Jemal's Fairfield Farms v. Prince George's Cnty., CIV. RDB 02-2881.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV. RDB 02-2881.,CIV. RDB 02-2881.
• Citation: 319 F.Supp.2d 618
• Parties: JEMAL'S FAIRFIELD FARMS, LLC v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

Page 618

319 F.Supp.2d 618

JEMAL'S FAIRFIELD FARMS, LLC v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al.

No. CIV. RDB 02-2881.

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

March 26, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ward B Coe, III, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Pamela Merlis Conover, Whiteford Taylor and Preston, Baltimore, MD, for Jemal's Fairfield Farms, LLC, Plaintiff.

Crystal Dixon Mittelstaedt, Office of Law for Prince George's County, Jay H Creech, Office of Law for Prince George's County, Leonard L Lucchi, Office of Law for Prince George's County, Steven M Gilbert, Prince Georges County Council, Upper Marlboro, MD, for Prince George's County, Marvin Wilson, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BENNETT, District Judge.

Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The issues have been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.2002). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion in part by declaring unconstitutional a portion of the disputed ordinances, deny the remainder of Plaintiff's Motion, and deny Defendants' Motion in its entirety.

Background

This action involves a constitutional challenge to four Prince George's County Code Zoning Ordinances, which Plaintiff contends were enacted for a retaliatory motive to prohibit it from engaging in certain uses of its property. In the summer of 1998, Plaintiff, Jemal's Fairfield Farms, LLC, outbid Prince George's County and entered a contract for the purchase of a thirty-seven acre parcel of property located on Addison Road in Prince George's County, Maryland, near the border with the District of Columbia (hereinafter, the "Property"). The transaction closed in December 1998. At the time of the purchase, the Property was located in three zones, I-1 (light industrial), I-2 (heavy industrial), and C-O (commercial office).

On May 12, 1998, when the sale of the Property to Plaintiff seemed imminent, Prince George's County Councilman Marvin Wilson proposed bill number CB-75-1998, which would have either prohibited or required a special exception for certain uses in the I-1 or I-2 zone if the federal government or one of its agencies previously held title to the land. Wilson was one of the persons leading the effort to purchase the Property, which was in his district, for the purpose of erecting a school. Among the uses requiring a special exception was a vehicle towing station, one of the uses contemplated by Plaintiff. At a public hearing on the bill on June 8, 1998, Wilson was unable to articulate any basis for regulating only land previously owned by the federal government. The bill was subsequently enacted and revised. In its revised form, the bill required special exception approval for most uses otherwise permitted in the I-1 and I-2 zones on land which was "10 acres or greater in size, located within 300 feet of any residentially-zoned land and land owned by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority." That description pertained exclusively to the Property, because no other land in the County met both requirements as to location.

Following the enactment of CB-75-1998, one use permitted on the Property was public buildings and uses. In 2000, representatives of Plaintiff met with representatives of the District of Columbia Convention Center to negotiate a contract relating to the use of the Property for truck marshalling, the temporary parking of vehicles that transport exhibits to the Convention Center. Such a use of the Property could be considered a public use. On March 21, 2000, Wilson proposed bills CB-20-2000 and CB-21-2000, "due to concerns that a truck marshalling yard may locate in his district and serve a use outside of the County." As enacted on April 11, 2000, CB-20-2000 redefined "public buildings and uses" to exclude "any vehicle or trailer parking, storage, or marshalling use which does not serve a public building or use in the County." CB-21-2000 eliminated the requirement that the parcel be ten acres or greater in size before being subject to the restrictive provisions of CB-75-1998. That ordinance eliminated the loophole that fewer than ten acres of the Property could be used for industrial uses without a special exception. On June 16, 2000, the Council enacted CB-13-2000, which amended the existing definition of "Trucking Operations," a use permissible in the I-1 and I-2 zones, to exclude truck marshalling which serves a use or a property outside the County.

On June 15, 2001, Plaintiff obtained a Building Use and Occupancy Permit to develop and operate a vehicle towing station on a 5.75-acre portion of the Property located in the I-1 and I-2 zones. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission reviewed the permit application and advised the County's Department of Environmental Resources on July 5, 2001 that it had been issued in error. On July 9, 2001, the County notified Plaintiff that the permit had been incorrectly issued and required Plaintiff to seek to have the permit validated by the District Council or to apply for a special exception. On or about August 15, 2001, Plaintiff leased that portion of the Property to the District of Columbia for the impoundment of ticketed and abandoned vehicles that had been towed. The Prince George's County Zoning Hearing Examiner denied Plaintiff's request to have the permit validated.

On August 29, 2002, Plaintiff brought suit in this Court against Prince George's County and Councilman Wilson seeking a permanent injunction restraining the County from enforcing the ordinances, a declaratory judgment finding the ordinances unconstitutional, and monetary damages. Plaintiff amended the Complaint in November 2002 to add the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission as a defendant, but subsequently stipulated to a dismissal of that entity with prejudice. In its current incarnation, the Amended Complaint states two causes of action against the County and Wilson. Count I alleges that the County's enactment of the ordinances burdens interstate commerce in violation of Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution. Count II alleges that the County and Wilson arbitrarily and capriciously targeted the property by proposing and enacting the ordinances, which action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On January 31, 2003, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinances are void and an injunction prohibiting their enforcement. On December 2, 2003, Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is plainly entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that, in considering a motion for summary judgment, "the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Thus, "the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence presented." Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In undertaking this inquiry, a court must view the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), but the opponent must bring forth evidence upon which a reasonable fact finder could rely. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "When the moving party has met its responsibility of identifying the basis for its motion, the non-moving party must come forward with `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" White v. Rockingham Radiologists, Ltd., 820 F.2d 98, 101 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The existence of a mere "scintilla" of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's case is insufficient to preclude an order granting summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

When both parties file motions for summary judgment, the Court applies the same standard of review, but is obligated to "rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, in each case, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard." Towne Mgmt. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 627 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.Md.1985) (quoting Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2720 (2d ed.1993)); ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 45 n. 3 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985). The Court must "evaluate each party's motion on its own merits, taking care ... to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed.Cir.1987). "[B]y the filing of a motion [for summary judgment] a party concedes that no issue of fact exists under the theory he is advancing, but he does not thereby so concede that no issues remain in the event his adversary's theory is adopted." Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Appleman, 380 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir.1967); see also McKenzie v. Sawyer, 684 F.2d 62, 68 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1982) ("neither party waives the right...