Case ID: f2d_689/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MULTI-FAMILY COUNCIL OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA and Chancellor Associates, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and/or business entities having financial interest in rental residential real estate in the City of Philadelphia, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Glancey, Honorable Joseph R. President Judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court and Scally, III, Bernard A. Court Administrator of the Philadelphia Municipal Court and the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia and Bradley, Honorable Edward J. President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Gelfand, Honorable Eugene Judge-Motion Court and Savitt, Honorable David N. Judge—Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Administrator and Petitt, Jr., Esquire, John J. Court of Common Pleas Prothonotary Tenant Action Group, Intervening Defendant, Multi-Family Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and Chancellor Associates, Appellants.
    No. 82-1211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Sept. 28, 1982.
    Decided Oct. 8, 1982.
    Robert R. Guzzardi, Richard M. Tiger, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
    Alan J. Davis, City Sol., Stephen Bosch, Deputy City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, The Municipal Court of the City of Philadelphia, et al.
    Stephen P. Ulan, George D. Gould, Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, Tenant Action Group.
    Before ALDISERT and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and MEANOR, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable H. Curtis Meanor, of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a claim for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires us to consider whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff-appellants are landlords who alleged that the Philadelphia courts’ failure to give priority to processing eviction claims was an abridgment of the landlords’ rights to due process. After considering all of appellants’ contentions, we endorse the reasoning and conclusions expressed by the Honorable Louis H. Poliak in his opinion in Multi-Family Council v. Municipal Court, 541 F.Supp. 139 (E.D.Pa.1982).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.