Court aimed to protect in developing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. "In a representative democracy such as this, these branches of government act on behalf of the people and, to a very large extent, the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people to make their wishes known to their representatives. To hold that the government retains the power to act in this representative capacity and yet hold, at the same time, that people cannot freely inform the government of their wishes would. . . be particularly unjustified". Noerr, 365 U.S. at 137; see also Omni, 499 U.S. at 379-80, 383 (finding that the right to petition is both a constitutional right, and also a "political" right stemming from citizens' right to participate in government, and that Noerr-Pennington should be used to protect this right); see generally George W. Pring & Penelope Canan, SLAPP's - Getting Sued for Speaking Out 15-29 (1996) (the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a shield that is properly wielded when litigation threatens to chill a petitioner's right to free speech).
It is irrelevant that the Neighbors' petitioning may have been motivated by racism. Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, it does not matter what factors fuel the citizen's desire to petition government. As long as there is petitioning activity, the motivation behind the activity is unimportant. See e.g. Noerr, 365 U.S. at 139 ("The right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws cannot properly be made to depend upon their intent in doing so"); Pennington, 381 U.S. at 670 ("Noerr shields...a concerted effort to influence public officials regardless of intent of purpose"); Omni, 499 U.S. at 380 ("That a private party's political motives are selfish is irrelevant").
The only restriction placed on Noerr-Pennington immunity is that the petitioners must make a genuine effort to influence legislation or procure favorable government action, rather than simply using the petitioning process as a means of interference or harassment (known as "sham exception"). See Omni, 499 U.S. at 380 (defining "sham" petitioning as a situation in which "persons use the governmental process -- as opposed to the outcome of that process --" as a "weapon")
; see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 500 n.4, 100 L. Ed. 2d 497, 108 S. Ct. 1931 (1988) ("private action that is not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action is a mere sham that cannot be deemed a valid effort to influence government action"); Noerr, 365 U.S. at 144 (no immunity when petitioning activity "is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor"). When petitioning is a "sham", first amendment protections do not shield defendants from liability.
The sham exception is inapplicable here. The Neighbors petitioned their local government in order to influence policy and obtain favorable governmental action, thus satisfying the requirements for Noerr-Pennington immunity. (Indeed, the conspiracy allegation rests on this notion that the Neighbors petitioned the other defendants in order to influence the government's actions towards Barnes. See e.g. Amended Complaint at PP 71-80). Furthermore, Barnes never even alleges that the petitioning here was a sham. See Barnes' Response to the Motions to Dismiss at 53-65.
In spite of the above, Barnes argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should not immunize the Neighbors from liability. In making its arguments, Barnes relies on the Third Circuit opinion in Phillips v. Trello, 502 F.2d 1000 (3d Cir. 1974) ("Phillips "). However, the Phillips case is not controlling here. First, Phillips does not focus solely on petitioning activity, but also addresses defamation; therefore the standards for first amendment protection in Phillips and the present case are different. See e.g. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974) (discussing the limited nature of first amendment protection for defamation). Secondly, the Third Circuit only briefly alludes to the Noerr and Pennington cases in Phillips, and never fully explores the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See Phillips. 502 F.2d at 1004. Finally, Barnes' contention that a 1974 Third Circuit decision "absolutely controls" here is misplaced, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has issued important opinions on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine subsequent to Phillips (such as the 1991 Omni decision). See Barnes' Response to the Motions to Dismiss at 57.
Barnes fails to offer any valid argument in support of its claim that Noerr-Pennington should not be applied to this case. Therefore, in light of Barnes' failure to support its position, and in light of the clear indication that the Neighbors were doing no more than exercising their rights as citizens to petition local government, I hold that the Neighbors have a right to first amendment immunity, and I dismiss the Neighbors from this case.
C. Abstention Doctrine
I should abstain from adjudicating this matter if the three-prong Younger test is satisfied: (1) there are ongoing judicial proceedings in state court; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; (3) the state proceedings present an adequate opportunity to raise all claims brought in federal court. See e.g. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 843 (3d Cir. 1996); see generally Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971).
With regard to the first prong, the defendants argue that there are three ongoing state court proceedings: the appeal to Superior Court of the Orphans Court ruling regarding the trust indenture; the proceedings in front of the Zoning Hearing Board concerning the proposed parking lot and the status of the Barnes as a museum; and the defamation action. Barnes does not dispute the fact that these proceedings are taking place; however, Barnes argues that none of these proceedings satisfy the Younger test. See Barnes' Response to Motions to Dismiss at 17.
The defamation action fails the first prong of the Younger test. It was filed after the federal action commenced,
in direct response to the filing of the federal action,
and thus should not be considered an "ongoing" (or "pending" or "threatened") proceeding for purposes of Younger abstention. See e.g. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468, 112 S. Ct. 2206 (1992) (it is clearly erroneous to apply Younger abstention in absence of pending state prosecution); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 45 L. Ed. 2d 648, 95 S. Ct. 2561 (1975) (federal court does not have to abstain from issuing injunction if there are no pending state proceedings, since will not disrupt state court and no otherwise available forum to raise constitutional claims); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462, 39 L. Ed. 2d 505, 94 S. Ct. 1209 (1974) ("when no state criminal proceeding is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal intervention does not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system", and therefore there is no reason for a federal court to abstain).
The defamation action here was a response to the federal action; therefore, the federal court's adjudication of the federal claim could never be perceived as interfering with the state court proceeding. For this reason, the defamation action fails to satisfy the first prong of the Younger test and therefore I will no longer consider it in this discussion.
Both the Superior Court appeal and the zoning proceedings were "ongoing" at the time of filing this federal action. However, the Superior Court appeal involves different parties (namely Barnes and the Trust Company and some former Barnes students), and different issues (namely a challenge to the terms of the trust), and cannot be considered an ongoing proceeding for purposes of Younger abstention. See Barnes' Response to the Motions to Dismiss at 19; see also Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. at 930 (federal court not need to abstain if state proceedings involves different parties); Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, 811 F.2d 171, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied. 484 U.S. 849, 98 L. Ed. 2d 104, 108 S. Ct. 148 (1987) (abstention is inappropriate if the two proceedings involve different parties with different interests). Therefore, the Superior Court appeal also fails the first prong of the Younger test, and, as a consequence, the appeal in front of the Zoning Hearing Board is the only remaining possible basis for abstention.
I will now turn to the two remaining prongs of the Younger test and determine whether the appeal in front of the Zoning Hearing Board satisfies these.
The parties in the present action debate whether or not the zoning proceeding implicates important state interests, as required by the second prong of the Younger test. I do not need to even reach this issue, however, for the third prong of the Younger test is clearly not satisfied here.
In order for the zoning proceeding to serve as a basis for abstention, it must provide the parties with a forum adequate enough to raise constitutional claims. Such a requirement is not met here.
A local zoning proceeding is an insufficient forum to raise federal civil rights claims such as § 1983 claims and § 1985(3) claims. See Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53 § 10909.1 (Supp. 1995) (Zoning Hearing Board jurisdiction is limited to substantive and procedural challenges to validity of land use ordinance; appeals of decisions made by zoning officers, municipal engineers and officers in charge of developmental rights; and applications for variances and special exceptions). Because the Zoning Hearing Board's jurisdiction is limited in this way, any appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board to the state court would similarly be limited with regard to subject matter. See id., at § 11001-A - § 11006-A. Therefore, due to its limited jurisdiction, the zoning proceedings are an inappropriate forum in which to adjudicate Barnes' constitutional claims.
The defendants claim that some of the constitutional issues raised in this federal action are at issue in the zoning action. For example, the defendants cite the fact that, in its appeal of the denial of the zoning variance, Barnes called the zoning decision discriminatory, and warned that if discrimination was in fact the motive behind the decision, it would be a violation of Barnes' constitutional rights. Defendants further argue that, because Barnes raised the issue in its appeal, the constitutional claims are preserved for review by the Pennsylvania state courts. See e.g. Township's Motion to Dismiss at 16; Commissioners' Motion to Dismiss at 56-57.
However, the fact that Barnes alluded to discrimination is not dispositive here. The mere mention of discrimination as the potential motive behind the decision to deny the variance and restrict the use of Barnes' property does not mean that the issue of discrimination was properly brought before the Zoning Hearing Board, or that the Board will address it.
Under Third Circuit precedent, Younger abstention is inappropriate if the federal matter involves issues that will never be adjudicated in the state matter. See e.g. Heritage Farms Inc. v. Solebury Township, 671 F.2d 743, 747 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied 456 U.S. 990, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1285, 102 S. Ct. 2270 (1982) (court should only abstain if state matter is a criminal or quasi criminal matter, or if the pending state proceeding involves "the precise claims or issues" before the court in the federal case).
Therefore, because the appeal in front of the Zoning Hearing Board does not provide an adequate forum in which to adjudicate the specific constitutional claims brought in the federal matter, the third prong of the Younger test is not satisfied here, and abstention is thus inappropriate.
For these various reasons, I will allow Barnes to proceed in federal court to obtain relief for its constitutional claims.
In conclusion, in accordance with the above discussion, I find that Barnes has adequately pleaded the § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims and therefore will allow the § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims against the Township
and the Commissioners to proceed. I dismiss the Neighbors from this case due to Noerr-Pennington immunity. Finally, I will not abstain under Younger.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 1996, upon consideration of defendants' Motions to Dismiss and plaintiff's response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, for the reasons stated in the Memorandum accompanying this Order, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. The motions to dismiss the § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims against the Township and the Commissioners are DENIED ;
2. Defendant Neighbors are DISMISSED from this action on grounds of first amendment immunity;
3. The motions to abstain on the basis of Younger abstention doctrine are DENIED ;
4. The motion to strike the punitive damages claim against the Township is GRANTED.
ANITA B. BRODY, J.