1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ALMS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, : Case No: 1:17-cv-00605 

et al., : 

: Judge Timothy Black 

Plaintiffs, :

: 

vs. :

: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF : 

HOUSING AND URBAN :

DEVELOPMENT, et al., :

: 

Defendants. :

 ORDER GRANTING THE CITY OF CINCINNATI

 LEAVE TO APPEAR AND FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE

The City of Cincinnati has moved the Court for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in 

this case and to appear and participate in the Hearing set for October 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. 

(Doc. 10).

The decision whether to grant amicus curiae status to a party is a matter left to the sound 

discretion of the district court. See United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991) 

(citing Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555 (1903)). Amicus status should be 

granted where the request is “timely, useful, or otherwise necessary to the administration of 

justice.” Id. Where the government has “an important interest and a valuable perspective on the 

issues presented[,]” granting leave to appear as amicus is appropriate. Bd. of Educ. v. United 

States Dep’t of Educ., No. 2:16-CV-524, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107614, at *16, 2016 WL 

4269080 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

The City of Cincinnati (the “City”) argues that it has a strong interest in the outcome of 

this case because it directly impacts its citizens, both the tenants and community-at-large. The 

City further argues that the subject of this lawsuit, the Alms Hill Apartments (the “Alms”), 

represents a significant portion of the City’s already insufficient affordable housing. The City 

argues further that Defendant U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)’s

proposed abatement of the affordable housing contract associated with the Alms will increase 

housing instability for some of the City’s most vulnerable residents and exacerbate the affordable 

housing shortage. 

The City also articulates that it has a clear and vested interest in this litigation due to the 

City’s obligation to protect the health and safety of its residents. The City plausibly argues that 

the Alms’ tenants, its neighbors, and the neighborhood at large will be affected by the outcome 

of this case. The City opines that, if the Alms is closed, the City may have to relocate tenants 
2

who may face homelessness if they are unable to find housing or do not qualify for the tenant 

protection vouchers HUD may issue. In addition, the City notes that allowing HUD to abate the 

Alms’ contract will directly impact the City’s economy because the property will lose value and 

sit vacant; and the decline in property value from the loss of the federal subsidy will negatively 

impact the tax revenue received by the City. 

Moreover, the City posits that allowing this historic building, considered “home” by 

hundreds of Cincinnati citizens, to fall vacant will likely harm the surrounding community and 

threaten the significant efforts to revitalize the surrounding Walnut Hills neighborhood. It is 

well-established that vacant structures can attract blight and crime. And the City therefore fears 

that, should HUD be allowed to proceed with its abatement, a vacant Alms will cast a shadow 

over an in-flux neighborhood struggling to maintain its identity and sustain its most vulnerable 

residents. 

Presumably, this Court’s decision will have a major impact on the pending state court 

litigation filed by the City in 2015 to address substandard living conditions, crime, and building 

code violations at the Alms. See City of Cincinnati v. PE Alms Hill Realty, LLC, Hamilton C.P. 

No. A1500883. In the state court litigation, the City sought abatement of nuisance conditions at 

the Alms; a Receiver was appointed by the court and charged with bringing the Alms into code 

compliance; and the City avers that significant progress has been made towards that end, citing

the state court’s Order of February 1, 2016. The state court Receiver is partially funded by the 

rental revenues from the federal subsidy. As the City argues, if HUD abates the Alms’ housing 

contract, this income stream disappears and the likelihood of the nuisance being abated is 

significantly diminished, if not altogether eliminated. 

Moreover, both HUD and Plaintiffs rely upon information provided by the City to 

support their positions in this matter. A fortiori, the City is best-suited to present its information, 

data, and records, and allowing the City to participate as an amicus will ensure that the Court has 

immediate access to the most up-to-date information directly from the source. Given the 

significant public interests at stake, the City ought to be permitted to communicate its position to 

the Court directly. 

In sum, the City’s request to participate in amicus status is “timely, useful, or otherwise 

necessary to the administration of justice,” United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th 

Cir. 1991), and the City has “an important interest and a valuable perspective on the issues 

presented ....” Bd. of Educ. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., No. 2:16-CV-524, 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 107614, at *16, 2016 WL 4269080 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2016).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the City’s Motion (Doc. 10) and the City shall file 

forthwith its amicus curiae brief (Doc. 10, Ex. A) as a separate docket entry. Moreover, the 

Court grants the City leave to participate in the October 6, 2017 Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3).
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/3/17 ______________________

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge