Rhj Med. Ctr. Inc. v. City of Dubois

• Decision Date: 07 December 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:09–131.
• Citation: 754 F.Supp.2d 723
• Parties: RHJ MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff,v.CITY OF DuBOIS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

754 F.Supp.2d 723

RHJ MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF DuBOIS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:09–131.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 7, 2010.

Leonard J. Marsico, Alyssa Barillari, McGuire Woods, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.Thomas J. Elliott, Melissa M. Weber, Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, Blue Bell, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER OF COURT

GIBSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for a More Definite Statement (Document No. 25). Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for a More Definite Statement (Document No. 31). Defendant, without requesting leave of court, filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for a More Definite Statement (Document No. 32). The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for a More Definite Statement.

* * *

“This case presents the familiar conflict between the legal principle of non-discrimination and the political principle of not-in-my-backyard.” New Directions Treatment Services v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293, 296 (3rd Cir.2007) (Smith, J.). When an organization submits plans to open a methadone treatment facility, the story usually unfolds as follows. First, after filing the appropriate zoning paperwork, the organization begins preparation to open the facility. Second, after concerned community leaders learn of this proposal, fears of attracting drug addicts to their town generates massive opposition to the plan.¹ Third, invariably, a town meeting of some kind is held to allow representatives from the methadone clinic to address community concerns. Fourth, the discussions at the town hall meeting primarily focus on the dangers that a methadone clinic poses to the municipality. Fifth, through some zoning mechanism—whether an existing zoning ordinance, or a new one which is enacted for the instant situation— the community finds a reason why the methadone clinic should not be opened.

Although in most cases the die is cast following step two, invariably following step five, the organization is left without redress, and is effectively banned from opening a facility in the town. Tragically, the victims of exclusionary zoning tactics—recovering opiate addicts—tend to be those least prepared to fight against such tactics. Left with no other remedy, the organization files suit in court. The facts presented in this case fall neatly into this paradigm.

FACTS

RHJ Medical Center, Inc. (“RHJ”) is a Pennsylvania corporation in the business of operating methadone treatment facilities. (Compl. ¶¶ 15–16.) RHJ opened its first methadone treatment center in 2002 in Hunker, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 16.) RHJ has met the standards for federal certification and state licensure in outpatient treatment and methadone maintenance. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 15.) In February 2006, RHJ began to search for a site on which to open a methadone treatment center in the City of DuBois. (Compl. ¶ 4.) The City of DuBois (“the City”) is a Third Class City covering 3.1 square miles with a population of less than 10,000. (Compl. ¶ 20; Answer ¶ 92.) The City's population consists of 55% low to middle income persons. (Answer ¶ 92.) According to RHJ, the methadone treatment center located closest to the City is in the Borough of Clearfield, 20 miles away, and has a significant waiting list. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff reports that as a result, many of the City's residents make a daily three-hour round trip to the methadone treatment center operated by RHJ in the Borough of Vandergrift. (Compl. ¶ 25.) The City asserts that there are private physicians and other healthcare professionals within the City to provide residents with methadone treatment. (Answer ¶ 24–25,)

RHJ chose a site at 994 Beaver Drive, DuBois, Pennsylvania, 15801 (“the site”), and signed a ten-year lease on March 31, 2006. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 28.) The site was zoned in the “Transitional District” and was previously occupied by an insurance agency.² (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 26.) Adjacent to the rear of the site was a sidewalk known as Beaver Meadow Walkway (“the walkway”), which was dedicated as a public park on June 25, 1979.³ (Compl. ¶ 27; Answer ¶ 27.) By law at the time, methadone treatment centers were forbidden to operate within 500 feet of a public park unless the municipal governing body voted to authorize such use following public notice and one or more public hearings. 53 P.S. § 10621 (“Section 621”).

In late September or early October of 2006, RHJ's plans to open a methadone treatment center became public. (Compl. ¶ 30; Answer ¶ 30.) RHJ asserts that they were then subjected to a wave of negative press coverage, including a radio interview in which the mayor of DuBois stated that RHJ would likely not receive approval from the City to open such a facility and compared having a methadone treatment center in the City to “other cities dumping their garbage in DuBois.” ⁴ (Compl. ¶ 31.)

At a work session on October 19, 2006, the DuBois City Council authorized the City Solicitor to draft a letter to RHJ “to advise them that if they still plan [ed] on opening their Center at 994 Beaver Drive, they need[ed] to follow all procedures, including Public Hearings and to remind them that they [we]re still too close to a recreational park (walkway).” ⁵ (Def.'s Ex. 1; Compl. ¶ 32; Answer ¶ 32.) A copy of this letter (Def.'s Ex. 2) was distributed at a City Council meeting on October 23, 2006, (Compl. ¶ 33) and also mailed to RHJ on that date (Answer ¶ 33). RHJ opened the methadone treatment center as planned two days later, on October 25, 2006. (Compl. ¶ 34.)

The City filed suit in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas on October 27, 2006, to enjoin RHJ from operating the methadone treatment facility at the site pursuant to Section 621. (Compl. ¶ 35; Answer ¶ 35.) The court granted the City a preliminary injunction with a continuance hearing scheduled for November 1, 2006. (Pl.'s Ex. 1.) The parties disagree as to whether or not the court heard oral argument from both sides before granting the injunction. RHJ says it did not (Compl. ¶ 35), while the City says that it did (Answer ¶ 35). The hearing was postponed to December 7, 2006. (Answer ¶ 35.) At that time, RHJ stipulated that the walkway was a public park within the meaning of Section 621 and that they had not obtained a certificate of use from the City before opening the clinic; and the court granted a permanent injunction until such time as the City approved RHJ's application following a public hearing and granted a certificate of use. (Def.'s Ex. 3; Compl. ¶ 35; Answer ¶ 35.)

In January of 2007, RHJ submitted to the City an application for a public hearing and a request for certificate of use.⁶ (Compl. ¶ 36; Answer ¶ 36.) The City provided notice to surrounding property owners, and a public hearing was held on April 23, 2007. (Compl. ¶ 37; Answer ¶ 37.) At a public meeting on May 14, 2007, the City Council voted unanimously to deny RHJ's application and directed the City Solicitor to prepare a document of findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the decision. (Answer ¶ 38.) The Solicitor's document was unanimously adopted at the public City Council meeting on May 29, 2007 and was served on RHJ on June 1, 2007. (Answer ¶ 38; Def.'s Ex. 4, 5.) The finding of the City Council was that RHJ had not presented evidence sufficient to justify deviating from the restrictions of Section 621. (Def.'s Ex. 5 at 6.) The concerns of the Council included the methadone treatment center's lack of on- site security personnel, lack of means to transport patients to the regional medical facility if necessary, and insufficient parking for the expected number of patients and staff. (Def. Ex. 5 at 4–5.) The Council also noted that RHJ had not performed “any need assessment to determine whether its center was needed in the area and had no statistics concerning area drug use.” (Def. Ex. 5 at 5.)

On June 15, 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that § 621 violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq. New Directions Treatment Services v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293 (3d Cir.2007). RHJ moved to dissolve the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas injunction in November 2007, based on New Directions. (Compl. ¶ 43.) The City opposed this motion. Id. The motion was granted and the injunction dissolved on March 6, 2008.⁷ (Pl.'s Ex. 3.) According to RHJ, at that time, the City refused to reconsider the earlier decision to deny the methadone treatment center a certificate of use. (Compl. ¶ 44.) The City responded that RHJ did not make any further petition to the City for any permits. (Answer ¶ 44.)

Also following the Third Circuit decision in New Directions, at a November 21, 2007, work session, the City Council heard first reading of Ordinance Number 1720, which amended City zoning in a number of ways, including prohibiting “methadone or drug treatment clinics or centers” in the “Transitional District” and permitting medical facilities “with the exception of methadone treatment facilities and other drug treatment facilities of any kind” in the “Commercial–Highway Zoning District.” (Pl.'s Ex. 4.) Ordinance Number 1720 also amended City zoning to expressly permit “drug treatment clinics or facilities including methadone treatment facilities or clinics” in the “O–1 Office District.” ⁸ (Pl.'s Ex. 4.) The ordinance passed after a second reading at the City Council meeting on November 27, 2007.⁹ (Pl.'s Ex. 4; Compl. ¶ 45; Answer ¶ 45.) In July 2008, RHJ terminated its lease on the site. (Compl. ¶ 44.)

Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint against Defendant. Count I asserts a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses for Defendant's actions...