Azam v. City of Columbia Heights
| Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14-1044 (JRT/BRT) |
| Parties | HAJI AZAM, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Michael Kemp, MET LAW GROUP, 500 Laurel Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102, for plaintiff.
Ryan M. Zipf and Daniel P. Kurtz, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES, 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103, for defendant.
Plaintiff Haji Azam ("Azam") brings claims against the City of Columbia Heights ("the City") based on the City's policing of his multi-unit apartment buildings and the eventual revocation of his rental licenses. For almost four years, the City pressured Azam to improve his buildings through a number of mechanisms, including mitigation plans, fees, and threats of rental license revocation. Finally, in 2014, the City revoked Azam's rental licenses, forcing him to sell his buildings. Azam alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985, and disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). The City moves for summary judgment on all of Azam's claims.
Azam has failed to produce evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory intent as required to establish a number of his claims. He has also not shown that the City intruded on a constitutionally protected area or an area in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy as required for a Fourth Amendment claim. The City's actions were not truly irrational and did not shock the conscience or offend judicial notions of fairness as required to sustain a substantive due process claim. Finally, even if Azam has established a prima facie case of disparate impact under the FHA, he has not shown a viable alternative to satisfy the City's legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with its health and safety codes. Accordingly, no genuine issues of material fact remain, and the Court will grant the City's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Plaintiff Azam owned1 five residential apartment buildings in Columbia Heights, including a four-unit building on Pierce Street, two seven-unit buildings on Tyler Street, and two eleven-unit buildings on University Avenue, purchased between 1997 and 2004. He set rent at a rate comparable to other units in the area, and he did not know if his units would qualify as "affordable housing." (Id. at 26:25-27:14.) Azam offered month-to-month leases, which allowed either party to terminate the lease with 30 days' notice. (Id. at 103:20-104:24.) Azam's Tyler Street and Pierce Street properties are both located in the Sheffield neighborhood, which has a history of crime and nuisance activity, and generally has more minority andlow-income residents. (Zipf. Aff., Ex. D (Dep. of Captain Lenny Austin ("Austin Dep.")) at 37:1-22, 62:17-63:8; Aff. of Michael Kemp ("Kemp Aff."), Ex. DD, June 5, 2015, Docket No. 26.) Azam's University Avenue properties are located elsewhere in Columbia Heights. (Kemp Aff., Ex. DD.)
Between 2009 and 2014, Azam had many interactions with the City involving his properties, which will be discussed in the following sections. Azam placed his properties on the market in June 2013 because they were causing him too much stress. (Azam Dep. at 64:17-65:15.) He eventually sold all of his properties for less than what he thought was fair value after his first licenses were revoked in March 2014. (Zipf Aff., Ex. C at 17.)
To legally lease a rental unit in Columbia Heights, property owners must obtain the City's permission in the form of a rental license. Columbia Heights City Code §§ 5A.404, .407. The license lasts for one year and is renewable for another year by application. Id. The City issues a license if it finds that the building complies with the Property Maintenance Code ("Property Code"). Id. § 5A.404. The City may revoke or suspend a rental license based on noncompliance with the Property Code after providing notice and a public hearing. Id. § 5A.408(A)-(B). If the City revokes two or more rental licenses held by one owner, he or she becomes ineligible to hold a license in the City for five years. Id. § 5A.408(E).
According to Fire Chief Gary Gorman ("Chief Gorman"), the fire department can inspect the common areas and exterior of a multi-unit dwelling for code violations without an administrative search warrant. (Zipf Aff., Ex. F (Dep. of Gary Gorman ("Gorman Dep.")) at 119:24-120-4.) The fire department enforces the codes through criminal citations, compliance orders, abatement, or a recommendation of license revocation to the City Council. (Id. at 38:16-39:17.) When a property owner fails to remedy a code violation, the City customarily revokes his or her license. (Id. at 39:23-40:4.)
In 2013, there were approximately 8,055 households within Columbia Heights, and the City issued 945 rental licenses. (Zipf Aff., Ex. G at 20.) From 2009 to September 2014, the City Council revoked 113 rental licenses for failure to comply with the City Code. (Id. at 3-13.) Azam's licenses appear to be the only ones revoked based on "[p]ersistent disproportionate number of police calls, criminal activity" and generically titled "housing code violations." (Id. at 3-4.) Aside from Azam and one other owner whose license was revoked for "[f]ailure to pass Building Department inspection," the chart listed the owners' specific violations. (Id. at 13.)
The City Public Health and Safety Code ("Safety Code") provides for a repeat nuisance call fee in order "to prevent and abate repeat service response calls by the city to the same property or location for nuisance service calls" because they "prevent police or public safety services to other residents of the city." Columbia Heights City Code § 8.801. The City may impose a repeat nuisance service call fee if it responds to three ormore nuisance misconduct calls at a property within a year. Id. § 8.804(A). Before imposing a fee, the City must notify the owner of the fee's basis, and the owner may request a hearing in front of the City Council. Id. §§ 8.805, 8.806.
From January 2010 to September 2014, the City issued 57 repeat nuisance service call fees to other property owners, excluding Azam. (Zipf Aff., Ex. G at 13-19.) Comparatively, in 2013, the City issued 21 nuisance service call fees to Azam. (Kemp Aff., Ex. LL.) Police Department Captain Lenny Austin ("Captain Austin") reviews properties that meet the criteria for a nuisance service call fee and issues the notification letter to the property owner. (Austin Dep. at 65:8-66:4.) Sometimes Captain Austin rescinds these fees when owners call and ask. (Id. at 65:10-17.) Azam called Captain Austin to dispute some of his fees and some of them were reversed. (Azam Dep. at 124:9-19, 126:7-16.) Azam knew he could appeal to the City Council to contest his fees, but he never did. (Id. at 126:17-24.)
The City also enters into mitigation plans with rental property owners, through which the City provides recommendations aimed at reducing criminal activity in the rental building. (Austin Dep. at 48:17-49:4.) According to Captain Austin, some owners enter into mitigation plans because they have lost control of their apartment buildings and need police assistance. (Id. at 53:13-21.) Participation in a mitigation plan is voluntary; a landlord is not required to comply with the plan's recommendations. (Id. at 49:22-50:3.) Mitigation plans are an alternative to license revocation, but a landlord's refusal to enter into a mitigation plan does not necessarily result in revocation. (Id. at 57:17-60:5.)Excluding those involving Azam, the City entered into nine other mitigation plans since 2009. (Id. at 56:11-18.) According to Captain Austin, the other property owners continued to be successful after completing their plans. (Id. at 58:15-21.)
The concerns over Azam's properties began in 2009, when the City observed "an inordinate amount of crime and calls for service" at Azam's properties. (Zipf Aff., Ex. J at 1.) On May 23, 2009, Police Chief Scott Nadeau ("Chief Nadeau") emailed Sergeant Matt Markham noting the City's complaints about Azam's properties. (See Kemp Aff., Ex. HH.) Chief Nadeau commented on the "busy night" at one of Azam's Tyler Street properties, stating that it "looks like it continues to be a problem." (Id.) He further stated that Captain Austin was "meeting with the owner . . . to try to get a mitigation plan going there, or [he would] advocate pulling the rental license." (Id.) Finally, Chief Nadeau stated that the City should "start to try and document the insanity on that property and in the neighborhood for when (not if) we try to pull the license," including documenting "crowds, loitering and other activity in the neighborhood." (Id.)
After Chief Nadeau's email, the City entered into mitigation plans with Azam for his Tyler Street properties in 2009 and his University Avenue properties in 2010. (Austin Dep. at 73:24-74:4; Azam Dep. at 128:23-129:6, 131:11-24.) Both of the mitigation plans included similar recommendations aimed to address the frequent police calls at Azam's properties. Azam agreed to: (1) conduct background checks on prospective tenants, (2) establish an action plan for how to prevent criminal activity if renting to a tenant with criminal history, (3) hire an on-site manager to maintain order at thebuildings, (4) personally visit the buildings during weekend evenings for one month, and (5) meet with police officials monthly for six months to discuss mitigation strategies. (Zipf Aff., Ex. L, Ex. M.) The police also agreed to perform a study of the properties and make further recommendations about ways Azam could reduce...
To continue reading
Request your trial