With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had been reviewed "extensively and with finality” by the state courts and therefore there was no pending or ongoing state action. Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 192 (3d Cir.2006). Of course, after receiving an unfavorable decision from the state courts on appeal, the Younger doctrine would not bar Plaintiffs from bringing their claims to federal court because there would be no pending state action. Id. 14 . In United Artists, Justice Alito pointed out that the decision to apply the "shocks the conscience” test put the Third Circuit "in line” with other Courts of Appeals that declined to find substantive due process violations in cases involving land-use disputes: See, e.g., Chesterfield Development Corp. v. City of Chesterfield, 963 F.2d 1102, 1104-05 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d

A: holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
B: holding seniorhousing zoning ordinance invalid as applied
C: holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
D: holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law
D.