Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/152/217/543825/
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 20:16:23
Document Index: 773659316

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3604', '§ 3604', '§ 3615', '§ 3613', '§ 3610', '§ 3612', '§ 3613', '§ 3612', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 1988', '§ 40', '§ 3604', 'art, 461', '§ 204', '§ 2000', '§ 1988', '§ 204', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 3615', '§ 1']

New Jersey Coalition of Rooming and Boarding House Owners;louis Cook; John E. Brown; Leonard Levy; Carolwise; Brenda Copeland; Michael Byrne;beverly Deming; Eugene Hodas,appellants, v. Mayor and Council of the City of Asbury Park; the City Ofasbury Park, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Newjersey; Mayor and Council of the Township of Neptune; Thetownship of Neptune, a Municipal Corporation of the State Ofnew Jersey; Mayor and Council of Keansburg; Borough Ofkeansburg, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey,mayor and Council of the City of Asbury Park; the City Ofasbury Park, Defendants/third-party Plaintiffs, v. State of New Jersey, Third-party Defendant, 152 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1998) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1998 › New Jersey Coalition of Rooming and Boarding House Owners;louis Cook; John E. Brown; Leonard Levy; C...
New Jersey Coalition of Rooming and Boarding House Owners;louis Cook; John E. Brown; Leonard Levy; Carolwise; Brenda Copeland; Michael Byrne;beverly Deming; Eugene Hodas,appellants, v. Mayor and Council of the City of Asbury Park; the City Ofasbury Park, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Newjersey; Mayor and Council of the Township of Neptune; Thetownship of Neptune, a Municipal Corporation of the State Ofnew Jersey; Mayor and Council of Keansburg; Borough Ofkeansburg, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey,mayor and Council of the City of Asbury Park; the City Ofasbury Park, Defendants/third-party Plaintiffs, v. State of New Jersey, Third-party Defendant, 152 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1998)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 152 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1998) Argued May 4, 1998. Decided July 30, 1998
The FHAA declares that it is unlawful "to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of--(A) that person; ... or (C) any person associated with that person." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (2).2 The FHAA further provides that discrimination includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (3) (B). It also stipulates that "any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid." 42 U.S.C. § 3615.
Apparently, the district court believed that the FHAA conferred upon it the discretion to decide whether to award compensatory damages. See District Court Opinion, at * 31 ("The plaintiff owners claim that they were harmed due to the distress caused by not knowing whether they would be forced to close. I find that such damages are not appropriate in this case.... Damages for emotional distress in discrimination cases are generally granted to the members of the protected group.... This rationale simply does not apply in this case...."). This conclusion is understandable given the wording of the compensatory damage provision in the FHAA: "In a civil action under subsection (a) of this section, if the court finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the court may award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages," 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (1) (emphasis added), and the surprisingly sparse case law in this area.
While at first glance this language ("may award") appears discretionary, we decline to accept the district court's reading, and instead endorse the Ninth Circuit's thoughtful opinion in United States v. Hayward, which concluded that the compensatory damages provisions of the FHAA are mandatory.3 See United States v. Hayward, 36 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir. 1994). In Hayward, the Ninth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 197, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974), which found no discretion with respect to actual damages under a predecessor damages provision of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3610 et seq. ("FHA"), and the legislative history of the FHAA, which parroted the language of the old damage provision when it amended the FHA without making any substantial changes or mentioning the Curtis decision. In deciding that a party could demand a jury trial in a civil action under the FHA, a unanimous Supreme Court in Curtis had analyzed the former § 3612, the predecessor damage provision to the one at issue here, and found that "if a plaintiff proves unlawful discrimination and actual damages, he is entitled to judgment for that amount." Curtis, 415 U.S. at 197, 94 S. Ct. 1005. The court based this conclusion upon its characterization of the claim as a legal claim for damages, rather than an equitable claim for restitution. See id.
As the Ninth Circuit points out, when Congress amended the FHA in 1988 and replaced the damage provision at issue in Curtis with § 3613, it did not substantially change any language therein, nor did it indicate any displeasure with the Curtis decision. The former § 3612(c) provided: "The court ... may award to the plaintiff actual damages and not more that $1,000 punitive damages...." The new § 3613(c) provides: " [T]he court may award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages...." The wording in the amended damage provision is virtually identical to old language except that Congress eliminated the $1,000 cap on punitive damages. The legislative history of the new enforcement provisions in the FHAA confirms this reading:
Defendants advance several alternative arguments in the event that we were to conclude, as we have, that the award of damages under § 3613(c) (1) is mandatory. First, they contend, and the district court held, that damages for emotional distress should only be available to the deinstitutionalized, and not to the R & B owners, because the owners are not members of a protected group under the FHAA. We find nothing in the statute, however, that distinguishes between handicapped plaintiffs and those who are not. The statute directs that the court "may award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages."4 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (1) (emphasis supplied). Given that § 3613(c) (1) requires the district court to award damages if they are proven, we see no basis in the language or history of the statute to carve out groups of legitimate plaintiffs to which § 3613(c) (1) does not apply (and defendants have not identified any precedent to the contrary).
We find support for this conclusion in United States v. Scott, 809 F. Supp. 1404, 1406-07 (D. Kan. 1992), where the court permitted the seller of a home intended to be used as a group home for physically and mentally handicapped adults to sue as an "aggrieved person" under the FHAA and to recover actual compensatory damages for emotional distress based upon specific instances of "cool treatment and social shunning" by the defendants. Therefore, should plaintiffs ultimately prevail on remand over defendants' alternative positions discussed next (as well as on the distance and density provisions if they can establish standing), the district court will be required to calculate damages.
Defendants also make several fact-based arguments why compensatory damages are not warranted here. For example, defendants claim that there is not enough evidence of emotional distress related to actions taken by Neptune officials (as opposed to the Ocean Grove Homeowners Association) to justify compensation. Defendants also urge that, because plaintiffs ultimately received their licenses and zoning approvals, they could not possibly have suffered emotional distress due to defendants' discriminatory practices which only threatened their livelihoods. Finally, defendants contend that, because the Department of Community Affairs could have closed down the R & B houses for legitimate violations prior to the passage of the Act and Ordinances, any argument by plaintiffs that they suffered emotional distress based upon the threat of closure by the Site Licensing Board after passage of the Act and Ordinances is unavailing. These arguments may in fact prevail, and plaintiffs' damage claims may prove ephemeral. However, given the district court's erroneous conclusion that it had discretion under § 3613(c) (1) to decide whether to award damages, these arguments should be considered by the district court on remand.
The district court also declined to award punitive damages. In so doing, the court concluded that defendants were not motivated by "evil motive or intent" and did not act with the requisite outrageousness and reckless disregard of plaintiffs' federal rights to justify an award of punitive damages. See District Court Opinion, at * 32. As factual findings, we review these conclusions to determine if they are clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985). Under this narrow review, we cannot disturb the district court's determination. Furthermore, it is not clear that punitive damages can ever be awarded against a municipal defendant. See Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 267 n. 29, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981) ("It is perhaps possible to imagine an extreme situation where taxpayers are directly responsible for perpetrating an outrageous abuse of constitutional rights."). We agree with the district court that, if they can be, they are not warranted here. That is because plaintiffs have not adduced evidence of the "widespread and knowledgeable participation by the taxpayers" sufficient to meet the Supreme Court's Newport exception. See Heritage Homes of Attleboro, Inc. v. Seekonk Water Dist., 670 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982).
The district court failed to address plaintiffs' motion for counsel fees and costs to which, as the prevailing party, they were entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (2).5 As with § 3613(c) (1), this provision, which sounds fully discretionary--"the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs"--actually is not. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (2) (emphasis supplied). In fact, a district court's discretion not to grant attorney's fees and costs in civil rights cases is tightly cabined. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S. Ct. 964, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1263 (1968) ("It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust."); see also Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 89 n. 1, 109 S. Ct. 939, 103 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1989); Hatfield v. Hayes, 877 F.2d 717, 719 (8th Cir. 1989); DiFilippo v. Morizio, 759 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1985); Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1980); David v. Travisono, 621 F.2d 464, 468 (1st Cir. 1980); Robinson v. Kimbrough, 620 F.2d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 1980); Bonnes v. Long, 599 F.2d 1316, 1318 (4th Cir. 1979).6 The district court did not find any "special circumstances" justifying its decision not to award attorney's fees and costs (in fact, it offered no explanation whatever), and we find none.
I have proceeded in this fashion, therefore, filing this motion pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ.] Rule 60 and Rule 54.1 of the local rules, for costs, including attorney fees, which I believe to be appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (2), to be read in conjunction with 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Assuming plaintiffs can establish standing upon remand, the district court will have to consider several troubling aspects of the Act and Ordinances, most notably the distance and density provisions contained in N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40:52-14. If standing is established, the district court will have to determine whether these provisions violate the FHAA, the United States and New Jersey constitutions, and the NJLAD.8 Of course, the court will take up the statutory claims first and may not have to reach the constitutional issues. As noted above, plaintiffs contend that the distance and density provisions were motivated by discriminatory animus and are unduly burdensome on the deinstitutionalized who wish to live in the residences and communities of their choice. They further submit that the Township has not attempted to reasonably accommodate them as required under the FHAA and has offered no rational basis or legitimate government interest served by "declustering" the deinstitutionalized. Although the merits are not properly before us, we note that provisions similar to these have already been struck down under the FHAA based upon many of the same factual findings that the district court in this case has already made with respect to the portions of the Act and Ordinances on which it found that plaintiffs had standing. See e.g., ARC of New Jersey, Inc. v. New Jersey, 950 F. Supp. 637 (D.N.J. 1996); Association for Advancement of the Mentally Handicapped, Inc. v. Elizabeth, 876 F. Supp. 614 (D.N.J. 1994); Horizon House Developmental Serv's, Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F. Supp. 683, 693-95 (E.D. Pa. 1992).9
42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (2) declares that it is unlawful "to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of--(A) that person; ... or (C) any person associated with that person." Thus, under the FHAA, plaintiffs can be both handicapped and non-handicapped individuals
Section 3602(o) provides that " 'Prevailing Party' has the same meaning as such term has in section 1988 of this title." Defendants contend that plaintiffs were not a "prevailing party" for the purposes of the FHAA. They argue that, although plaintiffs have won, they have obtained only de minimis relief in comparison with what they sought. For example, defendants argue that while plaintiffs have gotten certain parts of the Act and Ordinances enjoined, they sought a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the Act and Ordinances in their entirety. Thus, with respect to "their real goal," defendants contend that plaintiffs suffered "total defeat." We find no merit to this argument. Plaintiffs have easily satisfied the "prevailing party" standards set forth in Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade for Voters v. Pittsburgh, 964 F.2d 244, 250 (3d Cir. 1992). Namely, plaintiffs " 'achieved some of the benefit sought by the party bringing the suit' "and the " 'litigation constituted a material contributing factor in bringing about the events that resulted in obtaining the desired relief.' " Id. (quoting Dunn v. United States, 842 F.2d 1420, 1433 (3d Cir. 1988)). Indeed, the relief realized by plaintiffs to this point is far from de minimis, and upon remand, they may be successful in invalidating even more of the Act and Ordinances. Of course, the district court will have to determine, consistent with Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983), whether plaintiffs' counsel fee request should be reduced because plaintiffs only achieved partial success
In Piggie Park, the Supreme Court was interpreting the fee-shifting language contained in § 204(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b). In the other cases cited above, the courts were interpreting similar language found in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The language in both § 204(b) and § 1988 is almost identical to the language at issue here, and under Independent Fed'n of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758-59 & n. 2, 109 S. Ct. 2732, 105 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989) (citation omitted), we are directed that "fee-shifting statutes' similar language is 'a strong indication' that they are to be interpreted alike." See also Bell v. United Princeton Properties, Inc., 884 F.2d 713, 719 (3d Cir. 1989) (applying the same standards for sua sponte reductions in attorneys' fees requests in ERISA cases as apply in civil rights cases); Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Pennsylvania, 762 F.2d 272, 275 (3d Cir. 1985) (applying same standards for setting "reasonable" attorney's fees under the Clean Air Act as apply under § 1988), modified on other grounds, 478 U.S. 546, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S. Ct. 3078, 97 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1987). Therefore, we believe that the standard enunciated in Piggie Park and Blanchard regarding the extent of the district court's discretion to award a prevailing party counsel fees is the proper one to apply to cases brought under the FHAA
Moreover, since the FHAA provides for the severability of statutes, see 42 U.S.C. § 3615 (" [A]ny law of a State ... that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid.") (emphasis supplied), the district court properly examined each provision of the Act and Ordinances separately when determining whether there were any statutory violations. Likewise, a review of New Jersey law indicates that ordinances and statutes should be preserved against constitutional or other attack to the greatest extent possible. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 1:1-10 ("If any title, subtitle, chapter, article or section of the Revised Statutes, or any provision thereof, shall be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by a court of competent jurisdiction, such title, subtitle, chapter, article, section or provision shall, to the extent that it is not unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative, be enforced and effectuated, and no such determination shall be deemed to invalidate or make ineffectual the remaining titles, subtitles, chapters, articles, sections or provisions"); Barone v. Department of Human Services, 107 N.J. 355, 526 A.2d 1055, 1063 (1987) (power to declare statutes void must "be delicately exercised"); see also New Jersey v. Patton, 256 N.J.Super. 413, 607 A.2d 191, 194 (App.Div.1992) (if necessary, a court " 'may engage in a judicial surgery to excise a constitutional defect or engraft a needed meaning.' ") (citation omitted), rev'd on other grounds, 133 N.J. 389, 627 A.2d 1112 (1993); Gilman v. Newark, 73 N.J.Super. 562, 180 A.2d 365, 386-87 (Law.Div.1962) (when provisions of an ordinance are severable, the invalidity of the severable parts does not render the entire ordinance invalid). Therefore, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the Act and Ordinances do not rise or fall together--the district court properly analyzed each section separately.
In Horizon House, the court determined that a township ordinance that imposed a distance requirement of 1,000 feet between group homes for mentally retarded people was facially invalid under the FHAA regardless of the motive of the drafters, and even if it incidentally affected some unrelated groups of non-disabled individuals such as juveniles and ex-criminal offenders. See Horizon House, 804 F. Supp. at 694. The court rejected the Township's rationale that "declustering" promoted integration into the community and was thus benign. See id. at 695. In addition, the Horizon House court found discriminatory intent on the part of the Township based upon animus similar to that found by the district court in this case. See id. at 696 (determining that the ordinance was passed in "response to community opposition and to outmoded fears about people with mental retardation")