Opinion ID: 4529387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenging the Director’s Interpretation

Text: In response to the Director’s interpretation, community members expressed dismay and outrage at the opening of an addiction-treatment center2 in Cordillera and the closure of the Lodge and Village parcels to the public. Illustrative of the local sentiment, one community member labeled CSMN’s plans a “[c]atastrophe for the 1 To correct a procedural issue, this interpretation was re-issued on July 1, 2016. 2 The CSMN addiction-treatment center was high-scale, with planned monthly patient charges of $60,000. 4 community[,]” believing the center’s opening “should be stopped at all costs,” while another labeled “[t]he presence of such a facility in our community . . . poisonous to the essential values of the community by introducing a population destructive to our neighborhood’s peace of mind, real estate values, and carefully cultivated reputation.” App. vol. 3 at 566, 581. Other members voiced concern for the safety of their children and grandchildren: “I . . . don’t feel comfortable with the idea of my grandchildren playing outside or hiking in the neighborhood where persons with addictions could be as well as ‘dealers’ who might be trying to reach the ‘patients’ inside!” Id. at 587. Yet others, who were club members at the Lodge, were “devastated” by the sale, because the Lodge was the main reason that they moved to Cordillera in the first place. Id. at 584. They could not believe that it would now be closed to paying community members. In view of the overwhelming community response, Cordillera Property Owners Association (CPOA) and Cordillera Metropolitan District (CMD) jointly appealed the Director’s PUD interpretation to the Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”).3 To assist in this appeal, CMD created the Legal Committee, which was comprised of Larry Kyte, Ed Shriner, Bruce Smathers, Patrick Wilhelm, and Tom Wilner. The appeal raised four challenges to the Director’s interpretation: (1) allowing a use inconsistent with the PUD’s purpose of serving a resort, residential community; 3 CMD is a local-government entity providing services to the Cordillera community and is governed by a board of directors. The CPOA is the property owners’ association for the community. 5 (2) failing to “give effect to the legislative intent governing the use of the [Lodge and Village] requiring [the parcels] to be used as a focal point and social gathering place for the residents and guests of Cordillera”; (3) failing “to apply the actual language of the PUD which would preclude inpatient treatment and the proposed uses are something other than a clinic”; and (4) allowing a use of the Lodge and Village so far beyond what PUD allows as to amount to a “wrongful Major Modification,” which would require “approval” from the CPOA “and formal amendment to the PUD.” App. vol. 3 at 594. After a hearing, the Board affirmed the Director’s interpretation on all but one point. Addressing CMD and CPOA’s third basis for appeal, the Board reversed the Director’s interpretation that CSMN could use the property as an inpatient-treatment center, concluding that the PUD permitted only outpatient clinical uses. So in a modified interpretation, the Board required that CSMN’s “clinic component be operated as an outpatient facility[,]” not inpatient, as CSMN had proposed. Id. at 598. On November 8, 2016, CMD and CPOA took their case to Colorado state court, seeking review of the Board’s ruling under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4).4 The Colorado state district court affirmed the Board’s decision. Though CMD did not appeal, CPOA did, and on November 29, 2018, the Colorado Court of 4 This rule allows for the Colorado district court to review whether “any governmental body . . . exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, . . . based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body . . . .” Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4). 6 Appeals affirmed the Board and the district court in an unpublished decision.5 See Benson v. Eagle County, No. 17CA1973, 2018 WL 6241502 (Colo. App. Nov. 29, 2018). And on August 19, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Benson v. Eagle County, No. 18SC893, 2019 WL 3934442 (Colo. Aug. 19, 2019). II. Civil Rights Actions Against CPOA, CMD, and Associated Individuals On December 28, 2017, with the state-court appeals pending, CSMN turned the tables, filing a civil-rights action in Colorado federal district court against CPOA, CMD, and various associated people—the CMD board members, the CMD district manager, and the Legal Committee members. CSMN’s complaint contains three claims, each against a different subset of defendants. First, CSMN alleges that CMD violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).6 It asserts that the ADA protects both CSMN’s future clients—drug- and alcohol-addicted people—and CSMN (as a “service provider” to those individuals). App. vol. 2 at 446. By this view, CMD’s legal actions restricted CSMN’s “use of the Property . . . due to [CSMN’s] efforts to provide residential services to persons with disabilities,” so CMD had engaged in “intentional discrimination against CSMN and its future clients[,] in violation of Title II of the ADA[.]” Id. Second, CSMN alleges 5 The state district court consolidated CMD and CPOA’s case with a similar case brought by Cordillera homeowners. 6 CSMN limited its claim to CMD, the only defendant that qualifies as a public entity under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) (defining “public entity” under the ADA to include “any . . . special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government”). 7 that all Appellees violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by seeking to prevent CSMN’s future clients from residing at the property (which CSMN calls a “dwelling” under the FHA) due to their disabilities. Id. at 447. CSMN alleges that Appellees accomplished this by pursuing a PUD interpretation that would have prevented CSMN from providing housing to disabled people. And third, CSMN brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against CMD, David Bentley, David Davies, Robert Egan, Kitty George, Larry Kyte, Judith McBride, Rachel Oys, Ed Shriner, Bruce Smathers, Patrick Wilhelm, and Tom Wilner (only CPOA is excluded). The claim alleges that “[u]nder color of state law,” those Appellees “injured CSMN by conspiring to deprive, failing to stop the deprivation, or depriving CSMN and its future Clients of equal protection . . . and due process . . . under the First and Fourteenth Amendments . . . , and as guaranteed under the ADA[.]” Id. at 448. In response, Appellees moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims, arguing that the right to petition immunized their conduct. CSMN countered that Appellees’ claim of immunity was unfounded because the petitioning had sought an unlawful outcome, and that even if the immunity somehow did apply, the petitioning fell within an exception to that immunity, that is, the petitioning was a “sham.” The district court sided with Appellees, dismissing all but 8 one7 of the claims on the ground that their conduct was protected by NoerrPennington immunity—based on the First Amendment’s right to petition—and that no exception to the immunity applied. CSMN timely appealed.