Lincoln Rock, LLC v. City of Tampa
Filing
14
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 6 is denied. Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 7/22/2015. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LINCOLN ROCK, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:15-cv-1374-T-30JSS
CITY OF TAMPA, a Florida
municipal corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
6) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 13). Upon review and consideration, the
Court denies the motion to dismiss because it is frivolous.
Plaintiff’s complaint clearly states a claim under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”)
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff Lincoln Rock, LLC alleges
with detailed facts Defendant City of Tampa’s actions of denying Lincoln Rock a special
use permit to provide housing to recovering drug and alcohol addicts based on pressure
from City of Tampa residents concerned about living near recovering addicts. These facts
include but are not limited to the following: (1) Lincoln Rock satisfied all of the zoning
and land use requirements for the requested special use permit; (2) professional staff hired
by the City of Tampa to evaluate special use permits concluded that the special use permit
should have been approved; (3) the Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the
requested special use permit should have been approved; (4) the City Council did not
deny the special use permit application because of land use reasons; (5) instead, the City
Council, in denying the special use permit, gave in to and implemented the discriminatory
animus of local residents. The Complaint alleges concerted neighborhood opposition and
references examples of discriminatory statements that were made from neighbors and
members of the City Council.
These allegations, taken as true, state a claim of
discrimination under the FHA and the ADA.
As Lincoln Rock points out in its response, the City of Tampa’s arguments with
respect to failure to state a claim and standing demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the
relevant case law. Lincoln Rock, a residential treatment facility, is covered under the
FHA and the ADA. See, e.g., Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th
Cir. 2008); Palm Partners, LLC v. City of Oakland Park, Case No. 1:14-cv-21242-KMM,
2015 WL 1968799 (S.D. Fla. April 30, 2015). And Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts
demonstrating that unlawful discrimination motivated the City of Tampa’s decision to
deny the special use permit. See Palm Partners, LLC, 2015 WL 1968799, at *7 (“A
plaintiff may demonstrate intentional discrimination if the ‘decision-making body acted
for the sole purpose of effectuating the desires of private citizens, that [discriminatory]
considerations were a motivating factor behind those desires, and that members of the
decision-making body were aware of the motivations of the private citizens.’”) (quoting
Hallmark Developers, Inc. v. Fulton Cnty., Ga., 466 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
Lincoln Rock also has standing under the FHA and the ADA as a residential
treatment facility that was denied the opportunity to provide housing to disabled
residents. These types of cases are often brought by a provider of housing on behalf of
the residents it seeks to house. Moreover, Lincoln Rock is suing for injuries it directly
sustained as a result of the City of Tampa’s discrimination. The City of Tampa’s general
standing arguments ignore a wealth of factually similar cases on this issue and are without
merit. See, e.g., Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1212; McCullum v. Orlando Regl. Healthcare Sys.,
Inc., 768 F.3d 1135, 1142 (11th Cir. 2014); A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty.,
MD, 515 F.3d 356, 364 (4th Cir. 2008); Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of
Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 406-07 (3d Cir. 2005); MX Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington, 293
F.3d 326, 334-35 (6th Cir. 2002).
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is denied.
2.
Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint within fourteen (14) days of
this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 22, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2015\15-cv-1374.mtdismiss-6-deny.wpd
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?