Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for a regulatory taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A claim for regulatory taking, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, may be decided by a jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
The question is, What has the owner lost? not, What has the taker gained.View Full Point of Law
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.