This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.
Plaintiffs Grace Land II, LLC and Daybreak Treatment Solutions were associated entities providing outpatient treatment services for people suffering from alcohol and drug addiction disorders. Jonathon Goodman was the sole owner of Grace Land and the majority owner of Daybreak. This case arose from Defendants’ refusal to issue a permit for operation of a medical office for Grace Land and Daybreak. Plaintiffs claimed this refusal resulted in constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
As a preliminary matter, Defendants alleged Plaintiffs laced standing to bring claims under either the ADA or the RA. Specifically, Defendants claimed Plaintiffs’ standing was premised on third-party standing and Plaintiffs failed to allege an existing relationship with any individuals who qualify for relief under the ADA or RA. The court found Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged they were denied the Medical Office Application and Building Permit due to their association with potential clients who are individuals with disabilities. Additionally, Plaintiffs took “concrete steps” toward opening a medical facility to help recovering alcohol and drug addicts by purchasing the property and filing the requisite Medical Office Application and Building Permit. Accordingly, the injury to prospective patients was sufficiently imminent to establish standing in this case.
Defendants next contended that because Plaintiffs failed to plead their § 1983 claims because they could not establish an underlying violation of their constitutional rights. Here, the Amended Complaint alleged Defendants denied Plaintiffs’ Medical Office Application and Building Permit because of their bias against recovering alcohol and drug addicts. The court found Plaintiffs’ allegations of bias and discriminatory animus were even more plausible in light of the Bucks County Court issuing its decision reversing Defendants’ denials of the Medical Office Application and the Building Permit. Taking the allegations as true, the court held the Amended Complaint alleged conduct which shocks the conscience, as Defendants’ conduct was allegedly intended to injure Plaintiffs and was done with a complete lack of a legitimate government interest
As to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, Defendants claimed Plaintiffs failed to identify another medical facility that Defendants treated differently than Plaintiffs. Other than a bank, the Amended Complaint did not identify any similar medical facilities treated differently than Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs failed to allege the threshold requirement being similarly situated to other entities, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 equal protection claim.
The court next found that the ZHB was not entitled to absolute immunity and reserved ruling on whether Zoning Officer Scott was entitled to absolute immunity. In reaching this decision, the court noted while it was possible Scott may be entitled to absolute immunity in his individual capacity, the record was not sufficiently developed to make this determination. However, Defendants’ Motion was granted insofar as the ADA claim seeking damages from the Individual Defendants was dismissed, as the Third Circuit held there was generally no individual liability under the ADA. Lastly, since Plaintiffs were still required to prove that the Individual Defendants violated their substantive due process rights, and defendants could still show their decisions were based on their interpretations of the zoning ordinances, the court held the Individual Defendants could reassert their qualified immunity argument at a later date, if necessary. Accordingly, the court denied the Motion as to Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Grace Land II, LLC v Bristol Township, 2019 WL 4752026 (ED PA 9/30/2019)
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | October 29, 2019
Fed. Dist. In PA Denies Motion to Dismiss as to Allegations of Bias and Discriminatory Animus Against Drugs and Alcohol Addiction Outpatient Treatment Facility
Posted in ADA, Due Process, Immunity
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- animals
- Annexation
- Antitrust
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Building Permit
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Consultants
- Contract Zoning
- COVID
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fourth Amendment
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Inclusionary Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Bonds
- Certiorari
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Estoppel
- Final Decisions
- Findings
- Injunctive Relief
- Intervention
- Judicial Abstention
- Jurisdiction
- Legislative vs Adjudicatory
- Mandamus
- Mootness
- Necessary Parties
- Notice of Decision
- Prior Precedent
- Referral Requirements
- Res Judicata
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- Time of Application Rule
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Split Lots
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Various Uses
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending
Leave a comment