Dean v. Martinez

336 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Md. 2004).
Summary:

(Upland Apts., Baltimore, MD)

Challenge to HUD's proposal to foreclose on 980-unit largely vacant HUD-subsidized property (approx. 50% project-based Section 8) on large site and acquire title for re-transfer to City as part of mixed-income redevelopment plan that includes no project-based Section 8. Defendants were both HUD and the City. Claims included alleged procedural and substantive violations of property disposition statute, URA and relocation regulations, fair housing laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. Court ruled that HUD violated property disposition statute and remanded decision to HUD.

Plaintiffs' Opposition to HUD's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (May 13, 2005) (PDF)

I. HUD did not reconsider its disposition of the property following court's determination that HUD had failed to meet MHPDA requirement:

* No analysis to support HUD's choice of affordability requirements.
* HUD does not address effect on racial composition of other neighborhoods.
* HUD does not weigh cost against other statutory obligations.
* Record does not support contention that HUD's plan is consistent with National Housing Act goals to remedy housing shortage and provide decent housing to low-income people.

II. HUD has failed to provide MHPDA-required forms of support to displaced tenants.

III. Flexible authority does not preclude judicial review of HUD's actions:

* Mays and Guity are distinguishable.
* HUD regulations recognize Disposition Act obligations.

IV. HUD's permanent displacement of residents to high minority concentration neighborhoods violates Fair Housing Act; HUD's Fair Housing obligations exceed the metes and bounds of the Upland property.

Plaintiffs' Reply to Def's Motion to Dismiss (May 28, 2003) (PDF)

I. The Flexible Authority Statute Does Not Repeal the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Act:

* The Rules of Statutory Construction Disfavor Finding Repeal by Implication.
* Presumption Against Repeal by Implication Applies to Statutes Containing the Phrase "Notwithstanding Any Other Provision of Law."
* HUD’s Interpretation of the Flexible Authority Statute Creates Agency Decision-Making Authority that is Inherently Arbitrary.

II. HUD’s Actions Are Subject to Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act:

* To Determine Whether Consistent with the Objectives of the National Housing Act; and
* To Determine Compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

HUD's memorandum in support of motion to dismiss (PDF)

I. Multifamily Property Disposition Reform Act goals served by HUD action:

* Preserving affordable housing for low-income persons
* Revitalizing residential neighborhoods
* Maintaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing stock
* Minimizing involuntary displacement Of tenants
* Maintaining rental housing, cooperative housing, And home-ownership opportunities for low-income persons
* Minimizing the need to demolish multifamily housing projects
* Supporting fair housing
* Disposing of projects in a manner consistent with local housing market conditions

II. Disposition Act:

* "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

III. Fair Housing Act:

* On rational connection standard, HUD determination that a new, rebuilt, open and integrated Uplands would further fair housing strategies was not arbitrary and capricious.

HUD's Motion to Dismiss -- table of contents (PDF)

Memorandum Decision on Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Sept. 21. 2004), 336 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Md. 2004) (PDF)

Court finds that HUD's disposition decision violates the federal property disposition statute by failing to consider its goals, setting it aside and remanding to HUD for a new decision. Court refuses to dismiss plaintifs' fair housing claims. Court also finds that HUD did not violate procedural requirements of federal dispoistion statute, nor requirements of the URA.

Plaintiffs' Opposition to HUD's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Reply to HUD's Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend (PDF)

Plaintiffs' Opposition of City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (PDF)

HUD's Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (PDF)

Plaintiffs' Reply to HUD's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (PDF)

HUD's Memo in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (PDF)

Argues that plaintiffs' URA, disposition, and fair housing claims are not justiciable and also lack merit.

Plaintiffs' Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (PDF)

Arguments supporting claims that HUD's proposed disposition has violated URA, federal property disposition statute and fair housing laws.

Plaintiffs' Memo in Support of Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PDF)

After HUD agreed to halt relocation of plaintiffs pending the decision on the PI, tenants filed motion to halt foreclosure sale based upon HUD's alleged violations of the property disposition statute and fair housing laws.

Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PDF)

Seeks preliminary relief to block foreclosure sale.

Amended Complaint (PDF)

Complaint alleges violations of URA and relocation regulations, property disposition statute (12 USC sec. 1701z-11), leases, fair housing law, and Section 504.