Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, Fl
Decision Date | 05 June 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 07-12076.,07-12076. |
Citation | 529 F.3d 1027 |
Parties | YOUNG APARTMENTS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, FL, Andrew Lukasik, Robert Lecky, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
George P. Roberts, Jr., Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Onier Llopiz, Alan S. Feldman, Stephen Hunter Johnson, Joan Carlos Wizel, Lydecker, Lee, Behar, Berga & de Zayas, LLC, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER,* District Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants Young Apartments, Inc. ("Young Apartments") appeals a district court order dismissing several of its equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") against defendants-appellees Town of Jupiter, Florida ("Jupiter"), Jupiter Town Manager Andrew D. Lukasik ("Lukasik") and Jupiter Building Official Robert Lecky ("Lecky"), as well as a breach of contract claim against Jupiter. Young Apartments claims that Jupiter, through the actions of town officials including Lukasik and Lecky, is attempting to drive away the Town's growing population of Hispanic immigrant residents by targeting the landlords (including Young Apartments) who provide these residents with affordable housing. Young Apartments claims that it has suffered significant financial injury as a result of Jupiter's discriminatory attempts to eliminate the affordable housing available to Hispanic immigrants. Young Apartments also asserts that Jupiter's condemnation of some of Young Apartments' housing units breached the express terms of an agreement negotiated between the parties.
In a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court found that (1) Young Apartments lacked standing to bring a race-based equal protection claim, so that it could only review the housing ordinance under a rational basis standard and Young Apartments could only proceed with its selective enforcement claim under a "class of one" analysis;1 (2) the complaint failed to state a cause of action against Lukasik and Lecky in their individual capacities; and (3) Young Apartments could not state a cause of action for breach of contract because a municipality cannot bargain away its police power.
After careful review, we reverse the district court's determination that Young Apartments lacked standing to bring an equal protection claim alleging discrimination against its Hispanic tenants. We further reverse with respect to the district court's determination that Young Apartments only sued Lukasik and Lecky in their official capacities. Finally, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Young Apartments' breach of contract claim.
(1)
Because this case comes to us as an appeal from a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, 144 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the following statement of facts is drawn from Young Apartments' first amended complaint.
Young Apartments is the owner of an apartment complex in Jupiter, Florida. The apartment complex is made up of two buildings which have a total of thirty rental housing units. Young Apartments purchased the property in March 2000 for $1.145 million. At the time, the property was in full compliance with the Housing Standards Code of Jupiter and the complex was nearly one-hundred percent rented and occupied. The property was part of an area of Jupiter known as "Center Street," with approximately one hundred rental units similar to the ones owned by Young Apartments.
At the time that Young Apartments purchased the property, Jupiter's Hispanic population was increasing, primarily as a result of an influx of immigrant workers seeking jobs in the construction and labor-intensive sectors of Jupiter. Because of the relatively affordable price of its rental units, Young Apartments' apartment complex—as well as most of the Center Street area—was occupied primarily by these Hispanic immigrant workers. Young Apartments estimates that the immigrant population in Jupiter at the time of its amended complaint consisted of approximately 3000 people, mostly from Mexico and Guatemala, including 200 to 300 families and a ratio of approximately 70% men to 30% women.
The increasing presence of the Hispanic immigrant population in the Center Street area was a topic of concern for some of Jupiter's citizens. Young Apartments states that some Jupiter citizens believed these immigrant workers were living and working in their community illegally. Some Jupiter residents also believed that Hispanic immigrants were hurting the town's economy by taking local jobs and using public resources. One Jupiter resident was quoted in national news reports as claiming that "[t]he landlords here are harboring illegal aliens, and it's depressing our property values."
Young Apartments alleges that Jupiter was especially troubled by the gathering of these workers around Center Street, where they were picked up by employers to be transported to their daily jobs. As a result, soon after Young Apartments purchased the property on Center Street, Jupiter allegedly began implementing and enforcing policies and practices intended to eliminate the presence of these immigrant workers. One of these policies was to target landlords, such as Young Apartments, who provided affordable housing to Hispanic immigrants through a campaign of "excessive and selective" housing inspections.
Young Apartments alleges that Jupiter adopted Ordinance No. 6-04 (the "Overcrowding Ordinance" or the "Ordinance") on May 4, 2004 as part of this effort to eliminate available and affordable housing for Hispanic immigrant workers. According to Young Apartments, the discriminatory motive behind this ostensibly neutral ordinance was clear throughout the enactment process. For example, Young Apartments quotes participants at a January 2004 meeting of the of the Jupiter Planning and Zoning Commission as stating that the proposed Ordinance was intended to eliminate the "problem" posed by "the workers on Center Street." Jupiter officials allegedly reassured local residents that a "complaint-driven" scheme focusing on overcrowding would allow the town to target only the landlords of Hispanic immigrant tenants for enforcement, without affecting the rights of other property owners. Jupiter adopted the Ordinance despite the warning of at least one advocate for the local immigrant population that an overcrowding measure enforced only against Hispanic residents raised the specter of potential civil rights violations.
Young Apartments claims that individual defendants Lukasik (Jupiter's Town Manager appointed to execute the Town's policies) and Lecky (Jupiter's Building Official in charge of administering the Building and Building Regulation provisions of the Jupiter Code of Ordinances) both partook in the decision-making process leading up to the enactment of the Overcrowding Ordinance as well as its enforcement. The Overcrowding Ordinance adopted in May 2004 requires, among other things, that no more than five persons occupy any housing unit, unless all members of the housing unit are related by blood or marriage. The Ordinance also provides an exemption to the five-person maximum occupancy limitation for children less than eighteen years old.2
After the May 2004 adoption of the Overcrowding Ordinance, the Jupiter Town Council continued to discuss the problems posed by immigrant laborers. On October 26, 2004, the Town Council held a workshop to consider the development of a "day labor center" where employers could meet and arrange jobs with local workers.3 Opponents of the day labor center reportedly criticized the inadequate enforcement of the Overcrowding Ordinance and the continued presence of allegedly undocumented immigrant workers in the Center Street area. Town officials and citizens at that meeting also questioned whether the Overcrowding Ordinance had been effective in getting rid of immigrant laborers living in Jupiter. Lecky and Lukasik, among other Jupiter officials, reportedly responded to such concerns by pledging to continue code enforcement efforts in the Center Street area.
Citizen opposition to the presence of Hispanic immigrants continued to be voiced at subsequent Town Council meetings and elsewhere. Jupiter residents reportedly complained that these immigrants were living and working in Jupiter illegally, and that they were sending their wages back to their home countries rather than reinvesting their money into Jupiter's economy. Jupiter allegedly responded to such complaints by increasing its enforcement of the Overcrowding Ordinance, in order to put additional pressure on Hispanic immigrants (and their landlords) to leave the Town.
Young Apartments alleges that audience members at a January 4, 2005 Town Council meeting once again pressed Jupiter officials to use the Overcrowding Ordinance to "solve the perceived Center Street day laborer problem." One week later, in the pre-dawn hours of January 11, 2005, Jupiter Building Official personnel and Jupiter Police Officers, along with perhaps others, entered the thirty rental units on Young Apartments' property without seeking the consent of Young Apartments and without an inspection warrant, in order to conduct an inspection for violations of Jupiter's Overcrowding Ordinance.
As a result of the inspections, Jupiter initiated four separate Code Enforcement Board cases against Young Apartments. Jupiter cited violations of the Overcrowding Ordinance as well as physical defects on the property resulting from hurricane damage in September 2004. Young Apartments claims that it was already in the process of repairing hurricane damage to the property at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGuire v. Marshall
...Indus. v. Irvin , 496 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2007)) ; Campbell , 434 F.3d at 1314 (same); see also Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter , 529 F.3d 1027, 1045 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[T]he same strict ‘similarly situated’ standard applies whether an equal protection claim is brought unde......
-
Cotterman v. Creel
...Mr. Cotterman offers little clarification on that issue in his response. See doc. 75 at 2, 4. In Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, Florida, 529 F.3d 1027, 1046-48 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court explained that '[w]hen it is not clear in which capacity thedefendants are sued, the course......
-
Johnson v. Israel
...damages are ... available from government officials when they are sued in their individual capacities." Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter , 529 F.3d 1027, 1047 (11th Cir. 2008) ; see also Graham , 473 U.S. at 167 n.13, 105 S.Ct. 3099 (recognizing that "punitive damages are ... avail......
-
Nance v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., No. 20-11393
...added).It is black letter law that "[a] motion to dismiss does not test the merits of a case." See Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1037 (11th Cir. 2008). In deciding a motion to dismiss, courts must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them ......
-
IV. Preliminary Matters
...1278, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 1994); Reames v. Oklahoma, 411 F.3d 1164, 1168 (10th Cir. 2005); Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, Fla., 529 F.3d 1027, 1047 (11th Cir. 2008); Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Pennington Seed, Inc. v. Produce Exch. No. 29......
-
21.2 Civil Rights Statutes
...42 U.S.C. § 1988.[139] City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981).[140] Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1047 (11th Cir. 2008).[141] Wood v. Mills, 528 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1975).[142] The denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights is often asserted s......
-
Tenants Without Rights: Situating the Experiences of New Immigrants in the U.s. Low-income Housing Market
...the presence of immigrants. For a dispute concerning a local overcrowding ordinance, see Y oung Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, FL, 529 F.3d 1027, 1033 (11th Cir. 2008) 252. Rosario, 2018 WL 2209487, at *1. 253. Id. 254. Id. 255. Id. at *2. 256. Id. at *3. 194 The Georgetown Journal on......