Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle
Easton sought to subdivide a parcel into lots of at least three acres, consistent with defendant village’s zoning regulations. Its Dec. 18, 2011 amended complaint sought redress for perceived rights violations arising from village moratoriaallegedly an invalid exercise of police powerpurportedly violating its equal protection rights and depriving it of property and liberty absent due process, and constituting a taking without just compensation. The moratoria were terminated. Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Easton’s federal claims, but remanded its state law claims. Finding its federal and state claims parallel, district court dismissed Easton’s state law claims. In finding Easton’s due process, equal protection and taking claims unripe, it noted that because it never considered Easton’s subdivision application due to the moratoria, the village could not have acted with finality. On its taking claim, Easton failed to allege efforts to obtain compensation from state courts before filing its federal case. Nor did it show the village’s adoption of laws enacting the moratoria arbitrary. It was impossible to find, when examined on their face, that the laws were arbitrary or irrational and violative of Easton’s due process and equal protection rights.
