FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

42 Pages·2011·0.13 MB·English

Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 42 PageID# 60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

JOHN B. CORR, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:11cv389 (AJT/TRJ)
)
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON )
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendant. )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Thomas J. Cawley (VSB 04612)
Stuart A. Raphael (VSB 30380)
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 1700
McLean, Va. 22102
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[email protected]
[email protected]

Philip G. Sunderland (VSB 25604)
Office of General Counsel
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
1 Aviation Circle
Washington, D.C. 20001-6000
[phone]

May 5, 2011
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 42 PageID# 61
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT....................................................................................................1
STANDARD OF REVIEW............................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................2
A. The Federal Government’s Ownership of Reagan, Dulles, and the Dulles
Corridor Right-of-Way, and Its Lease of the Toll Road Land to Virginia.................2
B. Congress Approves an Interstate Compact by Virginia and the District of
Columbia to Establish the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority..................3
C. Virginia’s Transportation Improvements in the Dulles Corridor and Its
Commitment to Extend Metrorail to Dulles, Relying on Surplus Revenues
from the Toll Road......................................................................................................5
D. MWAA Agrees to Assume Virginia’s Share and to Build Metrorail to
Dulles Using the Same Toll Road Funding Mechanism.............................................8
E. After Favorable Rulings in Gray, Virginia Transfers the Toll Road to
MWAA, and Then MWAA Issues $1 Billion in Bonds and Starts
Construction................................................................................................................9
F. This Court and the Fourth Circuit Reject the Tax Claims Again in
Parkridge..................................................................................................................11
G. The Current Lawsuit.................................................................................................11
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................12
I. THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING..............12
A. Plaintiffs Lack Minimum Article III Standing..........................................................12
1. Plaintiffs’ Injuries Are Not Particularized Because Any Toll Payer Could
Complain.............................................................................................................13
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Causation or Redressability Because They
Cannot Show That An Elected Body Would Set Lower Tolls...........................14
B. The Prudential Standing Doctrine Also Warrants Dismissal....................................15
ii
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 42 PageID# 62
II. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS................................................................................16
A. There Is No Federal Constitutional Right Against “Taxation Without
Representation.”........................................................................................................17
B. A Bivens Claim Cannot Be Asserted Against MWAA.............................................20
III. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION...........................................................................................20
A. Plaintiffs May Not Base Their § 1983 Claim on Violations of Virginia Law..........21
B. The MWAA Compact Preempts Plaintiffs’ Virginia Law Claims...........................21
C. The Tolls Are Not Taxes...........................................................................................24
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND LACHES........................................................................................27
A. All Refund Claims Older Than Two Years Are Time-Barred..................................28
B. Plaintiffs’ Laches Bars Their Request for Injunctive Relief.....................................29
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.....................................................................................................32
LIST OF EXHIBITS.....................................................................................................................33

iii
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 42 PageID# 63
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page

CASES
Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 941 (2000)................................19
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).......................................................................21
Alcorn v. Wolfe, 827 F. Supp. 47 (D.D.C. 1993)..........................................................................22
Almond v. Gilmer, 188 Va. 822, 51 S.E.2d 272 (1949)................................................................26
Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011)..................................12, 13, 15
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).......................................................................................2
Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979).....................................................................................21
Banner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004)..........................................................19
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)....................................................................2
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)....................................20, 28
Breakefield v. District of Columbia, 442 F.2d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1970)..........................................19
Button v. Day, 204 Va. 270, 130 S.E.2d 459 (1963)....................................................................26
Button v. Day, 205 Va. 739, 139 S.E.2d 838 (1965)....................................................................26
Byrd v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125315 (E.D. Va. Nov. 29, 2010).......................20
Campbell v. Hilton Head No. 1 Public Serv. Dist., 580 S.E.2d 137 (S.C. 2003).........................19
Clark v. NCUA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78666 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2009), aff’d, 354 Fed.
Appx. 805 (4th Cir. Dec. 1, 2009)............................................................................................20
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001)......................................................................20
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)...............................................................................21
Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981).........................................................................................21
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332 (2006)..........................................................12, 13
Doe v. Maximus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122286 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2010)..........................19
iv
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 42 PageID# 64
Eagle Harbor, LLC v. Isle of Wight County, 271 Va. 603, 628 S.E.2d 298 (2006)....................25
Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).................................................15, 16
Fairchild Corp. v. MWAA, 50 Va. Cir. 127 (Loudoun 1999).......................................................22
Farquhar v. Bd. of Sup'rs, 196 Va. 54, 82 S.E.2d 577 (1954)......................................................26
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)...........................................................................................20
Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923)........................................................................13, 14
Gray v. Va. Sec’y of Transp., 276 Va. 93, 662 S.E.2d 66 (2008)...................2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 30
Gray v. Va. Sec’y of Transp., CL-07-203 (Richmond Cir. Ct. Oct. 20, 2008).................10, 27, 30
Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114 (1922)........................................................18, 19, 20
Hildebrandt v. Ill. Dep't of Natural Res., 347 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2003).....................................29
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938)...........................22
Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F. Supp. 295 (D.D.C. 1966)..................................................................19
Horton v. West, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3964 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2011)......................................28
Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Pontiac, 887 F.2d 710 (6th Cir. 1989).............................................21
Kloth v. Microsoft Corp., 444 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006)...............................................................29
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)..................................28, 29
Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820)........................................................18, 19
Marshall v. N. Va. Transp. Auth., 275 Va. 419, 657 S.E.2d 71 (2008)........................................24
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819)........................................................17, 18
Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501
U.S. 252 (1991).............................................................................................................2, 3, 5, 23
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)......................................................28
New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998).............................................................................21
Parkridge 6 LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34182 (E.D. Va. Apr.
6, 2010), aff'd, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5777 (4th Cir. Va. Mar. 21, 2011).......................11, 23
v
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 42 PageID# 65
Parkridge 6 LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5777 (4th Cir. Va.
Mar. 21, 2011)....................................................................................................................11, 16
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)..............................................................................................21
Philips v. Pitt County Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009)................................................2
Russell v. County of Nassau, 696 F. Supp. 2d 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)............................................29
Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2003).........................................................................29
Soling v. New York, 804 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)...................................................13, 14, 16
Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Comm., 849 F.2d 1176 (9th Cir. 1988).....................29
Southside Fair Hous. Comm. v. City of New York, 928 F.2d 1336 (2d Cir. 1991).................29, 30
Stephens v. County of Albemarle, 524 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2008)..................................................12
Tidewater Ass’n of Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 241 Va. 114, 400
S.E.2d 523 (1991).....................................................................................................................25
Vereen v. Woodland Hills Sch. Dist., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23075 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24,
2008).........................................................................................................................................29
Virginia v. Achu, 54 Va. Cir. 109 (Loudoun 2000).....................................................................22
West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22 (1951)...............................................................22
Westbrook, Inc. v. Town of Falls Church, 185 Va. 577, 39 S.E.2d 277 (1946)...........................24
White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1990)...............................................................................29
Williams v. Riley, 280 U.S. 78 (1929)...........................................................................................14
STATUTES
1985 D.C. Law 6-67........................................................................................................................4
1985 Va. Acts ch. 598.....................................................................................................................4
1989 Va. Acts ch. 615.....................................................................................................................5
1990 Va. Acts ch. 251...........................................................................................................5, 6, 26
1995 Va. Acts ch. 560...............................................................................................................6, 26
2004 Va. Acts ch. 807...........................................................................................................7, 8, 26
vi
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 42 PageID# 66
49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(13)(A)..........................................................................................................4
49 U.S.C. § 49101...........................................................................................................................4
49 U.S.C. § 49102...........................................................................................................................4
49 U.S.C. § 49103.....................................................................................................................5, 22
49 U.S.C. § 49104.......................................................................................................................4, 8
49 U.S.C. § 49106.....................................................................................................................4, 22
Delaware River Port Authority Compact, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:3-5(j) (1990 & 2011 Supp.).......23
H.J. Res. 165 (Va. 2000).................................................................................................................7
H.J. Res. 200 (Va. 2002).................................................................................................................7
Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-591, Tit. VI, 100 Stat.
3341-376 (1986).........................................................................................................................4
Va. Code Ann. § 5.1-152 (2010)...................................................................................................22
Va. Code Ann. § 5.1-156(A)(8) (2010)........................................................................................22
Va. Code Ann. § 5.1-172 (2010).....................................................................................................4
Va. Code Ann. § 5.1-173 (2010).....................................................................................................4
Va. Code Ann. § 5.1-175 (2010).....................................................................................................4
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A) (Supp. 2010).................................................................................28
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-248 (2007).................................................................................................28
Va. Code Ann. § 33.1-268(2)(n) (Supp. 2010)...................................................................7, 24, 27
Va. Code Ann. § 33.1-269(2) (Supp. 2010)....................................................................................7
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. Am. 5.........................................................................................................................12
U.S. Const. Am. 14.......................................................................................................................12
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2..................................................................................................................12
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4............................................................................................................12, 14
vii
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 42 PageID# 67
U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2..................................................................................................................23
Va. Const. art. I, § 14..............................................................................................................12, 21
Va. Const. art. VII, § 10................................................................................................................26
Va. Const. art. X, § 9....................................................................................................................26
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
H. Doc. No. 23, Tyson's Corner Interim Transportation Improvements (Va. 1999)......................6
H.B. 1650 (Va. 2007)......................................................................................................................9
H.B. 5010 (Va. 2006)......................................................................................................................9
H.B. 5068 (Va. 2006)......................................................................................................................9
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA
1998 Op. Att’y Gen. 91, 1998 Va. AG LEXIS 18..........................................................................6
2004 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 03-121, 2004 Va. AG LEXIS 10............................................................6
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Council of State Governments, Interstate Compacts & Agencies (2003)....................................23
viii
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 9 of 42 PageID# 68
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is the third lawsuit in four years that seeks to prevent using surplus revenues from the
Dulles Toll Road to defray the cost of extending Metrorail to Dulles International Airport.
Represented by the same lawyer here, two citizens who use the Toll Road filed suit in February
2007 against the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(MWAA). They claimed that using Toll Road moneys for Metrorail constituted “taxation without
representation” under the Virginia Constitution and sought to invalidate Virginia’s plans to transfer
control over the Toll Road to MWAA. In October 2008, the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond
rejected their claims, finding that the tolls in question were not “taxes.” Judge Brinkema rejected a
second lawsuit making the same claim in 2010, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing and that the
MWAA Compact preempted any claim for “taxation without representation” under the Virginia
Constitution. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on “prudential standing,” concluding that the
plaintiffs’ grievances were more appropriately directed to the representative branches, not the
judiciary.
In this latest lawsuit seeking to kill Metrorail to Dulles, two things are new. First, Plaintiffs
base their right to “no taxation without representation” on the Federal Constitution, not just
Virginia’s. They add Bivens and § 1983 claims for good measure. Second, Plaintiffs seek to certify
a plaintiff class comprised of everyone who has used the Toll Road since 2005.
Like the two complaints dismissed before it, this one is also fatally defective. The Plaintiffs
lack standing. And even assuming for the sake of argument that the tolls were “taxes” imposed by
an unelected body (a claim rejected by the Richmond Circuit Court), it is well established that the
Federal Constitution provides no enforceable right against “taxation without representation.” That
leaves the same Virginia law claims that were rejected in the two prior cases. They should be
rejected again for the same reasons as before.
Case 1:11-cv-00389-AJT -TRJ Document 7 Filed 05/05/11 Page 10 of 42 PageID# 69
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The trial court under Rule 12(b)(6) may “properly take judicial notice of matters of public
record.” Philips v. Pitt County Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). It may also
consider documents “attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint
and authentic.” Id. Accordingly, the facts set forth below are taken from the Complaint, public
records of which the Court may take judicial notice, and documents referenced in the Complaint.
These are cited as “Ex. __” and attached to the accompanying Declaration of Stuart A. Raphael.
A. The Federal Government’s Ownership of Reagan, Dulles, and the Dulles
Corridor Right-of-Way, and Its Lease of the Toll Road Land to Virginia.
Reagan Washington National Airport (Reagan) and Washington Dulles International Airport
(Dulles) “are the only two major commercial airports owned by the Federal Government.” Metro.
Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 256 (1991)
(CAAN). Congress authorized the Executive Branch to acquire the land for Reagan in 1940. Id.
When Congress later authorized the construction of “a second major airport to serve the
Washington area . . . it again provided for federal ownership and operation,” and Dulles “was
opened in 1962 under the direct control of the [Federal Aviation Administration].” Id.; Gray v. Va.
Sec’y of Transp., 276 Va. 93, 98, 662 S.E.2d 66, 68 (2008) .
To facilitate access to Dulles, the federal government acquired a broad corridor of land
connecting to the airport. A portion of that Dulles Corridor right-of-way was used to build the
“Dulles Airport Access Highway” (the “Access Road”), which “connect[s] the airport to Interstate
2