Francisco Serna and Ajhalei Snoddy v. City of Colorado Springs, et al.

Case Number: 23-CV-00728

Judge: DDD

Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Colorado Springs Real Property Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Colorado Springs City Attorney's Office

Description: Denver, Colorado real property lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a eminent domain theory claiming that the public works project for which the City took their property was federally funded, and they were therefore entitled to certain protections under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (“URA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601-4655. They also asserted claims under the the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and the District Court granted the motion.

“Younger provides that a federal court must abstain from deciding a case
otherwise within the scope of its jurisdiction in certain instances in which the prospect of
undue interference with state proceedings counsels against federal relief.” Travelers
Cas. Ins. Co. v. A-Quality Auto Sales, Inc., 98 F.4th 1307, 1317 (10th Cir. 2024) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Abstention is required when three conditions are satisfied:
“(1) there is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, (2) the state
court provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and
(3) the state proceedings involve important state interests.” Winn v. Cook, 945 F.3d
1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: