# 375 Slane Chapel Road, LLC v. Stone County, Missouri

> District Court, W.D. Missouri · July 16, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10241969

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 16, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10241969

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the quasi-judicial nature of board-of-adjustment zoning decisions
- finding Younger applicable where the federal and state criminal actions were initiated the same day
- noting that “jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

375 SLANE CHAPEL ROAD, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 21-CV-05044-SRB
)
STONE COUNTY, MISSOURI, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #10.) For the reasons stated
below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART as discussed below.1
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff in this civil rights action is 375 Slane Chapel Road LLC (“Plaintiff”), a Missouri
limited liability company owned and operated by Missouri residents Joseph and Yvonne Cordells
(“the Cordells”). Plaintiff owns three parcels of real property located in Stone County, Missouri,
which are designated as R-1 properties under Stone County’s zoning regulations (the “Zoning
Regulations”). Briefly, the relevant facts as taken from Plaintiff’s complaint are set forth below.
Under Stone County’s Zoning Regulations, owners of an R-1 property seeking to operate
a short-term rental must apply for a conditional-use permit from the Stone County Planning and
Zoning Commission (“the P&Z Commission”). On or around October 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed
an application for a conditional-use permit to allow for short-term rentals on its properties (the
“Application”). The P&Z Commission approved the Application during a hearing on November

1 In their reply brief, Defendants requested oral argument on the instant motion. Upon review of the record and the
parties’ briefing, the Court finds oral argument is not necessary to resolve the issues raised by this motion. See Local
Rule 7.0(b) (“The Court may, but need not, order and consider oral argument.”).
17, 2020. Shortly thereafter, a neighboring landowner appealed the P&Z Commission’s decision
to the Stone County Board of Adjustment (the “Board of Adjustment”). On April 13, 2021, the
Board of Adjustment held a hearing on the matter, where multiple neighboring landowners to
Plaintiff’s properties voiced their opposition to the P&Z Commission’s grant of a conditional-use
permit. The Board of Adjustment ultimately reversed the P&Z Commission’s decision and

denied Plaintiff’s application for a conditional-use permit.
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court asserting three causes of
action (Counts I, II, and III) arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment against the following parties: Stone County, Missouri (the “County”);
the Stone County Commission (the “County Commission”); the P&Z Commission; and the Stone
County Planning and Zoning Board (the “P&Z Board”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff
seeks a judgment declaring certain identified provisions of Stone County’s Zoning Regulations
are “unconstitutional as applied to [Plaintiff] in violation of its Fourteenth Amendment right to
Due Process of law” and “facial[ly] unconstitutional[]” due to vagueness. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 39, 47–

48.) Plaintiff also asks for Defendants to be “preliminarily and permanently enjoined” from
enforcing certain provisions of Stone County’s Zoning Regulations against Plaintiff and other
short-term rental applicants. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 51–52.) Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(1) provides for the dismissal of a claim when the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. When a defendant challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff has
the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. Jones v. Carondelet Health, No. 12-CV-00213, 2012

2 Given that the instant motion is resolved on abstention grounds, the Court need not address Defendants’ arguments
that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
WL 12898834, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 17, 2012) (citing Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724,
729 (8th Cir. 1990)). “In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a district court is required to
distinguish between a facial attack and a factual attack.” Roberts v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No.
20-CV-00076, 2020 WL 7086103, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2020); see also Osborn, 918 F.2d at
729 n.6. In a facial challenge, the court reviews only the pleadings and “all factual allegations

concerning jurisdiction are presumed to be true.” Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.
1993). The motion “is successful if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary for subject-
matter jurisdiction.” Id. In a factual challenge to jurisdiction, a court may consider facts outside
the pleadings and the non-moving party does not benefit from the presumption of truth. Osborn,
918 F.2d at 729 n.6; accord Mathews v. Fieldworks, LLC, No. 20-CV-06057, 2021 WL 1113205,
at *5 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2021) (citation omitted) (noting that “[i]n a factual attack the moving
party submits evidentiary materials such as affidavits or depositions to attack the jurisdictional
allegations of the complaint, and the court may consider that evidence when determining whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction”).

III. DISCUSSION
As a threshold issue, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed due to a
lack of jurisdiction. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint “fail[s] to allege a substantial federal
question” under § 1983, and further contend Plaintiff’s asserted claims are barred by the Younger
abstention doctrine set forth in U.S. Supreme Court decision Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41
(1971). (Doc. #11, p. 8.)3 Plaintiff argues that it adequately alleges claims invoking this Court’s
federal question jurisdiction, and further contends that abstention under Younger is inapplicable.
Each argument is addressed in turn below.

3 All page numbers cited herein refer to the pagination automatically generated by CM/ECF.
A. Rule 12(b)(1): Facial Challenge to Plaintiff’s Asserted Claims
To the extent Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to establish federal jurisdiction by failing to
allege a substantial federal question under § 1983, the Court finds this argument presents a facial
attack on Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).4 The Court in turn limits its analysis for this
specific argument to the pleadings and takes Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. See Titus, 4

F.3d at 593. Defendants argue Plaintiff merely presents a “run of the mill zoning dispute” and
fails to allege a substantial federal question entitling it to jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendants
argue there are no facts alleged that would support a substantive due process violation. Plaintiff
responds that it does not assert a substantive due process claim, but instead asserts that the Stone
County Zoning Regulations at issue are unconstitutionally vague on their face and as applied.
The Court determines that Plaintiff’s allegations present a substantial federal question
and adequately invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. In the context of a Rule 12(b)(1) analysis, the
Court considers whether the plaintiff’s claim is subject to a determination of federal law over
which the Court has jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89

(1998) (noting that “jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the averments might fail to
state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover”) (cleaned up). “Dismissal for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only
when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or
otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Id. (cleaned up).
Plaintiff alleges certain provisions of Stone County’s Zoning Regulations are “unconstitutionally

4 Plaintiff’s opposition notes that Defendants’ briefing does not clearly identify the controlling legal standard for its
jurisdictional arguments. (Doc. #13, p. 10.) In their reply brief, Defendants do not respond to Plaintiff’s contention
nor clarify the standard governing their lack-of-jurisdiction argument regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims. However, the Court observes that Defendants’ motion to dismiss identifies Rule 12(b)(1) as the basis for its
abstention argument. (Doc. #10, p. 4.)
vague,” both on their face and as applied, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. #1,
pp. 8–10.) Regardless of whether Plaintiff is likely to recover on those claims, its allegations are
not legally foreclosed or wholly devoid of merit. See, e.g., ChemSol, LLC v. City of Sibley, 386
F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1019 (N.D. Iowa 2019) (involving a § 1983 claim alleging a local ordinance is
unconstitutionally vague); Stephenson v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.3d 1303, 1308 (8th

Cir. 1997) (detailing the constitutional basis for a void-for-vagueness claim). In turn, Plaintiff’s
complaint implicates substantial federal questions enabling the Court to properly exercise its
jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion on this point is denied.
B. Younger Abstention
Defendants alternatively contend Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Younger abstention
doctrine. District courts that have considered the issue in this context either construe the matter
as a factual attack arising under Rule 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, a prudential ground for dismissal
not bound by the assertions in a complaint. See, e.g., Backpage.com, LLC v. Hawley, No. 17-
CV-1951, 2017 WL 5726868, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 28, 2017) (collecting cases) (declining to

rely on Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6) in deciding the applicability of abstention under Younger);
Chicago Ins. Co. v. Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, No. 13-CV-00678, 2014 WL 556358, at
*1 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2014) (considering the need for abstention on a motion to dismiss as a
factual attack on a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1)). Whether analyzed as a factual attack under
Rule 12(b)(1) or an independent prudential basis for dismissal, the Court finds that it is not
limited to Plaintiff’s complaint when determining whether the Younger abstention doctrine
deprives it of jurisdiction in this case.
Defendants assert that on the same day Plaintiff initiated suit in federal court, Plaintiff
also filed a petition in state court asserting claims arising from the same Board of Adjustment
decision and Zoning Regulations that underlie the instant federal action. Given the pending state
proceeding, Defendants argue this Court must postpone its exercise of jurisdiction in this case.
Plaintiff disagrees, arguing its state proceeding “does not fit any category of cases warranting
abstention” under the Younger doctrine. (Doc. #13, p. 13.)
Generally, federal district courts “have a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise their

jurisdiction.” Alleghany Corp. v. McCartney, 896 F.2d 1138, 1142 (8th Cir. 1990) (cleaned up)
(quoting Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 206 (1988)). However, the Younger doctrine and
its progeny provide that a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case if
there is a parallel state proceeding which fits into one of three narrow categories: “(1) a criminal
prosecution, (2) a civil enforcement proceeding that is akin to a criminal prosecution, or (3) a
proceeding implicating a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.”
Minnesota Living Assist., Inc. v. Peterson, 899 F.3d 548, 552 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
If the state proceeding falls within one of the three categories that triggers Younger abstention, a
court should consider three additional factors, known as the Middlesex factors, before deciding if

abstention is appropriate. See id. at 553 (citing Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State
Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). The Supreme Court cautions that “even in the presence of
parallel state proceedings, abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception,
not the rule.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 82 (2013) (citations omitted).
1. Cases Triggering Abstention Under Younger
Defendants argue that state proceedings dealing with land use and local zoning issues are
emblematic of proceedings that are subject to abstention. Plaintiff disagrees, stating the petition
it filed in state court does not seek to enforce a state court order or judgment, nor is it a criminal
proceeding or civil proceeding akin to one. In support of its position, Plaintiff simply cites to the
Missouri statute giving rise to its state court petition, MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870(2), and offers no
other discussion regarding the nature or function of that state court proceeding.
Upon careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant caselaw, the Court
finds the parallel state court proceeding is one that implicates abstention under Younger. The
parties do not dispute that the only category of cases that could potentially trigger abstention in

this case is a state proceeding implicating a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments
of its courts. Plaintiff filed its petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Stone County
pursuant to MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870(2), which states in relevant part:
Any owners, lessees or tenants of buildings, structures or land jointly or severally
aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment or of the county commission,
. . . or board, commission or other public official, may present to the circuit court
of the county in which the property affected is located, a petition, duly verified,
stating that the decision is illegal in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the
illegality and asking for relief therefrom. . . . Upon the presentation of the petition
the court shall allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment . . . of
the action taken and data and records acted upon, and may appoint a referee to take
additional evidence in the case. The court may reverse or affirm or may modify the
decision brought up for review.

Plaintiff’s state court petition also asserts that the Board of Adjustment’s actions violate both the
Missouri Constitution’s and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
While Plaintiff summarily argues its state proceeding does not involve the enforcement of
state court orders or judgments, the Court disagrees. Judicial review pursuant to MO. REV. STAT.
§ 64.870 is the exclusive remedy for a party aggrieved by a decision of a board of adjustment.
State ex rel. Freeway Media, L.L.C. v. City of Kansas City, 14 S.W.3d 169, 174 (Mo. App. W.D.
2000). The statute expressly authorizes the reviewing state court to consider additional evidence
and reverse, affirm, or modify the zoning decision asserted by the petitioner, and also permits the
petitioner to “prosecute an appeal” to an appellate court. See MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870(2). Given
the allegations and statutory framework underlying Plaintiff’s state court petition, the Court finds
that this particular state court proceeding is sufficiently judicial in nature to “implicate the state’s
interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.” Peterson, 899 F.3d at 552.
As noted by Defendants, the Eighth Circuit decision in Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort
Smith, 163 F.3d 475 (1998), is instructive. In Night Clubs, a business applied for, and initially
received, a permit to operate a nightclub from the Fort Smith Planning Commission. Id. at 477–

78. When the business later sought permission to open an exotic (i.e. nude) dancing facility at
the same location, the Fort Smith Planning Commission denied the request. Id. After an appeal
of the denial to the planning commission failed, the business filed suit in an Arkansas state court
before eventually filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. Id. The
Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that abstention under Younger applied,
stating the appeal of an action applying zoning regulations is “quasi-judicial in nature” under
Arkansas law. Id. at 479.
Missouri caselaw on this point is sufficiently analogous and, in light of the content and
assertions of Plaintiff’s state court petition, supports the same finding here. See, e.g., Gash v.

Lafayette Cty., 245 S.W.3d 229, 233–34 (Mo. banc 2008) (detailing MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870
and the judicial remedy available for appeals of county commission zoning decisions); State ex
rel. Nigro v. Kansas City, 27 S.W.2d 1030, 1032 (Mo. banc 1930) (discussing the quasi-judicial
nature of board-of-adjustment zoning decisions). Further, the Court recognizes that Missouri’s
ability to administer zoning and land use-related matters is an important state interest implicating
principles of comity and federalism. See Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 480 (quoting Sinclair Oil
Corp. v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401, 409 (9th Cir. 1996) (“‘[L]and use planning is a
sensitive area of social policy’ which federal courts typically ought not enter.”) (collecting cases
finding the same); compare to Backpage, 2017 WL 5726868, at *7 (detailing the U.S. Supreme
Court’s discussion in Sprint v. Jacobs of the comity and federalism considerations involved in
determining whether the exercise of federal jurisdiction may interfere with a state’s interests in
enforcing a state court order or judgment). In turn, the Court finds Plaintiff’s state proceeding
falls within the narrow categories of cases that may warrant abstention under Younger.
2. The Middlesex Factors

Having found abstention under Younger potentially applicable, the Court must consider
the three Middlesex factors before deciding whether abstention is proper. Peterson, 899 F.3d at
553. In doing so, the Court considers whether the ongoing state court proceeding “(1) is judicial
in nature, (2) implicates important state interests, and (3) provides an adequate opportunity to
raise constitutional challenges.” Id. (citing Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432); see also Sprint, 571
U.S. at 81 (noting that the Middlesex factors are “not dispositive” and are “additional factors
appropriately considered by the federal court before invoking Younger”) (emphasis in original).
Defendants contend the Middlesex factors are readily satisfied in this case. Plaintiff disagrees.
Regarding the first factor, Plaintiff argues the state-court proceeding is not judicial nor

was it ongoing at the time it initiated suit in federal court. As for the nature of the state-court
proceeding, the Court finds it is sufficiently judicial in nature for the reasons discussed earlier.
See also, e.g., Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 478–79. On the issue of timing, Plaintiff argues that
because it filed its state-court petition after initiating suit in federal court, Younger is inapplicable
because the state proceeding was not ongoing. See Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig,
664 F.3d 1245, 1250 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (“For purposes of applying Younger
abstention, the relevant time for determining if there are ongoing state proceedings is when the
federal complaint is filed.”). However, Plaintiff acknowledges the cases were initiated only an
hour apart—Plaintiff filed its federal complaint at 10:19AM CST on May 12, 2021, and filed its
state court petition at 11:21AM CST that same day.
The Court is not persuaded that abstention under Younger is wholly inapplicable because
Plaintiff initiated its federal suit sixty-two minutes before its state court action. Both the Eighth
Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court recognize “there is no fixed requirement in the law that a

state judicial proceeding must have been initiated before the federal case was filed for [Younger]
abstention to be appropriate.” Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 775 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting
that “a court should examine what was actually taking place in both settings to decide whether to
abstain”); see also Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975) (holding “where state criminal
proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before
any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court, the principles of
Younger v. Harris should apply in full force”); accord Anderson v. Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 764
(8th Cir. 1989) (finding Younger applicable where the federal and state criminal actions were
initiated the same day). Given that the federal action and the state-court action are both in their

preliminary stages, the Court finds “considerations of equity and comity support abstention” in
this case. Backpage, 2017 WL 5726868, at *8. Thus, the first Middlesex factor is satisfied.
Regarding the second Middlesex factor, the Court additionally finds that the state-court
proceeding implicates important state interests. Plaintiff contends that the “certiorari review of a
zoning determination regarding whether to grant a conditional use permit” is a limited action not
significant enough to warrant abstention. (Doc. #13, p. 16.) However, when “inquiring into the
substantiality of the State’s interest in its proceedings[,]” the court does “not look narrowly to its
interest in the outcome of the particular case” but instead looks to “the importance of the generic
proceedings to the State.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans,
491 U.S. 350, 365 (2011) (emphasis in original). Further, the Eighth Circuit has recognized that
zoning and local land-use issues are important, sensitive matters best left for the state to decide.
See, e.g., Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 480 (“[I]t is well-established that for abstention purposes, the
enforcement and application of zoning ordinances and land use regulations is an important state
and local interest.”). Consequently, the Court finds the second Middlesex factor is satisfied.

Lastly, Plaintiff argues the third Middlesex factor is not satisfied because Plaintiff lacks
an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in its state-court proceeding. Under
this factor, the inquiry for the Court is whether Plaintiff “could have raised” or “in fact . . . did
raise its federal constitutional claims before the state court.” Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 480. The
burden rests on Plaintiff to show that the ongoing state proceeding does not afford it an adequate
opportunity to raise its constitutional claims, and a court “may not engage any presumption that
the state courts will not safeguard federal constitutional rights.” Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351,
357 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
A review of the state-court petition reveals that not only does Plaintiff seek reversal of

the Stone County Board of Adjustment’s adverse decision, but Plaintiff also claims the Zoning
Regulations were illegally applied by the Board of Adjustment in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. (Doc. #10-1, pp. 7–8.) Such a claim, in this Court’s
view, asserts a federal constitutional challenge to the Board of Adjustment’s decision against
Plaintiff. In its opposition, Plaintiff does not identify any legal authority which prohibits it from
raising its federal constitutional challenges to a board of adjustment’s application of a zoning
ordinance in an action under MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870(2).5 Nor does Plaintiff address why it is

5 Aside from the statute itself, Plaintiff’s sole legal citation is to Animal Shelter League of Ozarks, Inc. v. Christian
Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 995 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999), specifically its statement that a state appellate
court’s review “is confined to a determination of whether [the board of adjustment’s] action was authorized by law”
and based on “competent and substantial evidence.” The Court is not persuaded that this language, without more,
able to raise its Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim in the state proceeding, but not its
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims. See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (in
the context of Younger, noting a plaintiff’s “failure to avail [itself]” of the opportunity to raise a
constitutional challenge in an ongoing state-court proceeding “does not mean that the state
procedures were inadequate”); see also Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 481 (citing Pennzoil Co. v.

Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987)) (noting that “when a litigant has not attempted to present his
federal claims in related state-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that state
procedures will afford an adequate remedy”). Furthermore, the Missouri Supreme Court has
recognized that the Missouri legislature, by adopting MO. REV. STAT. § 64.870(2), expanded “the
scope of the remedy of certiorari and the grounds on which it will lie.” Gash, 245 S.W.3d at
234. Taken together, the Court finds the ongoing state proceeding gives Plaintiff an adequate
opportunity to raise its federal constitutional challenges and satisfies the third Middlesex factor.
3. Stay or Dismissal of Action Under Younger
Given its determination, on balance, that the Middlesex factors are satisfied, the Court
finds that abstention under Younger is warranted in this case.6 Defendants contend Plaintiff’s

complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff contends abstention is inappropriate and does
not reach the question of whether a stay or dismissal should be entered.
In general, upon finding abstention under Younger is appropriate, a district court may
dismiss the action. See Night Clubs, 163 F.3d at 481 (citation omitted) (noting that “the Younger

deprives Plaintiff of an adequate opportunity to raise its federal constitutional challenges in the state-court proceeding.
Additionally, nearly identical statutory provisions permitting certiorari review for city boards-of-adjustment decisions
allow petitioners to assert constitutional challenges. See generally Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 482 S.W.3d 811, 820
(Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

6 The parties agree there are no exceptions to Younger that would make applying the doctrine in this case inappropriate.
See Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432) (“Even if [the Younger]
requirements are met, a federal court should not abstain if there is a showing of ‘bad faith, harassment, or some other
extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.’”).
abstention doctrine directs federal courts to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief
that would interfere with pending judicial proceedings.”) (emphasis in original). However, “in
cases where damages are sought in the federal suit, the Supreme Court instructs that traditional
abstention principles generally require a stay as the appropriate mode of abstention[.]” Id.; see
also Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (stating “so long as a

possibility of return to federal court remains, a stay rather than a dismissal is the preferred mode
of abstention”).
Plaintiff’s three causes of action set forth in its complaint arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
but no claim requests monetary damages. Plaintiff seeks only “a judgment in its favor,” an order
“enjoin[ing] the Defendants” from their continued enforcement of the Zoning Regulations at
issue and “declaring [those Zoning Regulations] unconstitutional . . . and void,” and “for such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 39, 49, 52.) Given that
Plaintiff’s complaint only seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and does not seek any monetary
damages, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10) is
GRANTED IN PART. The motion is granted to the extent Younger is applicable, and this case
is hereby dismissed without prejudice. To the extent Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), the Court declines to grant such relief given its determination that abstention is proper.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Stephen R. Bough
STEPHEN R. BOUGH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: July 16, 2021

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10241969. Public record. Not legal advice.