Federal Judiciary

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this Takings Clause and Due Process case, landowners who sought to rezone their farmland for a trailer park and other residential development challenge the district court?s order granting the defendant Township?s motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the plaintiffs? Takings Clause claim was not ripe for review in the federal courts due to the rule of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires that a plaintiff first give the state court an opportunity to adjudicate the issue of just compensation before seeking a declaration from a federal court that the state has failed to provide just compensation. According to Williamson County, a plaintiff bringing a takings claim must first pursue ? and be denied ? available remedies in state court. The district court in the present case concluded that the plaintiffs? failure to do so precludes a federal court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over
the takings claim. The district court also held that the plaintiffs? contention that the defendant?s zoning ordinance and appeals process violated various constitutional rights ? including procedural due process, substantive due process and equal protection ? was ?ancillary? to the takings claim and thus similarly unripe for review.

The plaintiffs argue in their appeal that these injuries are unrelated to the Takings Clause claim and must be reviewed as completed injuries. Conflicting case law exists as to whether such claims are, in fact, independent. However, even assuming that the claims are not ancillary to the Takings Clause issue, summary judgment is nevertheless appropriate for the defendant. Consequently, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.