Valenca v. Milford
| Decision Date | 23 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | WOCV20080005A |
| Citation | 2008 MBAR 078 |
| Parties | Maria Valenca et al.[1] v. Town of Milford et al.[2] |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Agnes, Peter W., J.
This case is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to all counts and the Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment is ALLOWED as to Counts I, II and III and DENIED as to Count IV.
The undisputed facts are as follows. Throughout 2004 and 2005, Town of Milford Board of Health inspectors noted a growing problem with the overcrowding of rental units in Milford. This overcrowding resulted in dangerous and unhealthy conditions. In response to this issue, the Milford Boards of Selectmen and Health proposed to the Milford Town Meeting a new Article 37, entitled "Occupancy of Buildings." Article 37 passed and was approved by the Attorney General in 2007.
Article 37 implements a procedure requiring that properties that are leased, rented or offered for lease or rent must first be registered with the Milford Board of Health and obtain a Certificate of Registration. Said certificate is issued after the Board of Health, or its agents, measure the interior of the unit and determine the allowable occupancy based on the State Sanitary Code and provisions of the Milford Board of Health Rules and Regulations. The bylaw charges a $50 fee for the initial certificate and an annual renewal fee of $15. The bylaw also includes a penalty provision that would authorize a fine of up to $300 per day for each day of violation.
In order to effectuate Article 37, The Board of Health solicited proposals for a contractor who could contact unit owners and/or occupants, measure units, determine occupancy limits and prepare the data. The contract was awarded to defendant RMX Northeast, Inc. ("RMX"). RMX was paid $45 per unit. Prior to any inspections, the Milford Board of Health sent letters to owners of rental units. None of the letters in the summary judgment record clearly explained what rights owners had if they wanted to refuse RMX's inspection or that the town would have to obtain a warrant in the event of a refusal. The letters did mention that failure to cooperate could result in legal action and penalties of up to $300 per day. RMX ultimately successfully completed its work for 3,678 out of 4,064 applicable units. There are 369 units whose owners have either refused or failed to seek certification. All of the units entered into by RMX were at the consent of owners or occupants. The Milford Board of Health has not sought entry into any units without permission.
In response to the passing and implementation of Article 37, the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction alleging that the Article violates their equal protection rights, that the fees under the article constitute a tax, that the Article violates their Fourth Amendment rights and that their due process rights were violated. Subsequent to this motion, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed for summary judgment regarding these same claims.
To succeed in an action for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunction; and (3) that, in light of the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the defendant in granting the injunction." Tri-Nel Mgt., Inc. v. Bd. of Health of Barnstable, 433 Mass. 217, 219 (2001). Additionally, when a party seeks to enjoin governmental action, "the court also considers whether the relief sought will adversely affect the public." Id., citing Commonwealth v. Mass. CRINC, 392 Mass. 79, 89 (1984).
7. Legal Analysis. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiffs originally brought a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the defendants from enforcing any of the provisions of Article 37 on January 8, 2008. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs asserted the same arguments that are the basis of their complaint and their motion for summary judgment, namely that Article 37 violates their Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights, equal protection, and constitutes an improper tax.
8.
Applying the preliminary injunction standard to the current case finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. For the reasons set forth below addressing the same constitutional arguments made in support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate they have a fair likelihood of success on the merits. Perhaps more significantly, although the plaintiffs originally asserted they would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction, it has been over six months since their motion was filed and the Milford Board of Health has not sought entry to any units in Milford without express permission nor have they sought other enforcement actions against landlords or tenants. Whatever "irreparable harm" that the plaintiffs initially contemplated has clearly not come to pass. Without a finding of harm, the plaintiffs similarly fail the third step of the preliminary injunction analysis as no harm to the plaintiff cannot outweigh the potential harm to the health of the town. Similarly, awarding the preliminary injunction to enjoin this governmental action could adversely affect the public by restricting the Board of Health in their efforts to maintain the well-being of the community.
9.
The muted risk of irreparable harm, the plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate their likelihood of success on the merits, and the potential harm to the overall health of the town indicates that granting a preliminary injunction in these circumstances would be improper, thus the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
10. Standard of Review
Summary judgment may be granted when "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Cabot Corp. v. AMX Corp., 448 Mass. 629, 637 (2007), citing Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991). If the affidavits, pleadings and other discovery demonstrate the lack of a "genuine issue as to any material fact" then summary judgment is proper. Dupont v. Comm'r of Corr., 448 Mass. 389, 397 (2007), quoting Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In seeking summary judgment, the moving party may prevail by demonstrating that the nonmoving party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of their case at trial. Kourouvacilis v. Gen. Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). Once the absence of a triable issue is established the nonmoving party must show "specific facts that demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial." Cole v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 49 Mass.App.Ct. 296, 297 (2000). The nonmoving party may not rely on "bare assertions and conclusions" to create a dispute necessary to defeat summary judgment. Benson v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 49 Mass.App.Ct. 530, 532 (2000), quoting Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Envtl. Servs. (NJ), Inc., 416 Mass. 684, 696 (1993).
11.
In considering the adequacy of a bylaw "[e]very presumption is to be made in favor of the by-law, and its enforcement will not be refused unless it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the Constitution or the enabling statute." Fordham v. Butera, 450 Mass. 42, 45 (2007), quoting Simeone Stone Corp. v. Oliva, 350 Mass. 31, 37, (1965). Even more deference is given to a bylaw approved by the Attorney General pursuant to G.L.c. 40, §32. Town of Canton v. Bruno, 361 Mass. 598, 609 (1972) ().
12. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
The plaintiffs' first argument asserts that Article 37 violates their equal protection rights by subjecting them to fees and requirements while not holding similarly situated owner-occupied units and buildings to the same standard. The defendants assert that the plaintiffs misunderstand Article 37, in that it actually applies to all units that are rented out except for those specific units that are owner-occupied, thus even in a three-unit building where one unit is owner-occupied, the other two units would be subject to the Article 37 requirements. The defendants further argue that Article 37 is rationally related to the Town's interest in remedying an overcrowding problem affecting rental units.
13.
Under the Equal Protection clause, similarly situated entities must be similarly treated by the government. In the Matter of Corliss, 424 Mass. 1005, 1006 (1997). Importantly, equal protection does not prohibit differences in treatment where there is a basis for the difference that is reasonably related to the goals of the regulation. Maher v. Brookline 339 Mass. 209, 213 (1959). Legislation that neither burdens a fundamental right nor discriminates against a suspect classification is subject to the rational basis level of judicial analysis. Cote-Whiteacre v. Dept. of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350, 366 (2006). In examining an equal protection claim through the rational basis lens, the analysis asks whether "an impartial lawmaker could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate public purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class." English v....
To continue reading
Request your trial