Thread: Small victory for Farmers Branch.

Originally Posted by stillfree

Judge Lindsay ruled that the plantiffs are not entitled to receive any
monetary damages. This is great news.

Great news indeed!!!

stillfree wrote:

Small victory for Farmers Branch

I'd call it a huge victory!

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by stillfree

Email I received.

You are all well aware that the City of Farmers Branch has been
invovled in several lawsuits relating to the passage of Ordinance
2903. There are multiple plantiffs, including the owners of the
Villas at Parkside apartments. This plantiff was seeking monetary
damages, claiming that the talk of the ordinance was driving potential
residents away and hurting the business. During last May's election,
the opposition to Ordinance 2903 (and the lawyers at Bickel and
Brewer) boasted long and loud that this ordinance would cost the city
millions of dollars in legal fees and damages. Well, yesterday, Judge
Lindsay ruled that the plantiffs are not entitled to receive any
monetary damages. This is great news.

I will have more info about this on my blog shortly.

Have a great week!

Tim Scott
http://hometownfarmersbranch.blogspot.com

If you find an article, can you email it to Mayor Lou Barletta in Hazleton, PA?? As they are trying to get THOUSANDS of dolllars from Hazleton, and I don't think tht the judge ruled on this yet.

OK. Finally found an article at
http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_new ... 55378.html

Judge rejects apartment owners' claims
By PATRICK McGEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

A federal judge has dismissed apartment owners' claims for compensatory damages in a high-profile lawsuit against Farmers Branch over its ban on renting apartments to illegal immigrants.

In a decision issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay dismissed the claims made by owners of Villas at Parkside, Lakeview at Parkside and Chateau de Ville apartment complexes.

The apartment complexes are among several groups suing Farmers Branch over an ordinance that bans illegal immigrants from renting apartments in the city.

The ordinance, however, has not gone into effect because Lindsay issued a temporary restraining order in June, delaying its implementation.

Lindsay wrote that the restraining order "precludes [the apartments] from claiming compensatory damages."

"Farmers Branch has not caused any damage to plaintiffs because the ordinance never went into effect," Lindsay wrote.

The apartment complex owners say apartment occupancy in Farmers Branch went down 10 percent shortly after the rental ban was proposed.

City Councilman Tim O'Hare, who proposed the rental ban, said Lindsay's decision was encouraging.

"This is a positive step for Farmers Branch every way you look at it," he said. "This is a battle that we have won, and I think it's the right decision."

The attorney for the apartment complexes, Bill Brewer, said he will press on with the case.

"We're disappointed, but we knew it was a close issue," Brewer said. "We respectfully disagree. We'll just move forward now."

A date has not been set for Lindsay's decision on whether to uphold the ordinance.
pmcgee@star-telegram.com
PATRICK McGEE, 817-685-3806



The court decision is available in PDF format here http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/chDocs/p ... 3-0006.pdf but I also converted it to text:


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
VILLAS AT PARKSIDE PARTNERS
d/b/a VILLAS AT PARKSIDE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH,

Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-2371-L
(consolidated with CA No. 3:06-CV-2376-L
and CA No. 3:07-CV-0061-L)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court are: (1) Defendant City of Farmers Branch's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss [Villas Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint], filed March 28, 2007; and (2)

Defendant City of Farmers Branch, Texas' Motion to Dismiss [Vasquez Plaintiffs' First Amended

Complaint] for Plaintiffs' Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed

April 13, 2007. After careful consideration of the motions, responses, replies, record, and applicable

law, the court denies without prejudice Defendant City of Farmers Branch's Rule 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Villas Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint], and denies without

prejudice Defendant City of Farmers Branch, Texas' Motion to Dismiss [Vasquez Plaintiffs' First

AmendedComplaint] forPlaintiffs' Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
I.
Procedural and Factual Background

This case concerns Farmers Branch Ordinance 2903 (the "Ordinance"), and a detailed
factual history may be found in the court's memorandum opinion and order granting temporary

restraining order, entered May 21, 2007, and memorandum opinion and order granting preliminary
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 2 of 9
injunction, entered June 19, 2007. The court incorporates its earlier orders insofar as the factual

background of the Ordinance and procedural history of this case are described.

Before the court are the city of Farmers Branch's motions to dismiss the complaints of the

Villas Plaintiffs and the Vasquez Plaintiffs. A third group of plaintiffs, the Barrientos Plaintiffs, was

dismissed for lack of standing on June 1, 2007. The city argues that the remaining Plaintiffs lack

standing, that their claims are moot, and that Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief

can be granted.

II. Legal Standards

A. Rule 12(b)(1) - Dismissal for Lack of Standing

"Article III of the Constitution confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual 'cases' and

'controversies'." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). Because the question of standing

implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction, that is, the court's statutory or constitutional power

to adjudicate a claim or dispute, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't., 523 U.S. 83, 89 (199;

Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, the court applies the standards for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1).

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases "arising under" the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States, or in cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000,

exclusive of interest and costs, and diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must have statutory or

constitutional power to adjudicate a claim. See Home Builders Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Madison, 143

F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 199. Absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, they

lack the power to adjudicate claims and must dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 3 of 9
lacking. Id.; Stockman v. Federal Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 199 (citing

Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994)). A federal court has an

independent duty, at any level of the proceedings, to determine whether it properly has subject

matter jurisdiction over a case. See Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)

("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the

highest level."); McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) ("federal court may

raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte").

In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, "a

court may evaluate (1) the complaint alone, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts

evidenced in the record, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's

resolution of disputed facts." Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 (2002); see also Ynclan v. Dep't of Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388,

1390 (5th Cir. 1991). Thus, unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the

district court is entitled to consider disputed facts as well as undisputed facts in the record. See Clark

v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 1986). All factual allegations of the complaint,

however, must be accepted as true. Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As, 241 F.3d at 424.

B. Rule 12(b)(6) - Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "is viewed with

disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowrey v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997).

A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 4 of 9
(1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Stated another way, "[a]

court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 514

(2002) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In ruling

on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Id.; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d

772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1229 (2000). The pleadings include the complaint

and any documents attached to it. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99

(5th Cir. 2000). Likewise, "'[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are

considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to

[the plaintiff's] claims.'" Id. (quoting Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d

429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)).

The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid cause

of action when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved

in favor of the plaintiff. Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247. A court, however, is not to strain to find

inferences favorable to the plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted

deductions or legal conclusions. R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005)

(citations omitted). The court does not evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success; instead, it only

determines whether the plaintiff has a legally cognizable claim. United States ex rel. Riley v. St.

Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2004).
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 5 of 9
III.
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss

A. Villas Plaintiffs
The city has moved to dismiss the Villas Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, arguing

that the Villas Plaintiffs' claims are moot, that they lack standing, that their complaint fails to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the city is immune from Plaintiffs' claims under

the Texas Local Government Code. The Villas Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint

on March 9, 2007, after the adoption of the Ordinance by the Farmers Branch City Council but

before the May 12, 2007 referendum election.

1. Mootness

The city's argument that the Villas Plaintiffs' claims are moot is based upon Plaintiffs'

complaint being filed prior to the May 12, 2007 election. The voters' approval of the Ordinance has

removedanyargumentthatPlaintiffs' claims are hypothetical. The city would have begun enforcing

the Ordinance on May 22, 2007 had the court denied the applications for temporary restraining order

on May 21, 2007. Accordingly, the court determines that Plaintiffs' claims are not moot.

2. Standing

To have standing, Plaintiffs must show that they "have suffered an injury in fact- an invasion

of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent,

not conjectural or hypothetical." Cole v. General Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 722 (5th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Defendant argues that the Villas

Plaintiffs cannot establish an injury or causation.

The Villas Plaintiffs are three Texas partnerships that own and operate apartment complexes

in Farmers Branch. Villas Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-3. As property owners and managers, Plaintiffs
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 5

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 6 of 9
are subject to the criminal sanctions of the Ordinance. Id. ¶ 42. The court has already determined

that the Villas Plaintiffs faced irreparable injury from the enforcement and effective date of the

Ordinance. Thus, the Villas Plaintiffs satisfy the "injury" requirement.

Plaintiffs must draw "the line of causation between [defendant's] actions and [plaintiffs']

injury." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 509 (1975). The Villas Plaintiffs have alleged that the

Ordinance will impede their ability to lease their apartments and will subject them to fines and

criminal penalties for their failure to comply. Villas Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 42. Because their

threatened injury is a direct consequence of the Ordinance, they have drawn a line between

Defendant's actions and their threatened injury sufficient to confer standing. Accordingly, the Villas

Plaintiffs' rights are directly affected by the Ordinance, and they have standing to bring claims based

upon the threatened enforcement of the Ordinance. County Court of Ulster County, New York v.

Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154-155 (1979).

3. Failure to State a Claim

DefendantarguesthattheVillasPlaintiffs'SecondAmend edComplaint should be dismissed

for failure to state a claim because the Ordinance was not in effect when Plaintiffs filed their

complaint and Plaintiffs therefore could not sustain any damages. Because the referendum election

has occurred and the Ordinance has been approved by the voters of Farmers Branch, the court finds

that this argument is moot. Any argument that Plaintiffs have failed to allege damages has also been

addressed by the court in its orders granting the applications for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction finding that the Villas Plaintiffs have established the threat of irreparable

harm.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 6

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 7 of 9
4.
Immunity for Texas Local Government Code Claim
Finally, Defendant argues that the Villas Plaintiffs' claim under section 214.903 of the Texas

Local Government Code should be dismissed. Plaintiffs allege that the Ordinance violates section

214.903, which provides: "The governing body of a municipality may adopt fair housing

ordinances that provide fair housing rights, compliance duties, and remedies that are substantially

equivalent to those granted under federal law." Tex. Loc. Govt. Code § 214.903. Plaintiffs contend

that the Ordinance goes beyond federal fair housing law by requiring proof of citizenship or

immigration status, and seek a declaration that the Ordinance is invalid and preliminary and

permanent injunction of its enforcement. Villas Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 75. Defendant argues that it has

sovereign immunity as to this claim.

Because Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on this count, the doctrine of

governmental immunity is not implicated, as held by an appellate court in one of the cases cited by

the city. Fort Bend County v. Martin-Simon, 177 S.W.3d 479, 484 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.]

2005, no pet.) ("[T]he Texas Supreme Court has noted that certain declaratory judgment actions do

not implicate the doctrine of governmental immunity. . . . The governmental immunity doctrine is

not implicated in such actions because they do not attempt to subject the State to liability.").

Because the Villas Plaintiffs only seek declaratory and injunctive relief, this claim is not barred by

sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice Defendant's motion to

dismiss the Villas Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 7

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 8 of 9
B.
Vasquez Plaintiffs
The city also has moved to dismiss the Vasquez Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint,

arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing and that they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted. This motion to dismiss was filed before the May 12, 2007 referendum election.

1. Standing

The Vasquez Plaintiffs include both apartment tenants in FarmersBranchandtheownersand

property managers of apartment complexes in Farmers Branch. Vasquez First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-21.

The landlord plaintiffs allege that they are subject to criminal conviction and civil sanctions for their

failure to comply with the Ordinance, and that the Ordinance will cause them to lose substantial

business. Id. ¶¶ 19- 21. The tenant Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who live

with family members who are neither U.S. citizens nor resident aliens. Id. ¶¶ 7-15. They allege that

the Ordinance will cause them irreparable harm by causing them to lose their homes and to separate

from family members. Id. ¶ 15. The court has already determined that the Vasquez Plaintiffs faced

irreparable injury from the enforcement and effective date of the Ordinance. Thus, the Villas

Plaintiffs have satisfactorily pleaded an "injury." The causation requirement is also satisfied

because the pleaded injuries would be caused directly by the enforcement of the Ordinance.

Accordingly, the court determines that the Vasquez Plaintiffs have standing.

2. Failure to State a Claim

The city also moves to dismiss each of the Vasquez Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. The court, based upon the rulings already made in this case,

denies the motion as to Plaintiffs' claims under the Supremacy Clause and the Due Process Clause.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 8

Case 3:06-cv-02371
Document 110
Filed 06/26/2007
Page 9 of 9
Because the Ordinance has been preliminarily enjoined, the court denies without prejudice the

remainder of the city's motion.
IV.
Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, the court denieswithoutprejudice Defendant City of Farmers
Branch's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Villas Plaintiffs' Second Amended

Complaint], and denies without prejudice Defendant City of Farmers Branch, Texas' Motion to

Dismiss [Vasquez Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint] for Plaintiffs' Failure to State a Claim and

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

It is so ordered this 26 th day of June, 2007.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

This is great news!!!!!!!!!!

Dixie