Niehoff v. The Barnstable Waterways Committee et al

Karl 	Niehoff,
United 	States 	District Court
District 	of Massachusetts
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-10652-NMG
The Barnstable Waterways
Committee 	et 	al,
Defendants.
------------------- )
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
This 	case 	arises 	out 	of 	the 	revocation 	of 	the 	mooring
servicers 	license 	of 	plaintiff 	Karl 	Niehoff , 	doing 	business 	as
AGL 	Mooring 	and 	Dock 	("plaintiff" 	or 	"Niehoff"). 	Plaintiff
contends 	that 	defendants 	Gerard 	T. 	Horn, 	Deputy 	Harbormaster,
the 	Town 	of 	Barnstable, 	the 	Barnstable 	Waterways 	Committee 	and
all 	individual 	members 	of 	that 	committee 	(collectively,
"defendants") 	violated 	his 	due 	process 	rights 	under 	the 	Fifth
and 	Fourteenth 	Amendments 	of 	the 	United 	States 	Constitution.
Fo r 	the 	reasons 	state 	below 	and 	because 	plaintiff ' s
administrative 	appeal 	was 	sufficient 	to 	protect 	his 	right 	to 	due
pr o cess, 	defendants 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	(Docket 	No. 	8) 	will 	be
a l lowed 	and 	the 	case 	will 	be 	remanded 	to 	state 	court 	for 	further
pr oc eedings.
-1-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 7

I . 	Background
A. Facts
The 	Town 	of 	Barnstable, 	Massachusetts, 	has 	created
regulations 	that 	set 	forth 	the 	requirements 	and 	administrative
procedures 	associated 	with 	the 	issuance 	of 	professional 	licenses
to 	mooring 	servicers . 	Niehoff 	has 	been 	a 	licensed mooring
servicer 	in 	Barnstable 	since 	2007 	and 	has 	serviced 	over 	400
moorings .
In August, 	2022 , 	plaintiff 	received 	correspondence 	from
Deputy 	Harbormaster , 	Gerald 	Horn , 	informing 	plaintiff 	that 	his
license 	was 	in 	jeopardy 	of 	non - renewal . 	Horn 	included 	several
allegations 	in 	support 	of 	that 	warning , 	including 	failures 	to
service 	moorings 	properly 	and 	their 	subsequent 	breakages.
Despite 	the 	warning , 	plaintiff ' s 	license 	was 	renewed 	in 	2023 	and
2024 .
On 	October 	8 , 	2024 , 	Niehoff 	received 	a 	second 	letter 	from
Horn 	informing 	him 	that 	the 	Marine 	and 	Environmental 	Affairs
Department 	("MEA") 	had 	decided 	to 	re voke 	plaintiff's 	license
effective 	November 	1, 	202 4, 	and 	that 	his 	customers 	would 	be
notified 	on 	that 	date. 	That 	letter 	contained 	allegations 	of
misconduct , 	including 	failures 	to 	maintain 	lifejackets 	on 	his
service 	boats 	and 	a 	cont inu ed 	pattern 	of 	broken 	moorings.
On 	October 	22 , 	2024 , 	plaintiff ' s 	counsel 	alerted 	Horn 	and
the 	Town 	of 	Barnstable 	Waterways 	Committee 	("the 	Waterways
- 2-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 7

Committee " ) 	of 	plaintiff ' s 	intention 	to 	appeal 	the 	termination
under 	Barnstable 	Code 	§406-18(M) (3) . 	On 	November 	19 , 	2024 , 	the
Waterways 	Committee 	convened 	a 	hearing 	on 	plaintiff ' s 	appeal 	via
videoconference . 	The 	hearing 	was 	continued 	on 	December 	17 ,
2024 , 	after 	which 	the 	Waterways 	Committee 	voted 	to 	uphold 	the
revocation . 	Plaintiff ' s 	customers 	were 	informed 	of 	the
revocation 	the 	following 	day .
B. Procedural 	History
Niehoff 	filed 	his 	complaint , 	which 	contained 	claims 	under
both 	state 	and 	federal 	law , 	in 	Barnstable 	Superior 	Court 	in
February , 	2025 . 	Defendants 	timely 	removed 	the 	case 	to 	federal
court 	in 	March , 	2025 , 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	federal 	question
jurisdiction 	and 	filed 	their 	answer 	to 	the 	complaint 	shortly
after .
In 	May , 	2025, 	the 	Court 	held 	a 	scheduling 	conference 	during
which 	it 	directed 	the 	parties 	to 	brief 	plaintiff ' s 	federa l 	due
process 	claim 	to 	help 	the 	Court 	determine 	whether 	it 	has
jurisdiction 	over 	the 	case . 	Defendants 	filed 	the 	pending 	motion
to 	dismiss 	Count 	II 	(the 	federal 	claim) 	and 	plaintiff 	time l y
opposed .
II. 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss
A. Legal 	Standard
To 	survive 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	pursuant 	to 	Fed . R . Civ . P .
12(b) (6) , 	the 	plaintiff 	must 	state 	a 	claim 	for 	relief 	that 	is
-3-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 7

actionab l e 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law 	and 	plausible 	on 	its 	face.
Ashcroft 	v. 	Iqbal , 	556 	U. S . 	662 , 	678 	(2009). 	A claim 	is
facially 	plausible 	if , 	after 	accepting 	as 	true 	all 	non -
conclusory 	fact u al 	allegations , 	the 	court 	can 	draw 	the
reasonable 	i nference 	that 	the 	defendant 	is 	liable . 	Ocasio -
Hernandez 	v . 	Fortuno-Burset , 	640 	F . 3d 	1 , 	12 	(1st 	Cir. 	20 11 ) .
B. Application
The 	parties 	appear 	to 	disagree 	on 	the 	legal 	theory 	under
which 	plaintiff 	brings 	his 	claims. 	Defendant 	has 	moved 	to
dismiss 	plaintiff 	claim 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	he 	fails 	to 	allege 	a
violation 	of 	his 	substantive 	due 	process 	rights. 	Because 	the
complaint 	is 	more 	fairly 	read 	as 	asserting 	a 	violation 	of 	his
right 	to 	procedural 	due 	process , 	that 	is 	the 	standard 	by 	which
the 	motion 	will 	be 	resolved .
The 	Due 	Process 	Clause 	of 	the 	Fifth 	and 	Fourteenth
Amendments 	to 	the 	Untied 	States 	Constitution 	impose 	constraints
on 	the 	government ' s 	ability 	to 	deprive 	individua l s 	of 	liberty 	or
property. 	Mathews 	v . 	Eldridge, 	424 	U.S . 	319 , 	332 	(1976). 	To
state 	a 	claim 	for 	relief, 	plaintiff 	must 	first 	establish 	the
depri v ation 	of 	a 	protected 	liberty 	or 	property 	interest.
Cleveland 	Bd . 	of 	Educ . 	v . 	Loudermill , 	470 	U.S. 	532 , 	546 	(1985).
Due 	process 	is 	flexible 	and 	calls 	for 	such 	procedural 	protection
as 	is 	warranted 	under 	the 	circumstances 	but 	generally 	requires
n o tice 	and 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be 	heard . 	Mathews, 	424 	U.S. 	of 	334 .
- 4-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 7

. -
In 	determining 	what 	process 	is 	due, 	the 	Court 	must 	balance 	the
public 	and 	private 	interests 	at 	stake, 	the 	r isk 	of 	erroneous
deprivation 	and 	the 	probable 	benefit 	of 	additional 	safeguards.
Id. 	at 	335.
Niehoff 	claims 	he 	has 	a 	constitutionally 	protected 	property
interest 	in 	his 	mooring 	servicers 	license. 	Defendants 	do 	not
address 	that 	claim but 	the 	Court 	will 	assume, 	arguendo, 	that
such 	an 	interest 	exists.
Plaintiff 	contends 	that 	the 	appeal 	process 	afforded 	to 	him
was 	insufficient 	to 	protect 	his 	right 	to 	due 	process. 	Although
he 	alleges 	that 	his 	initial 	notice 	of 	termination 	included 	no
instructions 	on 	appeal 	procedure, 	it 	is 	clear 	from 	the 	record
that 	plaintiff 	was 	afforded 	two 	hearings 	before 	the 	Waterways
Committee. 	Those 	proceedings 	were 	held 	before 	the 	revocation 	of
his 	license 	became 	effective.
The 	Court 	concludes 	that 	such 	procedures 	were 	sufficient 	to
meet 	the 	requirements 	of 	due 	process. 	While 	plaintiff 	clearly
has 	a 	strong 	interest 	in 	maintaining 	his 	professional 	license,
the 	government 	has 	an 	equal , 	if 	not 	greater, 	interest 	in
maintain ing 	the 	integrity 	of 	the 	public 	harbor. 	The 	risk 	of
erroneous 	deprivation 	throughout 	those 	proceedings 	was 	low
because 	plaintiff 	was 	given 	two 	separate 	opportunities 	to
confront 	the 	case 	against 	him 	and 	to 	offer 	a 	defense. 	Finally,
because 	plaintiff 	was 	afforded 	the 	opportunity 	to 	challenge 	the
- 5-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 7

....
revocation 	in 	a 	Town 	Committee , 	before 	any 	adverse 	action 	was
taken , 	it 	is 	unclear 	what 	benefit 	additional 	procedural
safeguards 	would 	have 	provided . 	Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	state 	a
claim on 	which 	relief 	can 	be 	granted 	and 	defendants ' 	motion 	to
dismiss 	Count 	II 	will 	therefore 	be 	allowed.
III. 	Remand 	to 	State 	Court
In 	dismissing 	plaintiff ' s 	sole 	federal 	law 	claim , 	the 	Court
must 	proceed 	to 	determine 	whether 	to 	remand 	this 	case 	to 	state
court 	for 	further 	proceedings . 	The 	Court 	may 	decline 	to
exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction when 	it 	has 	dismissed 	all
claims 	over 	which 	it 	has 	original 	jurisdiction. 	28 	U.S . C .
§1367 (c) (3) . 	Indeed , 	other 	sessions 	of 	this 	District 	Court 	have
found 	that 	dismissal 	of 	state 	law 	claims 	un der 	such
circumstances 	is 	required . 	See , 	e.g ., 	Connolly 	v . 	Dep ' t 	of
Conserv3tion 	& Recreation , 	768 	F. 	Supp . 	3d 	214 , 	221 	(D . 	Mass .
2025) . 	This 	Court 	will 	instead 	remand 	the 	case 	to 	the 	state
court 	from 	which 	it 	originated .
-6-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 7

ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons , 	defendants' 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	the
complaint 	in 	part 	is 	GRANTED 	and 	Count 	II 	is 	DISMISSED . 	The
case 	is 	hereby 	REMANDED 	to 	state 	court 	for 	further 	proceedings .
So 	ordered.
Dated : 	December 2? , 	2025
Nathaniel 	M. Got 	on
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
\
-7-
Case 1:25-cv-10652-NMG Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 7