Parkridge 6, LLC v. US Dept. of Transportation, No. 10-1443 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1443 PARKRIDGE 6, LLC; DULLES CORRIDOR USERS GROUP, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RAY LAHOOD, Secretary of Transportation; PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator of FHWA; ROBERTO FONSECA-MARTINEZ, Division Administrator of FHWA, Virginia Division; SEAN T. CONNAUGHTON, Secretary of Transportation; JAMES BENNETT, President and CEO Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01312-LMB-IDD) Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher W. Walker, CHRISTOPHER W. WALKER PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellants. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robin Perrin Meier, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General of Virginia, Charles E. James, II, Chief Deputy Attorney General, E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Solicitor General, Stephen R. McCullough, Senior Appellate Counsel, Jo Anne P. Maxwell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Edward J. Fuhr, Eric H. Feiler, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Philip Sunderland, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants Parkridge 6, LLC ( Parkridge ) and the Dulles Corridor Users Group ( Users Group ) filed this lawsuit against the United States Department of Transportation ( USDOT ), Ray LaHood, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Transportation, Peter M. Rogoff, in his official capacity as administrator of the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA ), Victor Mendez, administrator of and administrator of Federal his Fonseca-Martinez, Roberto the in the Highway in Virginia R. Homer, Transportation Bennett, in in of his his the of capacity executive officer the Authority ( MWAA ). The underway, to Metrorail expand ( FHWA ), capacity of the as FHWA as Secretary of of Virginia, and James as president and chief Metropolitan lawsuit as The complaint also named capacity Commonwealth official official division official capacity Administration his (collectively, Federal Defendants ). Pierce official Washington challenged access to plans, Airports currently Washington Dulles International Airport (the Project ). Finding the complaint fatally flawed, the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice. The court concluded that suit, Appellants lacked standing to bring that many of their claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and that others 3 failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm. We review de novo the district court s order granting Philips v. Pitt a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Cnty. Mem l district Hosp., court s 572 F.3d dismissal 176, for 179-80 lack of (4th Cir. 2009). standing and for A the existence of sovereign immunity are questions of law that this court also reviews Limehouse, 549 de F.3d novo. 324, See 332 S.C. Wildlife (4th Cir. 2008); Fed n v. McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 398 (4th Cir. 2010). Appellants which they obviate They claim the need maintain argue could for that that alternatives establish collecting failure to faster tolls, select to travel were an the Project, speeds and not considered. alternative to the Project has subjected them to economic damages in the form of tolls and taxes that they would not otherwise have been required to pay. Appellants also cite impaired access to National Airport and less than optimum access to Dulles Airport as a basis for standing. Our requirement jurisdiction of Article is III circumscribed of the U.S. by the Constitution, limits judicial review to cases and controversies. Defenders doctrine of of Wildlife, standing 504 has U.S. both 4 555, standing 559-60 constitutional Lujan v. (1992). and which The prudential components. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). A party satisfies the constitutional component of standing if: (1) [the party] has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. standing 167, 180-81 encompasses generalized (2000). three grievances The prudential additional shared by all component constraints: or a large of first, class of citizens do not warrant judicial review; second, a plaintiff must generally assert his own legal rights and may only assert rights of third-parties in specialized circumstances; and third, the grievance must fall within the zone of interests the statute or constitutional guarantee protects or regulates. Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419, 423 (4th Cir. 2009). We find that, with the exception of Count Eight, Appellants cannot establish standing to bring suit on any of the counts in the complaint. squarely within the The injuries Appellants identify fall prudential limitation on standing that courts refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens. (1975). Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 Appellants complaint is introduced and styled as a 5 suggestion for transportation a new issues approach in the to some of Washington, the vexing Metro DC most area. Whether or not the taxes and tolls associated with the Project are unnecessary, particularized applicability. as legal the Appellants injury but a maintain, policy is question not of a broad We therefore find that these claims are more appropriately addressed in the representative branches. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004). Count Eight alleges a violation of Virginia s Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ). Appellants have standing as to this count because they need only show that they sought and were denied specific records. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449-50 (1989). This count is directed against the Commonwealth of Virginia and the MWAA. The claim fails as to Virginia because sovereign immunity does not permit federal courts to hear a suit against state officials on the basis of state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984); see also id. at 100 n.9 (noting a state does not waive sovereign immunity in federal court by consenting to suit in its own courts). The claim fails against the MWAA because Virginia s FOIA 1 only reaches Virginia 1 Appellants assert for the first time on appeal that if Virginia s FOIA does not apply to the MWAA, then the federal FOIA must. However, we decline to address this argument as it (Continued) 6 public bodies. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3701 - 3704 (2008 & Supp. 2010). The MWAA is a political subdivision constituted to operate and improve the Metropolitan airports, and it exists independent of Virginia and its local governments, the District of Columbia, and § 49106(a)(2)-(3) the United (2006). States As Government. such, it is not 49 U.S.C. subject to Virginia s FOIA. Because the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety for the reasons discussed above, we decline to reach Appellants other arguments. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED was not presented to the district court. 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 Muth v. United States, We note that the Appellants identified as an issue, but failed to offer argument on, the district court s authority to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Appellants have therefore abandoned this issue. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) ( It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned. ). 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
