CRC HEALTH GROUP INC et al v. WARREN
ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT - denying 48 Motion to Enforce Settlement. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CRC HEALTH GROUP, INC.
CRC RECOVERY, INC.,
TOWN OF WARREN,
ROBERT EMERY AND VIXEN
CIVIL NO. 2:11-CV-196-DBH
ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
The plaintiffs and intervenors resist the defendant Town of Warren’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement, which would require dismissal of this lawsuit.
After oral argument on September 17, 2012, I conclude that the Town has not
yet satisfied a critical condition of the Settlement Agreement. I therefore DENY
This federal lawsuit started out as a complaint under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) arising out of the plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ unsuccessful
efforts to obtain the necessary permits to open a methadone clinic within the
The parties proceeded to mediation and generated a “settlement
agreement and mutual release of claims” (“Settlement Agreement”). Thereafter,
this court delayed proceedings on several occasions to permit the Settlement
Agreement to be implemented. Now the Town says that it has done all that it
was required to do under the Settlement Agreement and that this underlying
federal lawsuit should be dismissed.
The dispute involves both the meaning of the Settlement Agreement’s
terms and the roles of Town entities. Specifically, the Town argues that the
Planning Board has given its final written approval to the plaintiffs’ new site
application and therefore that the lawsuit must end, the plaintiffs receiving the
cash settlement of $320,000 provided by the Agreement and the liability
releases of the Agreement becoming effective. The plaintiffs disagree, saying
that abutters have appealed the Planning Board’s 3-2 decision to the Town’s
Board of Appeals, and that until that Board makes its decision, there is no final
decision by the Town.
The Settlement Agreement is between the Town, on the one hand, and
the plaintiffs and intervenors, on the other hand. (The plaintiffs sued only the
Town of Warren.)
The document states:
“If the Town approves the [opiate
treatment clinic], the Town agrees to pay [the plaintiff] CRC $320,000 within
thirty (30) days of such final written approval,” Settlement Agreement ¶ 3
(emphasis added) (ECF No. 44-1), and the plaintiffs then are barred from
resuming the lawsuit. The Agreement also states:
The Town shall grant all necessary approvals and
permits at a site other than the Old Brick School [the site
that was first rejected] with reasonable accommodations for
hours of operation . . . and spacing (setbacks) within 90
days of receipt of a complete application from CRC that
complies with the Large Facility Ordinance. The Town will
cap annual review fees at $400, and the nature and format
of annual reviews shall be fair and reasonable.
Settlement Agreement ¶ 10 (ECF No. 44-1).
Although the Settlement
Agreement refers to the Town repeatedly, it mentions the Planning Board only
five times: in the seventh and eighth “Whereas” clauses, it mentions the
intervenors’ earlier application for a site plan review permit (Seventh), and the
Planning Board’s issuance then rescission of the permit (Eighth); in the
thirteenth and final “Whereas” clause, the Agreement states that the plaintiffs
submitted their latest application to the Planning Board during the week of
October 10, 2011, for two alternative opiate treatment clinic locations; and
finally in paragraph 10, following the paragraph partially quoted above, it
If the Planning Board or the Town imposes fees or
conditions that are unacceptable to CRC, then CRC may
request, and the Town will agree, to request that Hon.
Daniel Wathen serve as a mediator to advise the Planning
Board or other relevant Town entity, at the parties’ joint
expense, in resolving the dispute.
Settlement Agreement ¶ 10 (ECF No. 44-1.)
It is undisputed that the Planning Board’s decision is subject to appeal
under both the site plan review provisions of the Town’s zoning ordinance and
under the recently enacted Large Facilities provisions. According to the latter:
The Warren Board of Appeals shall hear and
appeals, on a de-novo basis, where it is alleged
aggrieved party that there is an error in any
requirement, decision, or determination made by, or
to act by the Planning Board in the administration
Warren, Me. Land Use Ordinance § 16.V.3(b) (2012).1
Under these circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that the Town
has not yet provided “final written approval.”2 That will occur only if and when
the Board of Appeals acts favorably. The Board of Appeals acts on behalf of the
Town, just as the Planning Board does.
Until they both have approved the
application, the Town has not acted finally.3 The Town’s lawyer argued that
the Town cannot control the Board of Appeals’ decision. That may be so (the
same can be said of the Planning Board’s decision), but that does not make the
Planning Board’s decision a final Town decision. I recognize that in seeking to
have this court delay proceedings, the plaintiffs recurrently have referred to the
need for the Planning Board’s decision and did not mention the Board of
But that does not amount to a basis for judicial estoppel.
Planning Board’s approval was the event for which all were waiting and, at the
time, no appeals had been taken.
The language of the Settlement Agreement is clear.4 The Town’s “final
written approval” has not yet occurred.5 Thus, there is no basis to grant the
1 The written arguments do not address the applicable standard of review for a site plan review
2 Moreover, it is impossible to know whether the Town will impose “fees or conditions that are
unacceptable to CRC,” Settlement Agreement ¶ 10 (ECF No. 44-1), until after the Board of
Appeals’ action on the appeal.
3 The Maine Superior Court would not review the Planning Board’s decision, but would await
the Board of Appeals’ decision. See, e.g., Cushing v. Smith, 457 A.2d 816 (Me. 1983) (appeal
must be taken to Zoning Board of Appeals before seeking judicial review in Superior Court).
4 The Town argues that the Agreement did not allow enough time for both Planning Board and
Board of Appeals review. Maybe so, but that does not change the clear language of the
5 The Town argues that this interpretation of the Agreement makes it illusory because the
plaintiff itself could appeal the Planning Board’s favorable decision, thereby preventing it from
becoming final. Def.’s Mot. to Enforce Settlement and Incorporated Mem. of Law 5 (ECF No.
(continued next page)
motion to enforce settlement that would result in the termination of the
lawsuit. The motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
48). That is not a persuasive argument. In fact, the plaintiff has not appealed. If it did appeal
a favorable ruling, a court could find that to be contrary to the Agreement, especially since the
Agreement has a specific provision for what to do if the Planning Board or Town imposes fees
or conditions unacceptable to the plaintiffs.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.