Plaintiff sued Defendant for a regulatory taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A claim for regulatory taking, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, may be decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
The City of Monterey (Defendant) denied proposals by Del Monte Dunes (Plaintiff) to develop its property. Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a regulatory taking without just compensation or post-deprivation remedy.
In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim regarding a regulatory taking, do plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial?
Yes, the jury trial was proper. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Justice Souter argued that the Plaintiff did not have a statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial because a regulatory taking claim under § 1983 is analogous to a condemnation proceeding, which had no right to a jury trial at the time of the enactment of the Seventh Amendment.
Justice Scalia stated that the central question for the Court to determine was whether or not a § 1983 claim is entitled to a jury. In this case he argued that the § 1983 claim was entitled to a jury because monetary damages are being sought.
The Court determined that the Plaintiff did not have a statutory right to a jury trial under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But the Court determined the Plaintiff did have a constitutional right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment because the narrow issue of whether a landowner has suffered a regulatory taking is a predominantly factual question meant for the jury.