534 F.Supp.3d 272
E.D.N.Y2021Background
- New York enacted the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA) Part A on Dec. 28, 2020, creating a temporary stay on many evictions and requiring landlords to provide a government-prescribed "hardship declaration" (and certain translations and lists of legal services) before or during eviction proceedings. Key provisions expired May 1, 2021.
- The hardship declaration allows tenants to assert COVID-related financial or health hardship and, if submitted, triggers statutory stays on filing, judgments, warrant issuance, or warrant execution in many circumstances (with nuisance/safety exceptions).
- Five landlord plaintiffs alleged they could not evict nonpaying tenants because of CEEFPA, and challenged Part A as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments (compelled speech, vagueness, procedural due process, petition clause) and state separation/delegation principles.
- Plaintiffs sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in her official capacity and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Part A; the AG moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of a required enforcement connection.
- The district court held the Ex parte Young exception did not apply because the Attorney General lacked a particular statutory duty to enforce the challenged provisions (CEEFPA’s enforcement/admin is vested in courts and local law‑enforcement officers), so the AG was not a proper defendant; the case was dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and the injunction denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AG is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young (Eleventh Amendment) | AG must defend state statutes and has enforcement authority; AG issued guidance and prior enforcement actions show willingness to enforce CEEFPA | Ex parte Young requires the state official to have a particular duty and connection to enforcement of the challenged statute; AG has no such duty over CEEFPA Part A | Dismissed: AG lacks the requisite enforcement connection; Ex parte Young does not apply; Eleventh Amendment bars suit against AG in federal court |
| Whether AG’s public guidance/press releases create a demonstrated willingness to enforce CEEFPA | AG guidance and press releases show intent/willingness to enforce and assist sheriffs, making her a proper defendant | Public guidance does not create statutory enforcement duties; statements alone do not satisfy Ex parte Young | Held: public statements/guidance are insufficient to establish enforcement authority or willingness for Young purposes |
| Whether New York Executive Law §§ 63(1), 63(12), 71 create a particular duty to enforce CEEFPA | These provisions empower the AG to defend statutes and pursue injunctions against illegal acts, so they supply the enforcement connection | Those provisions are general, discretionary powers and do not impose a specific duty to enforce CEEFPA Part A | Held: General enforcement authority is insufficient; no particular statutory duty to enforce this statute was shown |
| Preliminary injunction against enforcement of CEEFPA Part A | Plaintiffs sought immediate, prospective relief from enforcement of Part A | AG argued the court lacked jurisdiction because AG is not a proper Ex parte Young defendant | Denied as moot on merits because case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (creates narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective suits against state officials who enforce unconstitutional statutes)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (states generally immune from suit; suits against officials must fit Ex parte Young exception)
- Mendez v. Heller, 530 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1976) (AG not proper defendant when no enforcement connection to challenged statute)
- Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Catterson, 411 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 2005) (explains Ex parte Young requires a real enforcement connection)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. N.Y.S. Off. of Real Prop. Servs., 306 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2002) (Ex parte Young is a limited exception to sovereign immunity for prospective relief)
- HealthNow New York, Inc. v. New York, 739 F. Supp. 2d 286 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (general AG authority under Exec. Law § 63(12) insufficient to establish Ex parte Young enforcement connection)
- Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020) (official statements alone do not create enforcement authority for Young; official must have particular duty and willingness to enforce)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (Ex parte Young inquiry focuses on whether complaint alleges ongoing violation and seeks prospective relief)