Fri.7Aug2015
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND P-RIVILEGE TO HAVE FREE COPYS OF
CITY LAWSUITS
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
________________________________________________________________________
Case
No. 04-2632 (MJD/SER) Frank J. Steinhauser, III, Mark E. Meysembourg, and Kelly
G. Brisson, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants Case
No. 05-0461 (MJD/SER) Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Lamena Vue, and Steven R.
Johnson, d/b/a Market Group and Properties, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul
defendants
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs
Frank J. Steinhauser, Mark E. Meysembourg, Kelly G. Brisson, Sandra Harrilal,
and Steve Johnson, through their undersigned counsel submit this status Brief
pursuant to the Court’s July 6, 2015 Order.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs filed suit May 5, 2004 after
Defendant through its officials and inspectors during 2002 through 2005 targeted
their low-income rental properties with illegally heightened housing standards
and illegal code enforcement tactics and methods and other retaliatory tactics,
including repeated false claims of code violations, illegal condemnations of
homes and removal of “grandfathering” protections through forced renovations to
present code under City “Code Compliance Certifications” in violation of the
Minnesota State Building Code, all resulting in displacement of and injuries to
“protected class” tenants, removal of habitable housing units, and economic
losses to Plaintiffs. During 2005 through 2008, Plaintiffs participated in
extensive discovery and motion practice including unsuccessfully seeking
sanctions against the City for its admitted destruction following commencement
of the first lawsuit in 2004 of electronic communications of Defendant officials
and inspectors and thousands of relevant City
City of Saint Paul's attempt to cover up the illegal
housing activities,
DEFENDANT’S
STATUS BRIEF
At the
inception of this dispute, sixteen plaintiffs filed three cases, collectively
asserting thirty-two causes of action against eighteen defendants, which
included the City of St. Paul (the “City”) and a host of City officials and
employees. Today, five plaintiffs, one defendant, and one cause of action
remain: Plaintiffs assert the City violated the Fair Housing Act based on a
disparate impact theory. The remaining plaintiffs are landlords or former
landlords, and paradoxically, they claim the City’s enforcement of its housing
code against their dilapidated properties created a disparate impact on
minorities and disabled tenants by decreasing the availability of low-income
housing.
Earlier this
year, the Court stayed this action pending issuance of a decision in a case
pending before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued that
decision on June 25, 2015. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive
Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (“Texas”). The Court has asked
the parties to brief the status of the case in light of this ruling. Doc. No.
348.
The impact of
the Texas decision on this case is clear: Plaintiffs’ sole claim against the
City must be dismissed. To be sure, the Supreme Court in Texas acknowledged that
disparate impact claims may be asserted under the Fair Housing Act. But it is
equally clear that in doing so, the Court imposed cautionary requirements that
must be met before a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case. In the present
case—which the Supreme Court specifically identified by name in its
decision—Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements identified
in Texas. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of an
actual City policy that resulted in discrimination, and have similarly failed to
establish the necessary robust causal connection between a City policy and its
purported discriminatory effects. Both elements are mandatory. Even if
Plaintiffs had complied with the Supreme Court’s prima facie requirements,
Plaintiffs’ claim still fails post-Texas because all parties agree that the City
had a legitimate governmental objective, and the Supreme Court opined that
legitimate objectives cannot give rise to disparate
imp
Citys Answer
25:53 Bill Windsor of Lawless America is interviewed ...
13:12 Congressional Testimony: Don Mashak to Bill Win...
No comments:
Post a Comment