Case Title: Alger, et al. v. Dept. of Labor & Industry, et al.

Citation: 2006 VT 115

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Alger, et al. v. Dept. of Labor & Industry, et al. (2005-001)

2006 VT 115

[Filed 09-Nov-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 115

                                No. 2005-001


  Rebecca Alger, et al.                          Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Franklin Superior Court


  Department of Labor and Industry, et al.       November Term, 2005


  Howard E. VanBenthuysen, J.

  Maryellen Griffin and Karen Richards, and Katherine Berkman and Stephen
    Norman (On the Brief), St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General and Clifford Peterson, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendants-Appellants.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.  Plaintiffs Rebecca Alger, et al., appeal from the
  superior court's dismissal of their action against defendant Vermont
  Department of Labor and Industry, as well as from the court's denial of
  their application for class certification.  Plaintiffs' claims arise
  primarily from the Department's attempted closure of an apartment building
  at 13 High Street in St. Albans for longstanding housing code violations. 
  Plaintiffs allege that the conditions at 13 High Street are symptomatic of
  the Department's general failure to take action against the owners of
  rental housing who have violated the housing code. (FN1)  Plaintiffs claim
  that the closure was an unconstitutional taking of property without due
  process or just compensation.  They argue that the court's dismissal was
  premature because their allegations were sufficient to state due process
  and takings claims, as well as a claim in the nature of mandamus. 
  Plaintiffs also contend that the court improperly considered the merits of
  the case in denying class certification.  We affirm in part, reverse in
  part, and remand.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiffs brought this action in November 2002, following the
  Department's order that the apartment building at 13 High Street be vacated
  by November 15, 2002, due to fire and electrical code violations. 
  Plaintiffs' first complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief
  pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 209, which allows any person aggrieved by an action
  taken by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to appeal the action to the
  superior court within twenty days of the action.  The complaint alleged
  that the Department's order failed to comply with the due process
  requirements of notice and a pre-closure hearing, that it was served
  improperly, and that the Department had failed to demonstrate that the
  building was imminently hazardous before ordering that it be vacated.  In
  connection with their complaint, plaintiffs sought, and received, a
  preliminary injunction preventing the Department from closing the building. 
  The Department then agreed to allow the building to remain open until
  further order of the superior court.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended
  complaint adding claims against Thomas Komasa, the owner of 13 High Street,
  after he was brought in as a third-party defendant at the Department's
  request.  Plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Komasa, some of which have been
  settled, are not at issue here. 

       ¶  3.  In June 2003, following discovery, plaintiffs filed a third
  amended complaint containing revised claims and additional allegations
  against the Department.  This complaint also added the claims of two
  plaintiffs, Tina Neville and Linda Limoge, who did not reside at 13 High
  Street.  We treat the following allegations as true for the purposes of
  reviewing the superior court's dismissal.  Gilman v. Maine Mut. Fire Ins.
  Co., 2003 VT 55, ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 554,