Brockton Fire Dep't v. St. Mary Broad St., LLC
| Decision Date | 13 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13216-RGS |
| Citation | 181 F.Supp.3d 155 |
| Parties | Brockton Fire Department and Edward Williams v. St. Mary Broad Street, LLC and Brian Bernenberg. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Karen A. Fisher, Katherine M. Feodoroff, City of Brockton Law Department, Brockton, MA, for Brockton Fire Department and Edward Williams.
Andrew J. Tine, Law Offices of Andrew J. Tine, Bristol, RI, for St. Mary Broad Street, LLC and Brian Bernenberg.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
After a kitchen fire at a sober house on Copeland Street in Brockton, Massachusetts, the Brockton Fire Department, through Lieutenant Edward Williams, brought an action in the Brockton Housing Court seeking to enforce the State Sprinkler Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 148, § 26H, against the operators of the home, defendants St. Mary Broad Street, LLC and Brian Bernenberg. Defendants removed the case to the federal district court on federal question grounds, citing the Federal Housing Act (FHA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. In July of 2015, the court stayed a decision, without objection from the parties, given then-pending legislation amending the Sprinkler Law.1 See Dkt. Nos. 28, 29. The Legislature, however, did not act on the proposed amendment. Consequently, the court will therefore turn to a decision on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
It is undisputed that more than six unrelated persons reside at the Copeland Street house, that the home is not licensed by the State, and that the City of Brockton has accepted the provisions of Section 26H in 1988.
The Sprinkler Law is unquestionably a "health and safety law." On its face, as plaintiffs concede, the Sprinkler Law could not compel the installation of an automatic sprinkler system2 in a home occupied by a family of six or more related persons, or in group homes such as student dormitories and fraternity houses that are expressly exempted by the law. Plaintiffs also do not contest that the recovering alcoholics and drug addicts hosted by the sober home qualify as "disabled persons" under the MZA. See S. Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham , 752 F.Supp.2d 85, 95 (D.Mass.2010) (SMOC ) () (citation omitted); Granada House, Inc. v. City of Boston , 1997 WL 106688, at *9 (Mass.Super. Feb. 28, 1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crossing Over, Inc. v. City of Fitchburg
...for disabled people -- such as those at the sober home -- from G. L. c. 148, § 26H. See, e.g., Brockton Fire Dep't v. St. Mary Broad St., LLC, 181 F. Supp. 3d 155, 156-157 (D. Mass. 2016).7 After an evidentiary hearing, the board affirmed the decision of the fire department, stating that "[......
-
Vanderburgh House, LLC v. City of Worcester
...to every city or town, including, but not limited to the city of Boston and the city of Cambridge. Brockton Fire Dept. v. St. Mary Broad St., LLC , 181 F. Supp. 3d 155, 156–57 (D. Mass. 2016). The MZA only "limits the authority of cities and towns to adopt certain laws," and it "does not ap......
-
Summers v. City of Fitchburg
...the Massachusetts Zoning Act ("MZA"), Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A. See D. 31 at 14-15 (citing Brockton Fire Dep't v. St. Mary Broad St., LLC, 181 F.Supp.3d 155, 156-57 (D. Mass. 2016) ("Brockton Fire") ). Leaving aside the gravamen of Defendants' arguments concerning disagreement with the analysis......
-
Mannai Home, LLC v. City of Fall River & Joseph Biszko
...recovering from drug and alcohol abuse may be considered "disabled" for purposes of Section 3. Brockton Fire Dep't v. St. Mary Broad St., LLC, 181 F. Supp. 3d 155, 157 (D. Mass. 2016) (collecting cases). Plaintiff contends that Section 3 requires that unrelated disabled individuals must be ......