City of Cambridge v. One Love Hous., LLC

• Decision Date: 28 June 2021
• Docket Number: A20-1313
• Parties: City of Cambridge, Respondent, v. One Love Housing, LLC, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

City of Cambridge, Respondent, v. One Love Housing, LLC, et al., Appellants.

A20-1313

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

June 28, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Affirmed

Reilly, Judge

Isanti County District Court

File No. 30-CV-18-778

Michelle A. Christy, Jessica E. Schwie, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Elizabeth J. Vieira, Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Scott A. Benson, Joseph A. Pull, Briol & Benson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Fabian S. Hoffner, Samuel J. Merritt, The Hoffner Firm, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

David L. Lillehaug, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

REILLY, Judge

In this zoning-enforcement action, appellant-property-owner and appellant-resident argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for respondent-city and by dismissing appellants' counterclaims for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Appellants also argue that the district court erred in its discovery rulings. We affirm.

FACTS

This appeal arises out of a zoning-enforcement action brought by respondent City of Cambridge (the City) against appellant One Love LLC (One Love). One Love and appellant Nate Pearson (Pearson)¹ filed counterclaims against the City for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (the FHA).

On December 19, 2017, One Love bought a five-bedroom, single-family house in the City to operate as a sober house. Pearson lives and works at the house as a house manager. The house is in a zoning district classified as an "R-1" district. The City's zoning code prohibits more than four unrelated people from living together in a house in an R-1 zoning district, although it places no limits on the number of family members who may live together in a single house.

In March 2018, One Love contacted the City's development director, Marcia Westover, seeking information about submitting a request to operate a sober house. At thattime, One Love explained that four residents lived at the house. Westover responded on April 16, 2018, conveying that the City would permit up to six unrelated people to live together as a single housekeeping unit. The City identified this measure as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and the FHA. Westover requested more information from One Love, including "a plan/layout" of the house showing "where the residents and staff will be sleeping," and a parking plan. On April 24, 2018, One Love provided more information to Westover and revealed that it intended to use the house as a residential sober-living house with up to 14 residents. This was the first time One Love notified the City that it intended to request a reasonable accommodation for this number of people.

On May 1, 2018, One Love's attorney sent a letter to the City requesting a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. One Love requested that the City treat the residents as a family by waiving the number of unrelated persons who can reside together and treat the use of the dwelling as a single-family use. The City rejected One Love's request by letter dated May 16, 2018.

On June 20, 2018, One Love's attorney sent a letter to the City attorney stating that it intended to begin providing housing for up to 13 people at the house beginning on July 1, 2018, despite the City's denial of One Love's request. On August 6, 2018, the City responded to One Love's letter. The City reiterated that it was willing to allow up to six people to reside together as a single housekeeping unit. The City asked One Love "to confirm [by August 14, 2018] the residence has no more than six individuals residing at the dwelling and to schedule a time for staff to conduct a site inspection to confirm compliance." The City advised One Love that if it did not contact the office by August 14,"further legal action [would] be pursued." The City scheduled the matter for a hearing before the city council on August 20, 2018, at which time "the City Council will determine if the City will seek legal action."

At the August 20 hearing, the City Council considered whether to allow One Love to have 13 unrelated residents living at the house, but "decided not to allow that." The council ultimately resolved to pursue a zoning-enforcement action against One Love for housing 13 unrelated individuals at the house. During this time, six to eleven people resided at the house.

In September 2018, the City filed an enforcement action in district court seeking declaratory judgment that One Love violated the city ordinance by housing up to 14 individuals in the house. The City also requested a permanent injunction prohibiting One Love from housing more than six unrelated individuals at the house. One Love filed an answer raising defenses and asserting three counterclaims. One Love alleged that the City's partial denial of its request violated the ADA and the FHA because it (1) failed to provide reasonable accommodation, (2) led to disparate treatment, and (3) led to disparate impact. Later, One Love and resident Nate Pearson filed a second amended answer and counterclaim alleging, among other things, that the City violated the FHA by declining to grant the requested accommodation.

The parties cross-moved for dispositive relief. The City moved for summary judgment on its enforcement-action claim and sought dismissal of One Love's counterclaims, seeking relief on standing grounds as well as on the merits. One Love cross-moved for summary judgment asking the district court to dismiss the City's claim and grantrelief to One Love on its counterclaims. The district court granted the City's summary-judgment motion, rejecting the City's standing argument, but determining that it was entitled to summary judgment on the merits. The district court denied One Love's motion. This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. One Love has standing to pursue a discrimination claim.

The City challenges One Love's standing to assert claims under the ADA and the FHA. The district court determined that One Love had standing; the City did not appeal this decision. One Love argues that the City forfeited this issue because it didn't appeal the issue. But while the City did not appeal the district court's standing determination, it did raise standing in its responsive brief to this court. "After an appeal has been filed, respondent may obtain review of a judgment or order entered in the same underlying action that may adversely affect respondent by filing a notice of related appeal." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106. Generally a respondent is barred from presenting issues not raised by a notice of related appeal. Arndt v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 394 N.W.2d 791, 793 (Minn. 1986). Still, a respondent is not required to file a notice of related appeal to preserve an alternative theory on which the judgment may be affirmed. Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347, 781 N.W.2d 321, 332 (Minn. 2010). Here, the district court did not issue a decision adverse to the City. Thus, the City did not need to file a notice of related appeal.

Having determined that the City did not forfeit its argument by failing to file a notice of related appeal, we next turn to the standing issue. Standing is a threshold requirement and parties cannot waive it. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742, 115 S. Ct. 2431,2435 (1995); In re Horton, 668 N.W.2d 208, 212 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting that standing may be raised at any time and cannot be waived). The absence of a party's standing "bars consideration of the claim by the court." In re Custody of D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d 509, 512 (Minn. 2011). We may examine standing at any time. League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 645 n.7 (Minn. 2012); see also Patzner v. Schaefer, 551 N.W.2d 736, 737 (Minn. App. 1996) (noting that appellate courts "are required to address the issue [of standing] even if the courts below have not passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us" (quotation omitted)). We review the question of standing de novo. D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d at 512.

At the summary-judgment hearing, the City argued that One Love lacked standing to raise discrimination claims on behalf of the residents. The district court rejected this argument:

[I]t is evident that One Love has standing as a business organization that provides housing environments for persons suffering from various addictions. Addiction has been recognized [as] a form of mental impairment and disability. Therefore, One Love has standing for this suit under [the ADA and the FHA].

The protections of the ADA and the FHA are not limited to individuals who are themselves handicapped. Instead, the ADA and the FHA also prohibit discrimination against persons "associated with" a buyer or renter with a handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(C) (2020) (providing that it is unlawful "to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision ofservices or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of . . . any person associated with that . . . [resident]").

Other jurisdictions have found standing for operators of sober or recovery houses who assert discrimination claims under the ADA and the FHA.² See, e.g., Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep't, 352 F.3d 565, 574 n.6 (2d Cir. 2003) (stating in context of zoning-related claim under FHA that "it is clear that both [landlord], as owner of the [group home for recovering alcoholics], and [the operating entity], as the parent organization, will incur an injury and have standing in this [ADA and FHA] case"); Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico for Dist. of Arecibo, 988 F.2d 252, 257 n.6 (1st Cir. 1993) (discussing cases); Caron...