Fourth Circuit Mandate Confirms Appellate Victory for Pillsbury Client in Poppleton Redevelopment Challenge

The decision is a significant result for the developer appellees and Pillsbury, which defeated the plaintiffs’ attempt to recast frustration over the pace and condition of an urban redevelopment project as a federal constitutional takings claim. In a unanimous published opinion, the three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ takings theory failed as a matter of law because they did not allege that any of their own property had been taken. The Court also directed the district court to decline jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining Maryland private nuisance claim and dismiss it without prejudice, leaving no claims pending in federal court against the developer appellees.

The case was brought by Poppleton Now Community Association Inc. and six individual Baltimore residents who own property adjacent to the redevelopment area. They sued La Cité, affiliated developer entities, Baltimore City, city officials, and housing authority defendants over a redevelopment agreement dating back roughly two decades.

The plaintiffs’ complaint focused heavily on delays in the redevelopment of approximately 13.8 acres in Poppleton. According to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, the project faced delays and complications, including litigation between the city and the developer. The parties subsequently amended their development agreement five times in an effort to resolve ongoing issues and move the project forward. The plaintiffs alleged that, despite those efforts, only one apartment complex had been completed by the time suit was filed and that vacant parcels remained in the project area.

Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris said that the district court correctly identified the “fatal flaw” in the takings theory: the plaintiffs did not claim that any of their own property was taken. The plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with redevelopment conditions, alleged diminution in neighboring property values, and objections to the pace of progress were insufficient to state a viable Takings Clause claim against either the developer or the government.

While the Fourth Circuit held that alleged diminution in value was sufficient to establish Article III standing at the pleading stage, it agreed with the appellees that standing does not establish a legally cognizable claim. The Court held that a protected property interest in the property allegedly taken is an essential element of any takings claim, and that the plaintiffs’ status as adjacent property owners was not enough.

That holding is significant for developers, municipalities, housing authorities, and public-private redevelopment participants facing challenges from neighboring property owners or community groups dissatisfied with the pace, condition, or perceived progress of redevelopment projects. The panel made clear that the Takings Clause is not a vehicle for adjacent owners to challenge the acquisition or redevelopment of someone else’s property.

The ruling is especially notable because the Fourth Circuit corrected the district court’s reasoning while preserving the core victory for the appellees. The district court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing, but that their claim failed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6), resulting in a merits-based dismissal of the federal takings theory rather than a jurisdictional dismissal.

The Fourth Circuit also vacated the district court’s merits dismissal of the plaintiffs’ state law private nuisance claim, but not in a manner that revived the claim in federal court. Instead, the panel held that once the federal claims were dismissed at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Maryland nuisance claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The Court said that result was especially appropriate because the nuisance issues implicated important state interests and because there was no substantial Maryland case law applying private nuisance doctrine to analogous claims.

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court separately erred by failing to address a declaratory judgment count. The Fourth Circuit explained that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an independent cause of action and that once the plaintiffs’ substantive claims were dismissed, their request for declaratory relief necessarily failed.

The Fourth Circuit panel consisted of Judges Roger Gregory, Pamela Harris, and Julius Richardson.

The developer appellees are La Cité Development LLC, La Cité LLC, Poppleton Development I LLC, PSH 1B LLC, and Dan Blythewood Jr. They were represented by Pillsbury partner Anthony J. Phillips and associate Jake B. Mitchell, members of the firm’s Business Trials & Litigation practice group. By agreement with counsel for the Baltimore City defendants—who were also named in the underlying lawsuit and challenged on appeal—Mr. Phillips argued before the Fourth Circuit on behalf of all appellees.

The case is Poppleton Now Community Association Inc. et al. v. La Cité Development LLC et al., 175 F.4th 455 (4th Cir. 2026), Case No. 25-1770.