* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-10972

IRMA JEAN JAMES and TERRI LARY,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS; ET AL,

Defendants,

CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

(3:98-CV-436-R)

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellee Irma Jean James brought suit on behalf of a certified

class against Appellant City of Dallas (the “City”) and Aquila

Allen, a former administrator of the City’s Urban Rehabilitation2

Standards Board (“URSB”), seeking damages based on the City’s order

of demolition of a building James owned and injunctive relief

related primarily to the lien the City imposed on the property to

secure the cost of such demolition. James subsequently amended her

complaint several times, eventually non-suiting her claim against

Allen, adding pla intiff Terri Lary, and adding the United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) as a defendant.

James and Lary (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) also sought

certification of two classes under F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 23(b)(2). After

conducting a hearing on Plaintiffs’ proposed class certifications

in October 1999, the district court entered an order certifying two

classes under Rule 23(b)(2), one of which was based on due process

claims and the other on racial discrimination grounds. The City

appealed the district court’s certification determinations.

A panel of this Court modified the number of claims for which

the Plaintiffs could potentially recover under the due proc ess

class and concluded that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Article

III standin g to seek the relief requested for the race

discrimination class. James v. City of Dallas , 254 F.3d 551, 573

(5th Cir. 2001) (“ James I ”). The court in J ames I determined that

the due process class could seek potentially available injunctive

relief on seven of their original twelve requests: “(1) cancel the

debt assessed for demolition costs and associated fees/interest and

file notice in the public deed records that the debt was cancelled,

(2) file a release of the lien in the public deed records, (3)3

ensure th at title is clear on the property, (4) ensure that all

City records concerning the property show the debt cancelled, (5)

refrain from taking any steps to enforce the lien or collect the

debt, (6) refrain from foreclosures based on demolition liens, and

(7) refrain from retaliato ry action such as refusing to issue

building permits.” Id. at 564 n.10.

On remand, the district court bifurcated the due process class

issues for a bench trial (over the City’s objection), leaving the

claims seeking individual money damages for a jury trial. The

district court tried the due process claims without a jury on

December 9, 2002. In August 2003, the district court entered its

findings of fact and conclusions of law, ordering a permanent

injunction against the City on the due process claims. James v.

City of Dallas

, No. 3:98-CV-436-R, 2003 WL 22342799 (N.D. Tex. Aug.

28, 2003) (“ James II ”). The City timely filed the instant appeal.

Having carefully reviewed the entire record of this case, and

having fully considered the parties’ respective briefin g and

arguments, we find no reversible error in the district court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law. We therefore AFFIRM the

final judgment of the distric t court essentially for the reasons

stated in its order.

AFFIRMED.