Jaraysi v. City of Marietta
| Decision Date | 25 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–2104–AT. |
| Citation | 15 F.Supp.3d 1375 |
| Parties | Waleed JARAYSI, Individual Yasmine's Entertainment Hall and Shadia's Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a/ Jaraysi's Entertainment Hall and Restaurant, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MARIETTA, GEORGIA, Charles C. Clay, and John Does I–XXX, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
A. Forrest Morad, A.F. Morad, P.C., Atlanta, GA, Haytham Faraj, The Law Offices of Haytham Faraj, Dearborn, MI, Nemer N. Hadous, Hadous 1 Co., PLLC, Mesa, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Dana Kristin Maine, Freeman Mathis & Gary, James Monroe Dervin, Atlanta, GA, Daniel Walter White, Douglas R. Haynie, Haynie Litchfield Crane & White, Marietta, GA, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Waleed Jaraysi and his business, Yasmine's Entertainment Hall and Shadia's restaurant, filed suit in this Court in June 2012, alleging a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims, all arising out of Defendant City of Marietta, Georgia's (“Marietta” or the “City”) alleged misconduct involving their zoning applications and ultimate demolition of their property. The Court dismissed this action on the pleadings, holding that Plaintiffs' unsuccessful prior suit brought in the Superior Court of Cobb County (“Cobb County Action”) precluded litigating their claims here. The Court did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' claims.
Marietta now seeks to recover its attorney's fees and expenses as a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Marietta's Motion for Attorney's Fees [Doc. 31].
In 2004, Plaintiff Waleed Jaraysi bought an abandoned Chili's Restaurant in Marietta, Georgia to develop into a banquet and wedding hall (the “Property”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) On or about December 28, 2004, Mr. Jaraysi applied for and was issued a building permit to modify the restaurant shell into a mixed-use development. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs' permit application requested authorization to build an 8,700 square-foot addition to the building. (Id. ) However, Plaintiffs' attached construction plans contemplated a 23,000 square-foot addition, and according to Plaintiffs, the City was aware of the discrepancy upon approval. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs commenced construction in April 2005. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Several months later, Charles C. Clay2 approached Mr. Jaraysi and expressed interest in purchasing the Property. (Id. ¶ 17.) Mr. Jaraysi refused to sell. (Id. ) Shortly thereafter, a series of issues arose among the City, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Jaraysi that Plaintiffs attribute to Mr. Clay's political influence and interference.3 Of note, the City (1) requested additional plans from Plaintiffs, (2) instructed Mr. Jaraysi to apply for a variance related to parking space requirements, which it subsequently denied, and (3) issued a “stop work order” for Mr. Jaraysi's alleged non-compliance with City ordinances. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 24–27, 31.)
In December 2005, Mr. Jaraysi and the City met to discuss completion of the project. (Id. ¶ 33.) According to Plaintiffs, “in an apparent resolution, the City issued Jaraysi[ ] a temporary release of the stop work order.” (Id. ) By December 16, 2005, Mr. Jaraysi had agreed to reduce the size of the building, but two other “minor” issues relating to landscaping and the minimum setback remained. (Id. ¶¶ 34–35.) The City allegedly memorialized this agreement in an internal memorandum. (Id. ¶ 35.)
Despite this agreement, according to Plaintiffs, the City issued a notice to cease and desist from further work in January 2006. (Id. ¶ 33.) The Plaintiffs suggested that the City issued this notice in response to a correspondence from Mr. Clay identifying “defects” in Jaraysi's existing site plan. (Id. ¶ 36.) These defects, however, “regarded matters already resolved between Jaraysi[ ] and the City.” (Id. ) After an unsuccessful meeting with City officials, Jaraysi appealed the notice to cease and desist. (Id. ¶¶ 38–39.) The City denied this appeal. (Id. ¶ 39.)
Plaintiffs then submitted a new permit application in March 2006. (Id. ¶ 40.) Plaintiffs alleged that from this point the City intentionally “prevented the project from moving forward” and “delay[ed] and imped[ed] Jaraysi's progress for nearly two years.” (Id. ¶¶ 40–41.) In particular, in late 2007, the City filed suit to demolish the incomplete structure on Plaintiffs' Property pursuant to the City's nuisance ordinance. (Id. ¶¶ 41–42.) The Marietta Municipal Court issued an Order of Demolition. (Id. ¶ 44.) Jaraysi appealed this decision to the Superior Court of Cobb County, which dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. (Id. ¶ 45.) See Yasmine's Entm't Hall v. City of Marietta, 292 Ga.App. 114, 663 S.E.2d 741, 743 (2008). The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Jaraysi was entitled to appeal the decision to the Superior Court. Yasmine's Entm't Hall, 663 S.E.2d at 743.
On remand, the parties engaged in mediation and eventually signed a settlement agreement. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47–49.) Pursuant to the mediation discussions and formal Settlement Agreement dated February 19, 2009, Mr. Jaraysi agreed (1) to convert his banquet hall project into an office building, and (2) to release his claims and right to sue. (Id. ) In exchange, the City promised to (1) rezone the property to accommodate the office space, and (2) provide Plaintiffs fifteen (15) months to complete construction, thus establishing May 25, 2010 as the deadline for completion. (See City's Answer Ex. B, Doc. 22–2 (“Consent Order”), at 1.)
On February 25, 2009, six days after execution of the Settlement Agreement, the City rezoned Plaintiffs' Property and purportedly issued Mr. Jaraysi a “task list.” (Id.; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50–51.) Plaintiffs assert, without much explanation, that this list effectively ensured that construction of the project would not be completed by the Agreement's May 25, 2010 deadline. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50–51.)
On May 4, 2010, the City moved to enforce the settlement, but offered Plaintiffs a “Consent Order” that would extend Plaintiffs' deadline to complete construction. (Id. ¶¶ 52–54.) The Consent Order provided that Plaintiffs would have to recommence construction by June 25, 2010 and complete construction by November 29, 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 53–54.) Plaintiffs agreed to the Consent Order in open court, and the Cobb County Superior Court signed the Consent Order on May 10, 2010. (Consent Order, Doc. 22–2.)
Plaintiffs failed to secure a building permit, as required, before the June 25, 2010 deadline. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiffs allege, however, that the permit was “unreasonably withheld,” emphasizing that the City denied Mr. Jaraysi's request to meet, ignored his telephone calls, and required him to secure an appointment with a building department official who was not available until after the June 25, 2010 deadline passed. (Id. ¶¶ 56–57.)
Nonetheless, at that point, the City declared its intent to demolish the property, and on July 16, 2010, the City Council appropriated funds to begin demolition. (Id. ¶¶ 58–59.) According to Plaintiffs, the City also issued a press release declaring the property an “eyesore” and announcing its plans to demolish it. (Id. ¶ 60.)
Mr. Jaraysi objected to the demolition to no avail. (Id. ¶ 61.) Thus, on the eve of demolition, July 19, 2010, Mr. Jaraysi filed an Emergency Verified Complaint in the Superior Court of Cobb County (“Cobb County Action”). According to the Verified Complaint, Mr. Jaraysi sought (1) a temporary injunction to prevent demolition, (2) a declaration that the Consent Order was unenforceable, (3) a declaration of Plaintiffs' property rights, and (4) other “just and proper” relief. (Id. ¶¶ 61–62.; City's Answer Ex. C, Doc. 22–3 (“Emergency Verified Compl.”), at 12 and ¶¶ 45, 53.) Among Mr. Jaraysi's legal assertions, he alleged that the City's actions amounted to an “illegal taking ... without authority or compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Emergency Verified Compl. ¶ 45.)
The City counterclaimed to prevent Mr. Jaraysi from interfering with the demolition. (Am. Compl. ¶ 62.) After hearing oral argument, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and issued a second order to enjoin Plaintiffs from interfering with the demolition on July 26, 2010. (Id. ¶ 65.) The Georgia Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the Supreme Court of Georgia denied Plaintiffs' certiorari petition. (Id. ¶ 65.)
On June 19, 2012, two years from the day Plaintiffs initiated the emergency Cobb County Action, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court naming the City and Mr. Clay as Defendants. Mr. Clay filed a Motion to Dismiss, invoking the statute of limitations, arguing that all claims against him were time-barred. (Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 11.) The Court agreed and on December 21, 2012, dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against him. (Dec. 21, 2012 Ord., Doc. 21.)
Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the City, asserted in an Amended Complaint, included: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the City unreasonably withheld the requisite permits to complete construction, brought a meritless nuisance action, and improperly induced Mr. Jaraysi to enter into the Settlement Agreement; (2) a fraudulent misrepresentation claim based on allegations that the City misrepresented its intent to rezone the property;4 (3) a breach of contract claim arising out of the City's alleged refusal to review, reject, or approve all Plaintiffs' project-related documents; and (4) a conspiracy claim premised on the City and Mr. Clay's alleged collusion ultimately resulting in the demolition of Plaintiffs' property.
On December 21, 2012, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 23.) The City argued primarily that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the alternative, the City asserted that (1) Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial