Willowbrook Apartment Associates, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No.: 20-cv-01818-SAG |
| Parties | WILLOWBROOK APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Stuart Lee Sagal, Sagal Filbert Quasney & Betten, PA, Towson, MD, Michael Alan Brown, Peter Woodward Sheehan, Michael Evan Blumenfeld, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs Willowbrook Apartment Associates, LLC, Mt. Washington, LLC 2613 Cabover Drive Hanover, MD 21076, The College Gardens Corporation 11 E. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202, Stratford Apartments, LLLP 1025 Cranbrook Road Cockeysville, MD 21030.
Michael Alan Brown, Peter Woodward Sheehan, Michael Evan Blumenfeld, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs Tilbury Limited Partnership 2613 Cabover Drive Hanover, MD 21076, Salisbury Alliance Realty, LLC 600 Washington Avenue Suite 300 Towson, MD 21204, Tide Mill Realty, LLC 925 Eastern Shore Drive, Suite 1 Suite 1 Salisbury, MD 21804, Adams Housing, LLC 100 W. Main Street Suite 203 Salisbury, MD 21801, Apple Partnership, LLP 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, Chandler Rentals, LLC 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, GNI, LLC 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, L & S Properties, LLP 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, RCP, LLC 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, Rainbow Partnership, LLP 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, RSWL Associates, LLP 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, RSWL-Two Associates, LLP 312 West Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, Chandler Trusts, LLP 613 N. Division Street Salisbury, MD 21801, HE, LLC 312 West Main Salisbury, MD 21801, A&J Rentals, LLC 312 W. Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, March Mor, LLC 312 W. Main Street Salisbury, MD 21801, Columbia Choice Apartments, LLC 5351 Harpers Farm Road Columbia, MD 21044, Columbia Stonehaven Associates, LLC 7030 Gentle Shade Road Columbia, MD 21046, Oceans Alliance Realty, LLC 3603 Glengyle Avenue Baltimore, MD 21215.
Michael Brooks Rynd, Karpinski Cornbrooks & Karp, P.A., Steven John Potter, Kurt A. Heinrich, Daniel W. Goldberg, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD, Melissa E. Goldmeier, Howard County Office of Law, Ellicott City, MD, for Defendant Mayor & City Council of Baltimore SERVE ON: Dana P. Moore, Acting City Solicitor 100 N. Holliday Street Suite 101 - City Hall Baltimore, MD 21202.
Melissa E. Goldmeier, Howard County Office of Law, Ellicott City, MD, for Defendant Maryland Howard County SERVE ON: Calvin B. Ball III, County Executive George Howard Building 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City, MD 21043.
Erin Brady Purdy, Gary W. Kuc, Louis P. Ruzzi, Melissa E. Goldmeier, Howard County Office of Law, Ellicott City, MD, for Defendant Maryland Howard County SERVE ON: Gary W. Kuc, County Solicitor George Hoard Building 3450 Court House Drive Ellicott City, MD 21043.
Kevin Bock Karpinski, Michael Brooks Rynd, Karpinski, Cornbrooks & Karp, P.A., Baltimore, MD, Melissa E. Goldmeier, Howard County Office of Law, Ellicott City, MD, for Defendant City of Salisbury SERVE ON: Julia Glanz 125 N. Division Street Room 304 Salisbury, MD 21801.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, United States District Judge A group of housing providers (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by three local governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF 72. In late May and early June, 2020, Baltimore City, Howard County, and the City of Salisbury (collectively, "Defendants") each enacted temporary legislation restricting landlords from increasing rent or assessing late fees to tenants (collectively, "the Acts"). Plaintiffs claim that the Acts are unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution. Id. The parties agreed to file expedited cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability only. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (the "Motion"), ECF 91, and the Plaintiffs filed two cross-motions for summary judgment (collectively, the "Cross-Motions")—one by plaintiffs who have claims against Baltimore City and Howard County, ECF 97, and the other by plaintiffs who have claims against the City of Salisbury, ECF 98.1 The City of Salisbury filed a combined reply in support of the Motion and opposition to the cross-motion against it, ECF 99. Baltimore City and Howard County similarly filed a combined reply and opposition, ECF 100. Finally, the Plaintiffs jointly filed a reply in support of their Cross-Motions, ECF 101. The Court has reviewed each of these filings and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons explained below, each of the motions will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiffs are housing providers with residential rental properties in Baltimore City, Howard County, and Salisbury, Maryland. ECF 97-1 at 1; ECF 98-1 at 1. In May and June of 2020, each of the defendant jurisdictions passed legislation precluding any housing provider from increasing a renewing tenant's rent or charging late fees during the Governor's declared state of emergency related to COVID-19. ECF 97-1 at 1; ECF 98-1 at 1. The Acts also prohibit housing providers from notifying tenants of a forthcoming rent increase during the state of emergency or within 90 days (the Baltimore City and City of Salisbury Acts) or three months (Howard County's Act) after the state of emergency ends. ECF 97-1 at 2; ECF 98-1 at 3. Moreover, where tenants had previously agreed to a rent increase that would have become effective on or after March 5, 2020 (the date the Governor declared a state of emergency), the Acts required housing providers to notify the tenants in writing to disregard the fee increases to which they had previously agreed—whether or not the tenants’ new lease terms had already begun. See ECF 97-1 at 5 (Baltimore City); ECF 97-1 at 8 (Howard County); ECF 98-1 at 3-4 (City of Salisbury).
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to liability only. ECF 97-1 at 2 n.3. Accordingly, for that limited purpose, Defendants have agreed to accept the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true. ECF 91-1 at 3 n.1.
Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of material facts. See Casey v. Geek Squad , 823 F. Supp. 2d 334, 348 (D. Md. 2011) (citing Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props. , 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987) ). If the moving party establishes that there is no evidence to support the non-moving party's case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to proffer specific facts to show a genuine issue exists for trial. Id. The non-moving party must provide enough admissible evidence to "carry the burden of proof in [its] claim at trial." Id. at 349 (quoting Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp. , 12 F.3d 1310, 1315-16 (4th Cir. 1993) ). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find in its favor. Id. at 348 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). Moreover, a genuine issue of material fact cannot rest on "mere speculation, or building one inference upon another." Id. at 349 (quoting Miskin v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. , 107 F. Supp. 2d 669, 671 (D. Md. 1999) ).
Additionally, summary judgment shall be warranted if the non-moving party fails to provide evidence that establishes an essential element of the case. Id. at 352. The non-moving party "must produce competent evidence on each element of [its] claim." Id. at 348-49 (quoting Miskin , 107 F. Supp. 2d at 671 ). If the non-moving party fails to do so, "there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact," because the failure to prove an essential element of the case "necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 352 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Coleman v. United States , 369 Fed. App'x 459, 461 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all of the facts, including reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) ).
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from taking "private property ... for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const., Amend. V. The Maryland Constitution contains an analogous provision that Maryland courts apply to laws passed by local governments. Maryland Const., Art. III, Sec. 40 ; Litz v. Maryland Dep't of Environment , 446 Md. 254, 265-66, 131 A.3d 923 (2016) ; see Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County , 458 Md. 331, 348, 182 A.3d 798 (2018). "[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article III, § 40, of the Maryland Constitution have the same meaning and effect, and ‘it is well established that the decisions of the Supreme Court are practically direct authorities’ for both provisions." Neifert v. Dep't of Env't , 395 Md. 486, 516 n.33, 910 A.2d 1100 (2006) (quoting Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Bd. of Elections , 377 Md. 127, 166, 832 A.2d 214 (2003) ) (internal quotation omitted); Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek , 272 Md. 143, 156, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial