Whether a government's land use decision constitutes a final decision sufficient to render an as-applied regulatory takings claim ripe for federal court litigation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

No question identified. : To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, respectfully requests an extension of time of 42 days to file its Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court up to and including March 20, 2024. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC v. City of South Burlington, No. 23-218, 2023 WL 7383146 *1 (2nd Cir. Nov. 8, 2023) (attached as Exhibit 1). Petitioner 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, did not seek rehearing. This means a Petition is presently due on February 6, 2024. This application for an extension of time is filed more than ten days prior to that date. JURISDICTION This case arises under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, but dismissed the case as unripe. The Second Circuit affirmed. Specifically, this case asks when a government’s decision regarding proposed land use is a final decision such that an as-applied regulatory takings claim is ripe for litigation in federal court. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). REASONS FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Good cause exists for the requested extension. Petitioner’s Counsel of Record, Kathryn Valois, requires extra time to file a Petition in this case due to her workload, which includes representation of many other clients. For example, since the Second Circuit issued its judgment, counsel has filed an opening brief at the Michigan Supreme Court, Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975, and an amicus brief at this Court in Devillier v. Texas, No. 22-913. Counsel also has numerous forthcoming case obligations including filing an opening brief in the Ninth Circuit, Mendelson v. County of San Mateo, No. 23-15494; filing a reply brief in the Superior Court of California for Marin County, Benedetti v. County of Marin, No. CIV 2103128; and filing a reply brief in the Ninth Circuit, Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States, No. 23-35344. Moreover, Counsel has additional professional obligations that require her time. Additional members of Petitioner’s litigation team are also preparing petitions for writs of certiorari due in this Court within the next two months as well as pleadings in lower federal and state courts. This is Petitioner’s first request for an extension of time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that this Court grant an extension of 42 days, up to and including March 20, 2024, within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. DATED: December 4, 2023. Respectfully submitted, fw Dros KATHRYN D. VALOIS Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 4440 PGA Blvd., Suite 307 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 691-5000 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 Email: Counsel for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of this application was served via email and U.S. mail to counsel listed below in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 22.2 and 29.3: Pietro Lynn Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C. 76 St. Paul Street, Suite 400 Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 860-1500 Email: plynn@lynnlawvt.com Attorney for Respondents DATED: December 4, 2023. flew Zoos KATHRYN D. VALOIS Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 4440 PGA Blvd., Suite 307 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 691-5000 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 Email: Counsel for Petitioner EXHIBIT 1 Case 23-218, Document 77-1, 11/08/2023, 3588621, Page1 of 8 23-218 835 Hinesburg Rd., LLC v. City of S. Burlington UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING