Langley v. Monumental Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 August 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. N-79-2144.
• Citation: 496 F. Supp. 1144
• Parties: Thomas C. LANGLEY, Sr. and Alberta Langley and Thomas C. Langley, Jr., by his Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley and Kathy Ann Langley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley and Patricia H. Langley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley v. MONUMENTAL CORPORATION and Prince George's County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

496 F. Supp. 1144

Thomas C. LANGLEY, Sr. and Alberta Langley and Thomas C. Langley, Jr., by his Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley and Kathy Ann Langley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley and Patricia H. Langley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Alberta Langley v. MONUMENTAL CORPORATION and Prince George's County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic.

Civ. A. No. N-79-2144.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

August 25, 1980.

Fred R. Joseph, Burt M. Kahn, and Shelly E. Mintz, Hyattsville, Md., for plaintiffs.

Joseph M. Roulhac and Michael W. Lower, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Monumental Corp.

David S. Bliden, Associate County Atty. for Prince George's County, Maryland, Upper Marlboro, Md., for defendant Prince George's County, Maryland.

NORTHROP, Chief Judge.

This case is presently before the Court on the motions to dismiss of defendants Monumental Corporation (Monumental) and Prince George's County, Maryland (the County). Monumental is a Maryland corporation, and the successor corporation to Monumental Properties, Inc. Monumental is the owner and operator of the Montpelier Town and Country Apartments (Town and Country Apartments) in Laurel, Maryland. The plaintiffs are Mr. Thomas C. Langley, Sr., Mrs. Alberta Langley, and their children, Thomas C. Langley, Jr., aged 13, Kathy Ann Langley, aged 7, and Patricia H. Langley, aged 3. The Langleys are Maryland citizens and former lessees of the Town and Country Apartments. The Court heard oral argument on these motions on August 15, 1980.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that on May 9, 1972, the County Council of Prince George's County enacted a bill known as CB-1-1972, which created a County Human Relations Commission and which outlawed discrimination based upon certain characteristics, including age, in the sale and rental of housing. This latter provision was codified as Section 2-210 of the Prince George's County Code. On November 25, 1975, the County Council enacted a bill known as CB-125-1975 "to provide that any person may restrict occupancy of any dwelling to a person or persons of any specified age group." Section 2-210, as amended, in pertinent part, now reads as follows (the language of the amendment is underscored):

Sec. 2-210. Sale or rental of housing; exception.

(a) No person, whether acting for monetary gain or not, shall:

(1) Refuse to sell, lease, sublease, rent, assign or otherwise transfer, or refuse to negotiate for the sale, lease, sublease, rental, assignment or other transfer of the title, leasehold or other interest in any housing, or represent that housing is not available for inspection, sale, lease, sublease, rental, assignment or other transfer when in fact it is so available, or otherwise deny or withhold any housing from any person because of discrimination;¹

(2) Include in the terms, conditions or privileges of any sale, lease, sublease, rental, assignment or other transfer of any housing, any clause, condition or restriction discriminating against any person in the use or occupancy of such housing because of discrimination; or,

(3) Discriminate in the furnishings of any facilities, repairs, improvements, or services, or in the terms, conditions, privileges, or tenure of occupancy of any person because of discrimination.

(b) Discrimination based on age as defined in Section 2-186 shall not be wrongful with regard to housing operated in connection with any medical, health or educational institution, or with regard to any domiciliary, retirement, or senior citizen home or housing, or with regard to any pre-school children's home or facility. Discrimination shall not be wrongful with regard to the leasing of a room(s) or apartment(s) in an owner-occupied dwelling consisting of not more than three (3) rental units; ... Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section and in clarification of the provisions of this Division, a person may restrict occupancy of any dwelling or dwellings to a person or persons of any specified age group, provided a written report of such limitations of occupancy, identifying the specific units so affected, is filed with the Commission; and further, that the lease or tenure of occupancy of any person or persons occupying any dwelling which is designated as being restricted in occupancy to any specified age group shall not be terminated on the effective date of such designation because said person or persons do not meet such designated occupancy requirements, unless said person or persons shall have been offered another comparable dwelling for which said person or persons meet the designated occupancy requirements within the same building or within another building within the same complex of buildings. The Commission shall be authorized to periodically inspect any dwelling for which a designated occupancy restriction report has been filed, as provided above in order to determine whether such dwelling is being maintained in accordance with the provisions of such occupancy restriction report.

On August 1, 1972, the Langleys moved into an apartment at the Town and Country Apartments located at 13028 Old Stagecoach Road. In February 1977, Monumental notified the Langleys that the apartment building at Old Stagecoach Road had been registered with the Human Relations Commission as a building to be restricted in occupancy to persons who were eighteen years of age or older, and that the Langleys would have to move to another building within the Town and Country Apartments which was not so restricted. In April 1977, the Langleys moved to an apartment in the Town and Country Apartments located at 13003 Mistletoe Springs Road. In September 1977, Monumental informed the Langleys that all the buildings in the Town and Country Apartments had been registered with the Human Relations Commission as restricted in occupancy to persons who were eighteen years of age or older, and that the Langleys would be required to vacate their apartment by October 31, 1978, or face eviction through the judicial system of the State of Maryland. Although plaintiffs' lease expired before October 31, 1978, Monumental gave the Langleys a grace period in which to find new housing. Between September 1977 and November 1978, Monumental filled in the children's swimming pool with soil and removed the recreational equipment which had been provided for the children living at the Town and Country Apartments.

In July 1978, the Langleys moved out of the Mistletoe Springs Road apartment and moved into housing which is allegedly more expensive, more crowded, less convenient to schools and shopping, and less appropriate for the raising of a family than the Town and Country Apartments. In March and July 1979, Monumental rejected the Langleys' formal request to become residents of the Town and Country Apartments solely because Thomas C. Langley, Jr., Kathy Ann Langley, and Patricia H. Langley were below the age of eighteen.

Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court on November 15, 1979, seeking $100,000 in damages from Monumental and a declaratory judgment that Section 2-210, as amended, is unconstitutional. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that Section 2-210, as amended, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment because 1) it permits a withholding of state benefits and protections from a specified age class without a compelling state interest; and, 2) it is arbitrary and unreasonable since it bears no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Prince George's County. Plaintiffs also argue that Section 2-210, as amended, violates the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment because 1) it infringes upon their fundamental right to bear, raise, and keep children, and severely inhibits their fundamental right to maintain their children within the family unit, without a compelling state interest; 2) it is not rationally related to a permissible state purpose; and, 3) it creates an irrebuttable presumption that children are undesirable tenants. Plaintiffs' suit against both Monumental and the County is brought directly under the fourteenth amendment. Jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Monumental's Motion to Dismiss

Monumental argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case asserted against it. Initially, Monumental contends that neither 28 U.S.C. § 2201 nor Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a jurisdictional foundation for this action, since these provisions are procedural only and do not constitute separate and independent sources of federal jurisdiction. This contention is clearly correct. Lake Lansing Special Assessment Protest, Ass'n v. Ingham County Bd. of Commrs, 488 F.Supp. 767 (W.D.Mich. 1980); Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 366 F.Supp. 51 (D.D.C.1973); see Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950); Delavigne v. Delavigne, 530 F.2d 598 (4th Cir. 1976). Monumental also protests that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court. The basis of this argument is that this case cannot "arise under the Constitution ... of the United States.. .", since plaintiffs' complaint indicates that they were the victims of private discriminatory conduct and therefore does not allege the "state action" necessary to invoke the protections of the fourteenth amendment.

It is, of course, axiomatic that a plaintiff must allege and prove "state action" to recover under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Flagg Bros. Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 92 S.Ct. 1965, 32 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715,...