t wo cases ci t ed by the

D. C. Cour t of Appeal s appear al so to have r el i ed on t he Fi f t h

Amendment . See Mamo v. District of Columbia, 934 A. 2d 376, 378,

38485 ( D. C. 2007) ; D.C. Redev. Land Agency v. Dowdey, 618 A. 2d

153, 164 ( D. C. 1992) . The D. C. Cour t of Appeal s, t her ef or e, has

pr ovi ded no basi s t o i nf er t he exi st ence of an i ndependent

i nver se- condemnat i on act i on under D. C. l aw.

The possi bi l i t y t hat a cour t coul d f ashi on such an act i on i s

not suf f i ci ent t o r ender Mr . Col eman s cl ai m unr i pe. See

Culebras, 813 F. 2d at 513 ( st at e supr eme cour t had i ndi cat ed

t hat i t woul d ent er t ai n such an act i on under cer t ai n

ci r cumst ances) ; Littlefield, 785 F. 2d at 609 ( same) . Nor has t he

Di st r i ct i dent i f i ed any ot her pot ent i al sour ce of a r emedy. I n

f act , i t conceded at or al ar gument t hat i t pr esent ed no ot her

l egal aut hor i t y. The Cour t f i nds no basi s t o i nf er t he exi st ence

of such a remedy, ei t her . The Di st r i ct does not have a

const i t ut i ona common sour ce f or a st ate subst ant i ve r emedy. See

Pascoag, 337 F. 3d at 93; Southview, 980 F. 2d at 100; Austin, 840

F. 2d at 681. Fur t her , t he st at ut e at i ssue i n t hi s case

expr essl y pr ovi des f or t he t aki ng of pl ai nt i f f s sur pl us equi t y

and cont ai ns no pr ocedur e f or t he r ecover y of t hat sur pl us.


25/48

25

Accor di ngl y, because t her e i s no r easonabl e, cer t ai n, and

adequate st ate remedy, Williamson, 473 U. S. at 194, Mr .

Col eman s cl ai m i s ri pe f or r esol ut i on. 5

3.

Rooker-Feldman

The Di st r i ct s t hi r d j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gument i s t hat Mr .

Col eman s case const i t ut es an unaccept abl e r equest t hat t hi s

Cour t r evi ew a j udi ci al deci si on of t he D. C. Super i or Cour t ,

and . . . adj udi cat e cl ai ms t hat ar e a di r ect r esul t of t he 2010

For ecl osur e J udgment . Mot . at 13. Mr . Col eman count ers t hat he

has no obj ect i on t o t he For ecl osur e J udgment and does not seek

t o over t ur n t hat j udgment or r ecover t i t l e t o hi s pr oper t y;

r at her , hi s obj ect i on i s t o t he Di st r i ct s i ndependent t aki ng of

hi s sur pl us equi t y. See Opp. at 3639.

Thi s ar gument i mpl i cat es t he Rooker-Feldman doct r i ne, whi ch

pr event s l ower f eder al cour t s f r om hear i ng cases t hat amount

t o t he f unct i onal equi val ent of an appeal f r om a st at e cour t .

Magritz v. Ozaukee Cnty., 894 F. Supp. 2d 34, 38 ( D. D. C. 2012)

5 Al t hough t he Di st r i ct appear ed t o ar gue i n i t s pl eadi ngs t hatMr . Col eman must l i t i gat e hi s f eder al cl ai m i n t he Super i orCour t bef or e t hat cl ai m may become r i pe f or r evi ew i n f eder alcour t , Repl y at 810, t he Di st r i ct conceded dur i ng or al ar gumentt hat t hi s i s not t he case. Thi s concessi on was appr opr i at e, asi t i s hor nbook l aw t hat pl ai nt i f f s need onl y r esor t t o exi st i ngr emedi es under st at e subst ant i ve l aw and t hat t hei r f eder alcl ai ms need not be pr esent ed t o st at e cour t s. 13B Char l es Al anWr i ght & Ar t hur R. Mi l l er , Federal Practice and Procedure 3532. 1 n. 43 ( 3d ed. 2014) ; see also, e.g., Front Royal & WarrenCnty. Indus. Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal, 135 F. 3d 275,283 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998) ; Dodd v. Hood River Cnty., 59 F. 3d 852, 86061 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) .


26/48

26

( quot i ng Gray v. Poole, 275 F. 3d 1113, 1119 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) ) .

The Rooker-Feldman doct r i ne i s based on t he j ur i sdi ct i onal

gr ant codi f i ed i n 28 U. S. C. 1257, whi ch aut hor i zes onl y t he

Supr eme Cour t t o exer ci se appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on over st at e

cour t j udgment s. Liebman v. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co., No.

13- 1392, 2014 WL 526712, at *3 (D. D. C. Feb. 11, 2014) .

The doct r i ne began i n a 1923 case i n whi ch a pl ai nt i f f sought

t o have a j udgment of a ci r cui t cour t i n I ndi ana, whi ch was

af f i r med by the Supr eme Cour t of t he st at e, decl ared nul l and

voi d, and to obt ai n ot her r el i ef dependent on t hat out come.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 414 ( 1923) . The

Supr eme Cour t f ound t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s r equest was pl ai nl y

not wi t hi n t he Di st r i ct Cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on as def i ned by

Congr ess. Id. at 415.

The Supreme Cour t r evi si t ed t he doct r i ne i n 1983 when t wo

i ndi vi dual s chal l enged t he D. C. Cour t of Appeal s deni al of

t hei r bar appl i cat i ons pur suant t o a r ul e t hat al l appl i cant s

must pr ove t hat t hey gr aduated f r oman appr oved l aw school . See

D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 46365 ( 1983) .

The Supreme Cour t hel d t hat t he Cour t of Appeal s consi der at i on

and deni al of t he pl ai nt i f f s appl i cat i ons was j udi ci al i n

nat ur e and t hus coul d not be revi ewed i n t he di st r i ct cour t .

See id. at 47982. The Cour t hel d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t al so

l acked j ur i sdi ct i on over pl ai nt i f f s chal l enges t o t he Cour t of


27/48

27

Appeal s deni al of t hei r pet i t i ons f or wai ver of t he r ul e,

whi ch r el i ed on an al l eged f or mer pol i cy of gr ant i ng wai ver s,

because t hose deci si ons wer e i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Cour t of Appeal s deci si ons, i n j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs, t o deny t he respondent s pet i t i ons. Id. at 48687.

The Supreme Cour t went on t o hol d, however , t hat [ t ] o t he

ext ent t hat [ pl ai nt i f f s] mount ed a gener al chal l enge t o t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of [ t he Cour t of Appeal s r ul e r equi r i ng t hat

appl i cant s pr ove t hey had gr aduat ed f r om an appr oved l aw school ]

t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d have subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over

t hei r compl ai nt s. Id. at 48283.

I n 2005, t he Supr eme Cour t cl ar i f i ed t hat Rooker-Feldman i s a

l i mi t ed doct r i ne t hat i s conf i ned t o cases of t he ki nd f r om

whi ch t he doct r i ne acqui r ed i t s name: cases br ought by st at e-

cour t l oser s compl ai ni ng of i nj ur i es caused by st at e- cour t

j udgment s r ender ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t proceedi ngs

commenced and i nvi t i ng di st r i ct cour t r evi ew and r ej ect i on of

t hose j udgment s. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

544 U. S. 280, 284 ( 2005) . Rooker-Feldman does not st op a

di st r i ct cour t f r om exer ci si ng subj ect- mat t er j ur i sdi cti on

si mpl y because a par t y at t empt s t o l i t i gat e i n f eder al cour t a

mat t er pr evi ousl y l i t i gat ed i n st at e cour t , even i f a f eder al

pl ai nt i f f pr esent s some i ndependent cl ai m . . . t hat deni es a

l egal concl usi on t hat a st at e cour t has r eached i n a case t o


28/48

28

whi ch he was a par t y. Id. at 293 ( quotat i on marks and

al t er at i on omi t t ed) .

The use i n Feldman of t he phr ase i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned

had cr eat ed some def i ni t i onal pr obl ems, but Exxon cl ar i f i ed t hat

i ssue as wel l . The phr ase was i nt ended t o mean onl y t hat a

di st r i ct - cour t chal l enge t o [ a st at e- cour t deci si on] woul d be

barr ed even i f t he chal l enge was based on a gr ound not r ai sed i n

t he [ st at e- cour t ] pr oceedi ng. Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682

F. 3d 1278, 1282 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) . Accor di ngl y, [ w] hen t he

st at e- cour t j udgment i s not i t sel f at i ssue, t he Rooker-Feldman

doct r i ne does not pr ohi bi t f eder al sui t s r egar di ng t he same

subj ect mat t er , or even t he same cl ai ms, as t hose pr esent ed i n

t he st at e- cour t act i on, nor does i t bar an act i on j ust because

i t seeks r el i ef i nconsi st ent wi t h, or even amel i or at i ve of , a

st at e- cour t j udgment . Campbell, 682 F. 3d at 1281 ( quot at i on

mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) . The essent i al poi nt i s t hat

bar r ed cl ai ms are t hose compl ai ni ng of i nj ur i es caused by st at e-

cour t j udgment s. I n ot her wor ds, an el ement of t he cl ai m must be

t hat t he st at e cour t wr ongf ul l y ent er ed i t s j udgment . Id. at

1283 (quotat i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I n assessi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he Rooker-Feldman doct r i ne

. . . t he f undament al and appr opr i at e quest i on t o ask i s whet her

t he i nj ur y al l eged by t he f eder al pl ai nt i f f r esul t ed f r om t he

st at e cour t j udgment or i s di st i nct f r om t hat j udgment . Long v.


29/48

29

Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F. 3d 548, 555 ( 7t h Ci r . 1999)

( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n conduct i ng t hi s i nqui r y, f eder al

cour t s cannot si mpl y compare the issues i nvol ved i n t he st at e-

cour t pr oceedi ng t o t hose r ai sed i n t he f eder al - cour t

pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt , but i nst ead must pay cl ose at t ent i on t o

t he relief sought by the f eder al - cour t pl ai nt i f f . Exec. Arts

Studio v. City of Grand Rapids, 391 F. 3d 783, 79394 ( 6t h Ci r .

2004) ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed; emphases i n or i gi nal ) .

Here, t he di sput e cent ers on how Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms ar e

char act er i zed. To t he Di st r i ct , he at t acks di r ect l y t he 2010

For ecl osure J udgment , maki ng t hi s a cl ear at t empt t o obt ai n

r evi ew of a st ate- cour t j udgment . Even t hough Mr . Col eman s

Taki ngs Cl ause ar gument was not addressed i n t he 2010

pr oceedi ngs, i f he sought t o have t hat j udgment over t ur ned i n

t hi s Cour t , he woul d be bar r ed by Rooker-Feldman. I ndeed, t he

Di st r i ct r i ght l y not es t hat di r ect at t acks on st at e- cour t

f or ecl osure j udgment s ar e bar r ed by Rooker-Feldman. See, e.g.,

Magritz, 894 F. Supp. 2d at 3839 ( pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t o t he

t ax sal e of hi s pr oper t y was bar r ed by Rooker-Feldman because he

di r ect l y quest i on[ ed] t he val i di t y of t he under l yi ng 2001

J udgment of For ecl osur e) .

The pl ai nt i f f cont ends t hat hi s cl ai m i s mor e nuanced t han t he

Di st r i ct pr esent s. Mr . Col eman does not seek r evi ew or

r ej ect i on i n t hi s case of t he Super i or Cour t j udgment ent er ed i n


30/48

30

f avor of Embassy Tax Servi ces and agai nst hi m, he does not

cont end t hat t he Super i or Cour t commi t t ed err or and does not

seek r el i ef f r om i t s j udgment , Mr . Col eman seeks damages and

decl ar at or y rel i ef due t o t he Di st r i ct s unconst i t ut i onal

st at ut e and t aki ng. Opp. at 37. Thus, Mr . Col eman chal l enges

t he Di st r i ct s st at ut or y scheme i nsof ar as i t pr ovi des f or t he

t aki ng, not of a f or ecl osed pr oper t y, but of t he ent i r et y of t he

equi t y i n t hat pr oper t y, wi t hout r ecour se f or a t axpayer t o

r ecover t he amount of t hat equi t y l ess any t axes, penal t i es,

cost s, and i nt er est owed.

The Di st r i ct r el i es heavi l y on a 1993 deci si on of t he Seventh

Ci r cui t , whi ch hel d t hat Rooker-Feldman bar r ed f eder al - cour t

j ur i sdi ct i on over a t aki ngs cl ai m t hat a l ocal gover nment had

unconst i t ut i onal l y r et ai ned t he ent i r e pr oceeds of a t ax sal e.

See Ritter v. Ross, 992 F. 2d 750, 75152, 75455 ( 7t h Ci r .

1993) . I n t hat case, t he pl ai nt i f f s admi t [ t ed] t hat but f or t he

t ax l i en f or ecl osur e j udgment . . . t hey woul d have no

compl ai nt : t hey woul d st i l l have t hei r l and and woul d have

suf f er ed no i nj ur y. Id. at 754. The st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs,

as t he Pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves st at e, ar e t he subj ect of t hi s

case. Id. The Sevent h Ci r cui t t hus concl uded t hat t hei r

cl ai ms . . . ar e inextricably intertwined wi t h t he mer i t s of

t hat pr oceedi ng. Id. at 755 (emphasi s added) . As Mr . Col eman

not ed at or al ar gument , Ritter r el i ed on t he i next r i cabl y


31/48

31

i nt er t wi ned l anguage, whi ch was nar r owed si gni f i cant l y i n 2005

by t he Supreme Cour t s Exxon deci si on.

Mor e i nst r uct i ve i s t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t s r ecent deci si on i n

Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F. 3d 890 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) , whi ch

per mi t t ed pl ai nt i f f s who had been convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng an

or di nance out l awi ng campi ng i n publ i c pl aces t o br i ng a

f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai m f or r et r ospect i ve damages r egar di ng

t he al l eged unconst i t ut i onal i t y of t hat or di nance. See 709 F. 3d

at 89697. Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s sought r emedi es f or t he

al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal enf or cement of t he or di nance agai nst

t hem i n t he f or m of expungement of t hei r st at e- cour t convi ct i ons

and damages r el at ed t o cr i mi nal f i nes and cost s of

i ncar cer at i on ar i si ng out of t hose convi ct i ons, t he Ni nt h

Ci r cui t emphasi zed t hat even i f a pl ai nt i f f seeks r el i ef f r om a

st at e cour t j udgment , such a sui t i s a f or bi dden de f act o appeal

onl y i f t he pl ai nt i f f also al l eges a l egal er r or by t he st at e

cour t . Id. at 894, 897. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s sought r el i ef

desi gned t o r emedy i nj ur i es suf f er ed f r om a st at e cour t

j udgment , t hey di d not al l ege bef or e t he cour t t hat t he st at e

cour t commi t t ed l egal er r or , nor di d t hey seek rel i ef f r om t he

st at e cour t j udgment i t sel f ; i nst ead, t hey asser t as a l egal

wr ong an al l egedl y i l l egal act by an adver se par t yt he Ci t y s

al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal enf or cement of t he Or di nances. 709

F. 3d at 898 ( quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) .


32/48

32

Mr . Col eman s cl ai m f or compensat i on f or t he t aki ng of hi s

sur pl us equi t y i n t he pr oper t y sur vi ves Rooker-Feldman because

he does not chal l enge t he For ecl osur e J udgment , but t he

Di st r i ct s al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal enf or cement of t he st at ut e

pr ovi di ng f or a t aki ng of hi s sur pl us equi t y. I n t he l anguage of

Bell, Mr . Col eman s cl ai m i s not a di r ect chal l enge t o a st at e

cour t s f actual or l egal concl usi on. Id. at 897. I ndeed, Mr .

Col eman al l eges no l egal er r or by t he Super i or Cour t . As

di scussed pr evi ousl y, he accept s t he For ecl osur e J udgment , t he

l oss of hi s r eal pr oper t y, and t he sat i sf act i on of hi s t ax

debt s. See supra Part I I I . A. 1. J ust as t he Bell pl ai nt i f f s

sought damages t hat gr ew out of t hei r st at e- cour t pr osecut i on,

Mr . Col eman seeks damages t hat , whi l e rel ated i n some sense t o

t he For ecl osur e J udgment , ar e di st i nct f r om i t . 6

4.

Res Judicata

6 The Cour t i s not per suaded by the Di st r i ct s r el i ance on t heTent h Ci r cui t s deci si on i n Campbell. I n t hat case, a pl ai nt i f fwas bar r ed by Rooker-Feldman f r om br i ngi ng a Taki ngs Cl ausecl ai m t o r ecover j ust compensat i on f or t he val ue of hor ses t hathad been t he subj ect of a st at e- cour t f or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ng. See682 F. 3d at 1279. The Tent h Ci r cui t hel d t hat Rooker-Feldmanbar r ed t hat cl ai m because t he depr i vat i on of pr oper t y t hat wasal l egedl y wi t hout j ust compensat i on . . . was t he depr i vat i onor der ed by t he st at e cour t . Id. at 1284. The f or f ei t ur e was anact[ ] of t he st at e cour t . Id. at 1285. Her e, by cont r ast , Mr .Col eman does not chal l enge the depr i vat i on ordered by t heSuper i or Cour t , he chal l enges t he Di st r i ct s i ndependentst at ut or y taki ng of hi s sur pl us equi t y wi t hout avenue f orr ecover y.


33/48

33

The Di st r i ct s f i nal j ur i sdi ct i onal ar gument i s t hat Mr .

Col eman s cl ai ms ar e bar r ed by t he doct r i ne of res judicata

because t hey coul d have been r ai sed i n an ear l i er act i on but

were not . Mot . at 16. To determi ne whether res judicata

appl i es, t he Cour t must l ook to t he Ful l Fai t h and Cr edi t Act ,

whi ch pr ovi des t hat j udgment s of t he cour t s of any st at e,

t er r i t or y, or possessi on shal l have t he same f ul l f ai t h and

cr edi t i n ever y cour t wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es and i t s

Ter r i t or i es and Possess i ons as t hey have by l aw or usage i n t he

cour t s of such St at e, Ter r i t or y or Possessi on f r om whi ch t hey

ar e taken. 28 U. S. C. 1738. Thi s means t hat a st at e- cour t

j udgment r ecei ves t he same r espect t hat i t woul d r ecei ve i n

t he cour t s of t he r ender i ng St at e. Herrion v. Childrens Hosp.

Natl Med. Ctr., 448 F. App x 71, 72 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U. S. 367, 373

( 1996) ) . The par t i es agr ee t hat , under D. C. l aw, t he Cour t must

det ermi ne whet her res judicata appl i es by l ooki ng t o: ( 1)

whet her t he cl ai m was adj udi cat ed f i nal l y i n t he f i r st act i on;

( 2) whet her t he pr esent cl ai m i s t he same as t he cl ai m whi ch was

r ai sed or whi ch mi ght have been r ai sed i n t he pr i or pr oceedi ng;

and ( 3) whet her t he par t y agai nst whom t he pl ea i s asser t ed was

a par t y or i n pr i vi t y wi t h a par t y i n t he pr i or case. Calomiris

v. Calomiris, 3 A. 3d 1186, 1190 ( D. C. 2010) ( quotat i on marks


34/48

34

omi t t ed) . I t i s undi sput ed t hat Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms wer e not

actual l y l i t i gat ed i n a pr i or pr oceedi ng.

The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms ar e nonet hel ess

bar r ed by res judicata because t he Super i or Cour t r endered a

f i nal j udgment on t he mer i t s r el at i ng t o t he t ax sal e

pur chaser s Mot i on f or Ent r y of Def aul t J udgment and Mr .

Col eman coul d have r ai sed hi s Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai ms i n t hat

act i on. See Mot . at 1719. Mr . Col eman r esponds t hat he coul d

not have asser t ed hi s cl ai ms agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he

Super i or Cour t case, t he pur chaser of t he t ax l i en, and t he

Di st r i ct was a co- def endant , agai nst whom he had no obl i gat i on

t o r ai se a cross- cl ai m. See Opp. at 3132.

I n Super i or Cour t , cross- cl ai ms are per mi ssi ve:

A pl eadi ng may st at e as a cr oss- cl ai m any cl ai m by 1par t y agai nst a co- par t y ar i si ng out of t he

t r ansact i on or occur r ence t hat i s t he subj ect mat t erei t her of t he or i gi nal act i on or of a count er cl ai mt her ei n or r el at i ng t o any pr oper t y that i s t hesubj ect mat t er of t he or i gi nal act i on. Such cr oss-cl ai m may i ncl ude a cl ai m t hat t he par t y agai nst whomi t i s asser t ed i s or may be l i abl e t o t he cross-cl ai mant f or al l or par t of a cl ai m asser t ed i n t heact i on agai nst t he cross- cl ai mant .

Super . Ct . R. Ci v. P. 13( g) . The ef f ect of t he near l y i dent i cal

f eder al r ul e i s t hat a par t y i n a ci vi l act i on i s not pr ecl uded

f r om l i t i gat i ng a cl ai m si mpl y because i t had an oppor t uni t y t o

r ai se t he cl ai m as a cross- cl ai m i n a pr i or sui t t o whi ch i t was

a par t y. Corestates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., Inc., 176 F. 3d 187,


35/48


36/48

36

pr esent s a vi abl e l i en cl ai m. Id. ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . The

Ei ght h Ci r cui t went on t o not e t hat [ a] ny par t y who f i l es an

answer i n a mechani c s l i en act i on, t hough nomi nal l y a

def endant , may act ual l y f unct i on as a pl ai nt i f f wi t h r egar d t o

other named def endant s. Id. The Di st r i ct al so ci t ed Eyde v.

Charter Township of Meridian, 324 N. W. 2d 775, 779 ( Mi ch. Ct .

App. 1982) , i n whi ch a pl ai nt i f f who had been a l osi ng co-

def endant wi t h a t own i n an act i on by t own resi dent s seeki ng to

f or ce a r ef er endum on t he t own s r e- zoni ng of t he pl ai nt i f f s

pr oper t y was bar r ed by res judicata i n a subsequent sui t agai nst

t he t own seeki ng t o obt ai n t he r e- zoni ng and enj oi n t he

r ef erendum because the subsequent sui t r ai sed argument s t o

def eat t he act i on f or a ref er endum t hat coul d have been r ai sed

i n t he pr i or case and [ f ] or pur poses of [ t hat ] def ense, t he

Townshi p and i t s r esi dent s wer e t he same par t y. 7

Mr . Col eman and t he Di st r i ct were not adver se i n t he sense

descr i bed i n Kolb or Eyde. Though t he Di st r i ct s sal e of a t ax

l i en on Mr . Col eman s pr oper t y r ender ed i t adver se t o Mr .

Col eman i n a col l oqui al sense, t he Di st r i ct s pr esence as a

7 The ot her cases ci t ed by t he Di st r i ct r eci t ed t he gener al r ul et hat co- par t i es may be consi der ed adver se i n cer t ai n si t uat i ons,but ei t her hel d t hat i t di d not appl y, Exec. Arts, 391 F. 3d at795 ( res judicata di d not appl y because t he Ci t y and Execut i veAr t s di d not have any cont r over sy between themsel ves when t hef i r st deci si on was r ender ed) , or descri bed f actual l y di st i nctscenar i os. See, e.g., Lesher v. Lavrich, 784 F. 2d 193, 19495( 6t h Ci r . 1986) ( cl ai m i t sel f had been actual l y l i t i gat ed i n apr i or pr oceedi ng) .


37/48

37

def endant i n t he Super i or Cour t case was l ar gel y pr o f or ma. The

pr oceedi ng sought t o determi ne whether Embassy coul d f orecl ose

Mr . Col eman s r i ght of r edempt i on, and t he Di st r i ct had no

pr oper t y r i ght t o enf or ce agai nst Mr . Col eman. Thi s was f ar f r om

t he Kolb par t i es, who al l had compet i ng pr oper t y i nt er est s and,

pur suant t o st at e l aw, coul d f unct i on as a pl ai nt i f f wi t h

r egard t o the other named def endant s. 6 F. 3d at 545. Nor were

t he Di st r i ct and Embassy t he same par t y f or t he pur poses of

any def ense t hat Mr . Col eman may have rai sed i n t he Super i or

Cour t act i on. See Eyde, 324 N. W. 2d at 795. J ust because Mr .

Col eman and t he Di st r i ct di d not have i dent i cal i nt er est s does

not make t hem suf f i ci ent l y adver se t o t r i gger a compul sory

count er cl ai m. Accor di ngl y, Mr . Col eman was not r equi r ed t o rai se

hi s Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai ms agai nst t he Di st r i ct and i s not bar r ed

by res judicata f r om doi ng so now.

B. Mr. Coleman Has Stated a Claim for a Violation of the

Takings Clause.

I n addi t i on t o i t s j ur i sdi cti onal ar gument s, t he Di st r i ct

ar gues t hat Mr . Col eman f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m f or a vi ol at i on

of t he Taki ngs Cl ause. Pl ai nt i f f s t heor y i s t hat t he Di st r i ct

has ef f ect ed an unconst i t ut i onal t aki ng by pr ecl udi ng hi m

ent i r el y f r om obt ai ni ng t he sur pl us equi t y i n hi s home t hat

r emai ns af t er subt r act i ng t he taxes, penal t i es, cost s, and

i nt er est he owed. Mr . Col eman s argument i mpl i cat es a ser i es of


38/48

38

Supr eme Cour t deci si ons appl yi ng t he Taki ngs Cl ause t o t ax

sal es .

The st or y begi ns i n 1881. That year , t he Supreme Cour t had

occasi on t o i nt er pr et a f eder al st at ut e t hat per mi t t ed t he

f eder al gover nment t o engage i n t ax sal es t o recover del i nquent

t ax debt s. See United States v. Taylor, 104 U. S. 216, 218

( 1881) . The Cour t i nt er pr et ed t he st at ut e t o mean t hat t he

f or mer owner woul d be ent i t l ed to t he sur pl us money af t er t he

t ax sal e. See id. Thi s st at utor y i nter pret at i on became r el evant

t hr ee year s l at er i n United States v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146

( 1884) . I n t hat case, an hei r t o an i ndi vi dual whose pr oper t y

was sol d under t he same st atut e sought sur pl us pr oceeds of t he

sal e and was deni ed. Id. at 149. I n l i ght of t he f act t hat t he

st at ut e r equi r ed t hat t he sur pl us be pr ovi ded t o that

i ndi vi dual , t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hat [ t ] o wi t hhol d t he

surpl us f r om t he owner woul d be t o vi ol at e t he f i f t h amendment

t o t he const i t ut i on, and depr i ve hi m of hi s pr oper t y wi t hout due

pr ocess of l aw or t ake hi s pr oper t y f or publ i c use wi t hout j ust

compensat i on. Id. at 150.

I n 1956, t he Supr eme Cour t r evi si t ed t he i ssue i n Nelson v.

City of New York, 352 U. S. 103 ( 1956) . I n t hat case, t he Ci t y of

New Yor k had ut i l i zed a tax- sal e pr ocedur e. See id. at 10506.

The Ci t y r et ai ned one of t he proper t i es at i ssue and r et ai ned

t he pr oceeds of t he sal e of t he ot her pr oper t y, whi ch f ar


39/48


40/48

40

surpl ust o argue t hat Nelson does not f or ecl ose hi s cl ai m. The

Di st r i ct f ocuses on t he seconduphol di ng t he ret ent i on of t he

ent i r e pr oceeds of i t s sal e due t o t he absence of t i mel y

act i on t o r edeem or t o r ecover [ ] any sur pl us. Id. Mr . Col eman s

vi ew of Nelson i s cor r ect . The Supr eme Cour t cl ear l y hel d open

t he quest i on pr esent ed by Mr . Col eman when i t not ed [ b] ut we do

not have her e a st at ut e whi ch absol ut el y pr ecl udes an owner f r om

obt ai ni ng t he sur pl us pr oceeds of a j udi ci al sal e. Id. The

subsequent l anguage ci t ed by t he Di st r i ct does not f or ecl ose Mr .

Col eman s cl ai m because D. C. pr ovi des no act i on t o r ecover any

sur pl us. 8 Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms, t her ef or e, ar e not f or ecl osed by

Nelson.

The st or y r esumes i n 1969. I n Balthazar v. Mari Limited, 301

F. Supp. 103 ( N. D. I l l . 1969) , a t hr ee- j udge panel of t he U. S.

Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of I l l i noi s was

pr esent ed wi t h a case i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s al l eged a

vi ol at i on of t he Due Pr ocess and Taki ngs Cl auses when t hei r

pr oper t y was sol d i n a t ax sal e, pur suant t o a st at ut e whi ch

hel d t hat when an owner f ai l s t o r edeem [ hi s pr oper t y] . . .

t he pur chaser [ of t he t ax l i en] may obt ai n t he pr oper t y f or a

8 At or al ar gument , t he Di st r i ct ar gued t hat Nelson over r ul edLawton. As t he Di st r i ct conceded, not hi ng i n t he l anguage ofNelson i ndi cat es t hat Lawton was bei ng over r ul ed. I n f act , t heCour t i n Nelson expl ai ned t hat i t s deci si on was consi st ent wi t hLawton, not i ng t hat t he st at ut e i nvol ved i n t hat case had beenconst r ued . . . t o r equi r e t hat t he sur pl us be pai d t o t heowner . Id. at 110.


41/48

41

f r act i on of i t s mar ket val ue, t hus gai ni ng as a wi ndf al l al l

sur pl us val ue whi ch exceeds t he l and s t ax and i nt er est

l i abi l i t i es. Id. at 10405. The onl y ment i on of t he Taki ngs

Cl ause i n t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on was i n a f oot not e, whi ch

di d not ment i on Nelson and st ated: Rel yi ng upon Supr eme Cour t

condemnat i on cases, pl ai nt i f f s al so mai nt ai n t hat t hey wer e

depr i ved of j ust compensat i on f or t hei r pr oper t y. These cases

ar e i nappl i cabl e. Rat her t han t aki ng pr i vat e pr oper t y f or a

publ i c pur pose, I l l i noi s i s her e col l ect i ng t axes whi ch ar e

admi t t edl y over due. Id. at 105 n. 6.

The Supreme Cour t summar i l y af f i r med t he j udgment of t he

di st r i ct cour t wi t hout el abor at i on. See Balthazar v. Mari Ltd.,

396 U. S. 114 ( 1969) . The Cour t s Opi ni on st at ed onl y: The

mot i ons t o af f i r m ar e gr ant ed and t he j udgment i s af f i r med. Mr .

J ust i ce Dougl as i s of t he opi ni on t hat probabl e j ur i sdi ct i on

shoul d be not ed. Id. at 114. The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat t hi s

f or ecl oses Mr . Col eman s cl ai ms because, i t bel i eves, t he cl ai m

pr esent ed i n Balthazar was i dent i cal t o Mr . Col eman s. Thi s

ar gument i s t enuous f r om t he out set because [ a] n unexpl i cat ed

summar y af f i r mance set t l es t he i ssue f or t he par t i es, and i s not

t o be r ead as a r enunci at i on by t hi s Cour t of doct r i nes

pr evi ousl y announced i n our opi ni ons af t er f ul l ar gument .

Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U. S. 173, 176 ( 1977) ( quotat i on marks

omi t t ed) . A summar y af f i r mance oper at es t o r ej ect t he speci f i c


42/48

42

chal l enges pr esent ed i n t he stat ement of j ur i sdi ct i on,

pr event [ s] l ower cour t s f r om comi ng t o opposi t e concl usi ons on

t he pr eci se i ssues pr esent ed and necessar i l y deci ded by those

act i ons, and shoul d not be underst ood as br eaki ng new gr ound

but as appl yi ng pr i nci pl es est abl i shed by pr i or deci si ons t o t he

par t i cul ar f acts i nvol ved. Id. Accordi ngl y, [ a] summary

di sposi t i on af f i r ms onl y t he j udgment of t he cour t bel ow, and no

mor e may be r ead . . . t han was essent i al t o sust ai n t hat

j udgment . Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 785, n. 5

( 1983) .

The j ur i sdi ct i onal st at ement f i l ed wi t h t he Supreme Cour t by

t he pl ai nt i f f s i n Balthazar cl ai med t hat [ t ] he cour t bel ow[ ]

r el i ed sol el y on a mi sappr ehensi on of t hi s Cour t s opi ni on i n

Nelson v. New York. I n t hat case[ , ] t hi s Cour t uphel d a

st at ut or y t ax deed syst em because i t met t he requi r ement s of due

pr ocess as i t pr ovi ded a means f or excess val ue over t he

del i nquency t o go to the benef i t of t he pr oper t y owner .

J ur i sdi ct i onal Stat ement , Balthazar v. Mari Ltd., No. 593, 1969

WL 136737, at *2 (U. S. Sept . 15, 1969) . The pl ai nt i f f s asser t ed

t hat t hey pr esent ed t he quest i on [ w] het her t he I l l i noi s t ax

deed st at ut e i s i nval i d as al l owi ng conf i scat i on of pr oper t y

wi t hout an oppor t uni t y f or j ust compensat i on, especi al l y i n

l i ght of t he f act t hat [ t ] her e i s no way under t he I l l i noi s


43/48

43

st at ut e f or an owner who i s unabl e to redeem t o obt ai n hi s

equi t y above hi s t ax debt . Id. at *2, 4.

The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat t hi s i s evi dence t hat t he Supreme

Cour t vi ewed t he Balthazar st at ut e as no di f f er ent f r om t he

Nelson st at ut e, but t hat i s ent i r el y at odds wi t h Nelson i t sel f ,

whi ch expr essl y r eserved t he quest i on whet her a t ax sal e l aw

wi t h no avenue f or r ecover y of t he surpl us woul d be

const i t ut i onal . As Mr . Col eman not es, i t woul d be odd t o assume

t hat t he Cour t si l ent l y det er mi ned t he quest i on t hat i t

speci f i cal l y r eser ved i n Nelson. Opp. at 24. Mor eover ,

Balthazar di f f er s f r om Mr . Col eman s case i n a number of ways

t hat make i t s summar y af f i r mance unhel pf ul . Fi r st , t he r emedi es

sought i n each case di f f er si gni f i cant l y. Mr . Col eman seeks j ust

compensat i on and a cor r espondi ng decl aratory j udgment . The

pl ai nt i f f s i n Balthazar di d not sue a def endant t hat coul d have

pai d j ust compensat i on, Balthazar, 301 F. Supp. at 103, and t hey

appear t o have sought an i nj unct i on because t hei r case was

br ought pur suant t o a j ur i sdi ct i onal st at ut e pr ovi di ng f or a

t hr ee- j udge panel t o hear appl i cat i ons f or i nj unct i ons

r est r ai ni ng t he enf or cement , oper at i on or execut i on of any

st at e st at ut e. Opp. at 2425 n. 2 ( quot i ng28 U. S. C. 2281)

( r epeal ed 1976) .

Gi ven t he narr ow i nt erpr etat i on accor ded summary af f i r mances

whi ch J ust i ces have r ecent l y descr i bed as a rat her sl ender r eed


44/48


45/48

45

( Wi s. Ct . App. 1996) . 10 Al l t hr ee, however , r ecogni zed t hat such

a cl ai m coul d be st at ed wher e a st at e st at ut e or const i t ut i onal

pr ovi si on gr ant ed an i nt er est i n t he sur pl us equi t y. See

Reinmiller, 2006 WL 2987707, at *3; City of Auburn, 320 A. 2d at

32; Ritter, 558 N. W. 2d at 91213. 11

Thi s Cour t draws t wo cl ear pr i nci pl es f r om t he Supreme Cour t s

deci si ons i n Lawton and Nelson. Nelson makes cl ear t hat a

Taki ngs Cl ause vi ol at i on r egar di ng t he r et ent i on of equi t y wi l l

not ar i se when a t axsal e st atut e pr ovi des an avenue f or

r ecover y of t he sur pl us equi t y. 352 U. S. at 109. Lawton makes

cl ear t hat a Taki ngs Cl ause vi ol at i on wi l l ar i se when a t axsal e

st at ut e gr ant s a f or mer owner an i ndependent pr oper t y i nt er est

10 Cour t s have r ej ect ed Taki ngs Cl ause chal l enges t o tax sal est hemsel ves, but t hese deci si ons do not shed l i ght on t he meani ng

of Nelson because t he cour t s were not pr esent ed wi t h cl ai msr egar di ng sur pl us equi t y. See, e.g., Speed v. Mills, 919 F.Supp. 2d 122, 129 ( D. D. C. 2013) ; Indus. Bank of Wash. v. Sheve,307 F. Supp. 98, 99 ( D. D. C. 1969) .

11 I n addi t i on, t wo J ust i ces of t he Supr eme Cour t of NewHampshi r e i ndi cat ed t hei r bel i ef t hat t he f eder al Taki ngs Cl auseand i t s New Hampshi r e count er par t r equi r e the abi l i t y t o recoversur pl us equi t y. See First N.H. Bank v. Town of Windham, 639 A. 2d1089, 109798 ( N. H. 1994) ( Hor t on, J . , concur r i ng) ( May t het axi ng power i ncl ude an ar bi t r ar y f or f ei t ur e, a movement ofpr oper t y t o the St at e wi t hout j ust compensat i on? I t hi nk not ,and i nst ead woul d subscr i be t o an i nt er pr et at i on of t he t ax l i enenf or cement pr ovi si ons t hat woul d sat i sf y t hese const i t ut i onalobj ect i ons by l i mi t i ng r ecover y to t he obl i gat i on secur ed by thel i en. ) . Thi s posi t i on was ul t i mat el y adopt ed as ani nt er pr et at i on of t he New Hampshi r e Const i t ut i on. See ThomasTool Servs., Inc. v. Town of Croydon, 761 A. 2d 439, 441 ( N. H.2000) . Ver mont i nt er pr et s i t s const i t ut i on si mi l ar l y. See Bogiev. Town of Barnet, 270 A. 2d 898, 90001 ( Vt . 1970) .


46/48

46

i n t he sur pl us equi t y and t he gover nment f ai l s t o r et ur n t hat

surpl us. 110 U. S. at 149. The quest i on Mr . Col eman s case

pr esent s i s: What i f t he t axsal e st at ut e does not pr ovi de a

r i ght t o the sur pl us and t he st at ut e pr ovi des no avenue f or

r ecover y of any sur pl us? A pr oper t y i nt er est i n equi t y coul d

concei vabl y be cr eat ed by some ot her l egal sour ce. I n t hat

ci r cumst ance, f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de an avenue f or r ecover y of t he

equi t y woul d appear t o pr oduce a r esul t i dent i cal t o Lawton:

Pr oper t y t o whi ch an i ndi vi dual i s l egal l y ent i t l ed has been

t aken wi t hout r ecour se. 12 The i ssue, t hen, i s whet her Mr . Col eman

has a pr oper t y i nt er est i n hi s equi t y and, i f so, whet her an

unconst i t ut i onal t aki ng of t hat pr oper t y has been al l eged.

The Fi f t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on

pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t , nor shal l pr i vat e pr oper t y be t aken

f or publ i c use, wi t hout j ust compensat i on. I nher ent i n t he

Amendment , t hen, i s t hat propert y must be at i ssue. Because

t he Const i t ut i on pr ot ect s r at her t han cr eat es pr oper t y

i nt er est s, t he exi st ence of a pr oper t y i nt er est i s det er mi ned by

12 One of t he deci si ons t o i nt er pr et Nelson gr asped t hi s poi nt i npar t when i t hel d t hat wher e the gover nment r et ai n[ s] t heent i r e amount of t he sal e pr oceeds, t he Taki ngs Cl ause comesi nt o pl ay onl y i f t he st at e const i t ut i on or t ax st at ut es creat e[ a pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he sur pl us] . Ritter, 558 N. W. 2d at910, 912. The Wi sconsi n Cour t of Appeal s consi der [ ed] whethert he [ pl ai nt i f f s] had a pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he excess pr oceedsof t he f or ecl osur e sal e and, upon concl udi ng t hat t hey di d notunder Wi sconsi n l aw, deni ed t hei r Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m. Id. at91213.


47/48

47

r ef er ence t o exi st i ng r ul es or under st andi ngs t hat st em f r om an

i ndependent sour ce such as st at e l aw. Phillips v. Wash. Legal

Found., 524 U. S. 156, 164 ( 1998) ( quot i ng Bd. of Regents v.

Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 ( 1972) ) . Lawton i ndi cat ed t hat such an

i nt er est may be cr eat ed by a st at ut e that r equi r es t he ref undi ng

of sur pl us equi t y af t er a t ax sal e. See Lawton, 110 U. S. at 149.

Mr . Col eman cont ended t hat he has a pr otected pr opert y i nt erest

i n t he equi t y i n hi s home based on pr i nci pl es of D. C. l aw and

deci si ons of t he D. C. Cour t of Appeal s. See Opp. at 18 ( ci t i ng

Lewis v. Lewis, 708 A. 2d 249 ( D. C. 1998) ; Gore v. Gore, 638 A. 2d

672 ( D. C. 1994) ) . Mr . Col eman si mi l ar l y ar gued t hat he

est abl i shes t he r emai ni ng el ement s of a Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m:

t hat hi s pr oper t y was t aken; t hat he was pr ovi ded no j ust

compensat i on; and t hat t he t aki ng was not f or a publ i c

pur pose. See id. at 1822.

The Cour t need notand i ndeed cannot address t he vi abi l i t y of

t hese ar gument s because the Di st r i ct f ai l ed t o r espond t o t hem.

Nei t her i t s mot i on nor i t s r epl y br i ef chal l enged whet her Mr .

Col eman sat i sf i ed t he el ement s of a Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m.

I nst ead, t he Di st r i ct decl ar ed t hat [ t ] he Di st r i ct s

subst ant i ve def ense i s based on t he Supr eme Cour t s t r eat ment of

t ax sal e f or ecl osur e st at ut es i n deci si ons t hat [ t he Di st r i ct

cl ai ms] ar e di r ect l y on poi nt . Ther e i s no reason t o def end a

t ax sal e f or ecl osure st at ut e as a Fi f t h Amendment t aki ng because


48/48

no cour t has f ound t hat t o be the appr opr i at e anal ysi s. Repl y

at 15. Because t he Di st r i ct f ai l ed t o addr ess t hese [ i ssues] i n

i t s mot i on and f ai l [ ed] t o r espond t o Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt [ s] i n

i t s Repl y, t he Cour t wi l l deem [ t hem] abandoned at l east f or

now. McGinnis v. District of Columbia, No. 13- 1254, 2014 WL

4243542, at *15 ( D. D. C. Aug. 28, 2014) ( quot i ng Ashraf-Hassan v.

Embassy of France, 878 F. Supp. 2d 164, 17374 ( D. D. C. 2012) ) ;

see also Lewis v. United States, No. 90- 991, 1990 WL 179930, at

*2 ( D. D. C. Oct . 29, 1990) ; cf. Herbert v. Natl Acad. of

Sciences, 974 F. 2d 192, 196 ( D. C. Ci r . 1992) ( not i ng t he cour t s

dependence as an Ar t i cl e I I I cour t on t he adver sar i al pr ocess

f or shar peni ng t he i ssues f or deci si on as a r eason t o decl i ne

t o consi der ar gument s newl y rai sed i n a r epl y br i ef ) .

Accordi ngl y, t he Cour t must assume that Mr . Col eman est abl i shed

t he exi st ence of an i ndependent pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he equi t y

i n hi s home, as wel l as t he remai ni ng el ement s of a Fi f t h

Amendment Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m.

IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Di st r i ct s mot i on t o di smi ss i s

DENIED. An appropr i at e Or der accompani es t hi s Memorandum

Opi ni on.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan

United States District Judge

September 30 2014

Documents

Coleman v. District of Columbia, No. 13-1456 (D. D.C. Sep. 30, 2014)