Borum v. Brentwood Village, LLC, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1

Background

Defendants (Brentwood Associates, Mid-City Financial, Edgewood Management) plan a multi-phase redevelopment of Brookland Manor that will increase total units but eliminate most 3-, 4-, and 5‑bedroom apartments and displace households. Plaintiffs are TWO tenants and community organization ONE DC suing under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) alleging familial‑status disparate impact and discriminatory statements.
Plaintiffs allege 149 families (majority of households in larger units) will be disproportionately affected; they seek class relief and a preliminary injunction to stop relocation/demolition activity.
Defendants obtained stage‑one PUD approval from the D.C. Zoning Commission, submitted a stage‑two application, and say demolition/forced relocations will not occur until later phases (Phase One late 2017 affecting 3 buildings; later phases 2019+), with tenant relocation on‑site at ownership expense.
District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss (rejecting exhaustion, Rooker–Feldman, Younger, preclusion and ONE DC standing challenges) and held Plaintiffs stated plausible disparate‑impact claims under HUD’s burden‑shifting framework.
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs failed to show imminent, irreparable harm — the threatened relocations were not sufficiently imminent given Defendants’ timeline and evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs must exhaust D.C. zoning/administrative remedies before suing under the FHA/DCHRA	Borum: FHA and DCHRA allow direct suits in court; exhaustion not required for federal FHA claims or DCHRA civil actions	Mid-City: Plaintiffs had notice of the zoning process and should be barred by exhaustion/preclusion	Held: Exhaustion/preclusion inapplicable; FHA/DCHRA permit direct court actions and Zoning Commission is not a "court of competent jurisdiction" for preclusion purposes
Whether Rooker–Feldman or Younger abstention bars the federal suit	Borum: This is a federal FHA/DCHRA claim, not an appeal of the zoning order; federal courts should hear it	Mid-City: Suit is effectively an appeal of the Zoning Commission order and implicates D.C. proceedings	Held: Both doctrines inapplicable – Rooker–Feldman is narrow and does not apply to state administrative action; Younger abstention fails because the Zoning Commission does not afford an adequate forum to raise the federal claims
Whether ONE DC has standing (organizational and/or associational)	ONE DC: Diverted 640 staff hours and resources to combat alleged discrimination—this is an organizational injury	Mid-City: ONE DC’s resource expenditures are not a concrete injury; insufficient traceability/causation	Held: ONE DC has organizational standing — diversion of scarce resources in response to alleged discrimination is a cognizable injury
Whether Plaintiffs state disparate‑impact claims under FHA/DCHRA (scope of protected class and universe for impact analysis)	Borum: Statistical comparison of households with minor children v. households without shows disproportionate impact on families (59% v. 15%) and states a plausible disparate‑impact claim	Mid-City: Plaintiffs impermissibly “cherry‑pick” large families and focus only on eliminated large units rather than the redevelopment’s net effect on families in the redeveloped community	Held: Plaintiffs adequately defined protected group (familial status = households with minors) and analyzed the relevant universe (existing Brookland Manor tenants); claim survives motion to dismiss under HUD’s disparate‑impact framework
Whether preliminary injunction is warranted (imminence/irreparable harm)	Borum: Stage‑two filing and certain relocation actions show imminent irreparable harm to families and ONE DC’s mission	Mid-City: Any displacement is years away; Phase One relocations confined and will be accommodated on‑site; injunction would cause substantial developer harm	Held: Preliminary injunction denied — Plaintiffs failed to show certain, imminent irreparable harm; Court required Defendants to report schedule changes that would cause disproportionate off‑site relocations of families

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must nudge claims from conceivable to plausible)
Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (FHA permits direct private suits in federal court)
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (Rooker doctrine bars lower federal court review of state court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman limits and its narrow application)
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635 (Rooker–Feldman does not apply to state administrative executive action)
Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 689 F.2d 391 (federal FHA actions should not be conditioned on exhaustion of state administrative zoning remedies)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (injunctive relief requires likely irreparable harm)
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. preliminary injunction factors; high standard for irreparable harm)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing in fair housing context)