INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSNewport News, Virginia
Back to the record

Document text · Page 9 of 18

D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC v. City of Norfolk (2025)

Text from the approved public copy. Page numbers follow the PDF sequence.

Open Source Document

Document page

Page options

This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.

claim or challenged the administrative nuisance determination. Id. at *15. But since he didn’t do either, the court granted summary judgment for the city. Id. Fox moved for reconsideration. He first argued that the city’s suggested public use—elimination of blight—was a “pretext.” D.A. Realestate Inv., LLC v. City of Norfolk, 2023 WL 5347305, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2023) (DARI II); see Va. Code Ann. § 1- 219.1(E). The court rejected the argument because if the property was not an actual nuisance, Fox failed to show that the taking was for public use—an essential element of his inverse condemnation claim. DARI II, 2023 WL 5347305, at *4. And the court held that Fox presented no triable question of fact; he merely speculated that the city was taking property for unauthorized motives. Id. Fox next argued that the grant of summary judgment deprived him of a right to try the state inverse condemnation claim before a jury. Id. at *5. Because Fox never raised this theory at the summary judgment stage, the court declined to consider it. Id. So, the district court denied Fox’s motion. Id. at *5–6. Fox timely appealed.4 However, he did not appeal the district court’s dismissal of the federal constitutional claims. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (finding an argument waived when a party failed to present it in its opening brief); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Eliminating any question about this, Fox stated 4 The district court exercised jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. And we review the summary judgment grant de novo, applying “the same standard that the district court was required by law to apply . . . .” Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., Md., 48 F.3d 810, 817 (4th Cir. 1995). 9
Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)

Report a privacy or text-extraction issue through Contact & Corrections.