Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, City of Louisville

Citation632 F.2d 21
Decision Date20 October 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-3765,79-3765
Parties11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,083 NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Butchertown, Inc., Butchertown Neighborhood Government, Inc., The Old Louisville Neighborhood Council, Inc., and The Louisville Interneighborhood Coalition, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LOUISVILLE, Director of City Department of Building and Housing, Oxford Properties, Inc., and William O. Bornstein, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

J. Phillip Griffin, Jr., Steven R. Berg, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Laurence J. Zilke, Law Department-City of Louisville, Max Simmons, Winston King, Louisville, Ky., for City Director.

David C. Fannin, Sheryl G. Snyder, K. Gregory Haynes, Robert B. Vice, Louisville, Ky., for Oxford Properties.

J. W. Moorman, A. S. Almy and D. C. Shilton, Washington, D. C., for federal appellees.

Before WEICK and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DUNCAN, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district court held that plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite injury-in-fact to confer standing to challenge the demolition of historically and architecturally significant buildings within an urban renewal project partially funded by a federal grant. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for appropriate proceedings.

I.

The Louisville Urban Renewal Agency declared a two-block commercial area to be a blighted area and proposed to redevelop it into a new office building, department store and specialty stores (the "Redevelopment"). Further south of the Redevelopment area, the agency is assisting in the restoration of a historic hotel. The approximate cost of the proposed Redevelopment is $100,000,000.00. At least eight million dollars of this cost is funded by a grant pursuant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Action Grant Program (UDAG).

The UDAG makes the Redevelopment a "federally assisted project." As a result, the Redevelopment is subject to a review and comment process established in the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., (the "Act"). Section 470f of the Act requires the federal agency having jurisdiction over the Redevelopment to consider its effects on historically or architecturally significant property and to solicit comments from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Buildings are "historically or architecturally significant" when declared by the federal government to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In the Redevelopment area six buildings are historically or architecturally significant. Of these six buildings three were scheduled for demolition: the Will Sales Building; the Atherton Building; and the Republic Building. All appropriate agencies "approved" the Redevelopment.

Plaintiffs, five incorporated neighborhood organizations, filed a complaint in district court alleging that the federal defendants acted in bad faith in discharging their obligations under the Act to review and comment upon the demolition of these three buildings and failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin federal funding of the Redevelopment until compliance is accomplished.

By order of the district court, plaintiffs' original complaint was amended to join as defendant Oxford Properties, Inc., the owner of the Will Sales Building. The district court denied relief. This Court affirmed. The Will Sales Building was demolished.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to enjoin the demolition of the Atherton and Republic Buildings. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for two reasons. First, the complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss because plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge defendants' compliance with the Act. Second, the second amended complaint which plaintiffs tendered failed to join as defendants the owners of the Atherton and Republic Buildings.

II.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint.

It is well settled that the district court may deny a motion for leave to amend a complaint if such complaint, as amended, could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Bacon v. California, 438 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam); Deloach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). A complaint is properly dismissed if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, which extends only to "actual cases or controversy." U.S.Const. Art. III. Persons with a "personal stake in the controversy," Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2204-05, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), demonstrable by the suffering of a "distinct and palpable injury," Id. at 502, 95 S.Ct. at 2207, satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of Article III. Thus, "injury-in-fact" is a prerequisite to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts. Applying these principles to this case, we believe plaintiffs' complaint alleged a "distinct and palpable injury" from the demolition of the buildings sufficient to confer standing to challenge defendants' purported non-compliance with the Act. Accordingly, the district court erroneously dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing. We hold the district court abused its discretion by not granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint.

The district court held that plaintiffs did not allege a "distinct and palpable injury" to their aesthetic and environmental interest in preserving historically and architecturally significant buildings. 1 We disagree.

In Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972), the Sierra Club challenged the Secretary of the Interior's approval of the commercial development of a game refuge within the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club asserted it had a "special interest in the conservation and sound maintenance of the national parks, game refuges, and forest." 405 U.S. at 730, 92 S.Ct. at 1364. The court held that the requisite injury-in-fact was suffered only by those who use the area and for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened by the proposed development. Id. at 735, 92 S.Ct. at 1366. In the instant case, the complaint states that "the plaintiffs include among their membership individual residents who enjoy and derive benefit from the preservation of (buildings) and others who use or can be expected to use the (buildings)." (Emphasis added). By alleging "use" of the buildings' aesthetic and architectural value, plaintiffs met the Sierra Club standard. This is sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for lack of standing. 2

The deprivation of the use of an aesthetic resource is not merely an abstract injury. Sierra Club explicitly held that the deprivation of the use of an aesthetic resource constitutes injury-in-fact. Id. Additionally, standing is not to be denied because the alleged injury is commonly shared. United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973).

We do not believe that injury-in-fact is suffered only by residents of the neighborhood in which the historically and architecturally significant buildings are located. The decisions in Gibson & Perin Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 480 F.2d 936 (6th Cir. 1973) and South Hill Neighborhood Association v. Romney, 421 F.2d 454 (6th Cir. 1969), are not to the contrary. In Gibson, the plaintiffs challenged the design and location of a parking garage within an urban renewal area. The court held that plaintiffs, as owners of businesses located outside the urban renewal area, lacked standing because they did not allege injury to an interest protected by statute. 480 F.2d at 942. In the instant case, the Act created an interest in the preservation of architecturally and historically significant buildings to be protected by users of such buildings. See also, Gladstone Realtors...

To continue reading

Request your trial
305 cases
  • Hedrick v. Honeywell, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 30 d4 Abril d4 1992
    ... ... 2 (6th Cir.1982); Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945 (6th Cir.1987); Moore v. City of ... 1986); Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 632 F.2d 21 (6th Cir.1980). While defendant has ... generally prohibits age discrimination in housing ... ...
  • Finley v. Kondaur Capital Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 19 d3 Dezembro d3 2012
    ... ... Id. at 817 (quoting Neighborhood Dev. Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Pres., ... First Nat'l Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 927 ... ...
  • Brooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 28 d3 Março d3 1990
    ... ... Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir.1980). A motion to ... ...
  • Rose v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., Case Number 15-13567
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 29 d4 Setembro d4 2016
    ... ... Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct ... " Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky , 385 F.3d 901, 904 (6th Cir. 2004) ... to receive certain federal grants for development projects, states: "The Secretary of ... Head v. Jellico Housing Auth. , 870 F.2d 1117, 1123 (6th Cir. 1989) ; ... 1986) ; Neighborhood Dev. Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Pres ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT