1 F.4th 421
6th Cir.2021Background
- Benton and Katherine Benalcazar bought a 43-acre parcel in Genoa Township, Ohio (zoned Rural Residential) and in 2017 applied to rezone it to a Planned Residential District to permit higher-density development.
- The township trustees approved the rezoning 2–1; residents then passed a referendum reversing that approval. Over 75% voted for the referendum.
- The Benalcazars sued under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, alleging disparate treatment (identifying other rezonings as comparators) and discriminatory rhetoric casting them as outsiders.
- Genoa Township and the Benalcazars reached a consent decree: the Township agreed to rezone the property but the development was reduced from 64 to 56 homes and included other concessions. They invoked O.R.C. § 505.07, which allows a township to settle and rezone notwithstanding a zoning referendum.
- A group of residents intervened and moved to dismiss and to block the settlement; the district court allowed intervention, dismissed the due process and declaratory-judgment claims, found an equal-protection claim plausibly pleaded, and approved the consent decree. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may approve a consent decree before resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Benalcazars: Court need only have arguable (non-frivolous) federal jurisdiction; merits need not be resolved to approve settlement | Intervenors: Court must ensure complaint survives 12(b)(6) before approving a settlement that overrides a referendum | Held: Court may approve a consent decree so long as the federal claims are not wholly frivolous; merits-resolution under Rule 12(b)(6) is not required for settlement approval. |
| Whether the complaint pleaded non-frivolous federal claims (Equal Protection / Due Process) sufficient to confer jurisdiction | Benalcazars: Alleged comparators, prior rezonings, disparate treatment, and hostile statements make claims arguable | Intervenors: Referendum applies equally; comparators differ; allegations are implausible | Held: Allegations are arguable, not frivolous; equal-protection claim survives the frivolousness threshold (due-process/dj claims dismissed below but jurisdictional threshold satisfied). |
| Whether intervenors could block or invalidate the consent decree | Intervenors: They have a right to intervene and to challenge the settlement as undermining the referendum | Township/Benalcazars: Settlement negotiated by parties with standing and authorized by state statute | Held: Intervention was permitted and intervenors could challenge the decree, but the court legitimately approved the settlement. |
| Whether the consent decree was proper given Ohio statute permitting settlements that rezone notwithstanding a referendum | Benalcazars: Settlement resolves dispute, yields compromise, and is authorized by O.R.C. § 505.07 | Intervenors: Settlement subverts the voters’ referendum and is improper | Held: The settlement was permissible and reasonable; Ohio law allows a township to settle and include rezoning despite a referendum, so the decree was lawful and approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction requires claims not be wholly frivolous)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (jurisdiction not defeated by possibility that averments fail to state a recoverable cause of action)
- Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (consent decree must spring from and resolve a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and come within the scope of the pleadings)
- Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289 (consent decrees must be within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (popular action cannot accomplish otherwise impermissible ends under the Constitution)
- City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (referendum is the city legislating through its voters)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- Kenney v. Blackwell, 225 F.3d 659 (6th Cir. 2000) (distinguishable summary-judgment merits decision on rezoning equal-protection claim)