City of Little Rock v. Alexander Apartments, LLC; Arkansas Community Organizations; Melody Branch; Carolyn Ford; Ingram Murphy; And Linda Wheeler, 592 S.W.3d 224

Background

In March 2014 Alexander Apartments bought a 141‑unit complex in Little Rock; many units were in disrepair and the City conducted repeated code inspections.
After ongoing enforcement, Little Rock Fire Chief Summers issued a December 21, 2015 letter ordering the complex to cease operations and tenants to vacate by December 28, 2015; utilities were to be disconnected.
The letter/door notices provided no administrative appeal or review mechanism for owners or tenants; Alexander Apartments and several tenants sued and obtained a TRO preventing disconnection and forcible removal.
The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted summary judgment holding the City (acting under the Fire Code) violated state constitutional due‑process rights of both the owner and tenants by providing no pre‑ or post‑deprivation procedure; it enjoined future deprivations without adequate notice and hearing.
At trial the court awarded Alexander Apartments $432,744.33 in lost profits/mitigation; individual tenants received compensatory awards (ranging $8,500–$25,000).
On appeal this Court affirmed the due‑process rulings and Alexander Apartments’ damages, but reversed and remanded the tenants’ damages for lack of causal connection to the December 2015 due‑process violations; the Court declined to resolve a standalone constitutional ruling against §108.1 because the circuit court later clarified it had not invalidated that provision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Did the City violate Alexander Apartments’ due‑process rights by ordering cessation without pre‑ or post‑deprivation review?	Alexander Apartments: Fire Chief’s order deprived it of property interest and no mechanism existed to challenge the closure.	City: Emergency powers justified expedited action; filing suit provided prompt judicial review.	Held: Violation — owner had property interest, City acted under Fire Code, and no pre‑ or post‑deprivation mechanism was provided.
2) Did the tenants have state constitutional due‑process rights and were they violated?	Tenants: had exclusive possession rights; the notice to vacate deprived them without process.	City: actions were emergency measures; postdeprivation remedies suffice.	Held: Violation — tenants possess property interests and were given no pre‑ or post‑deprivation review; summary judgment for tenants affirmed.
3) Is Vol. 1 §108.1 of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code unconstitutional for lacking review procedures?	Plaintiffs: Code (as applied) permits deprivations without review.	City: (raised constitutionality on appeal).	Held: Not reviewed on appeal — circuit court later clarified it did not declare §108.1 unconstitutional, so this Court declined to decide.
4) Were the damages awards supported and non‑speculative?	Alexander Apartments: proved lost profits and mitigation via expert (88.2% target occupancy); tenants: emotional/health harms from eviction notice.	City: lost‑profit figures speculative; mitigation payments were marketing; tenants’ harms stemmed from later, unrelated events.	Held: Alexander Apartments’ damages affirmed (substantial evidence); tenants’ awards reversed and remanded because the court relied on events not causally tied to the December 2015 due‑process violations.

Key Cases Cited

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972) (predeprivation hearing principles; emergencies can affect due‑process analysis).
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (postdeprivation tort remedy may satisfy due process in random/unauthorized deprivations).
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (scope of postdeprivation remedies under federal due process jurisprudence).
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (limitations on relying on state tort remedies where process is required).
Franklin v. State, 267 Ark. 311 (Ark. 1978) (Arkansas recognition of property‑based due‑process protections).
Sanford v. Walther, 2015 Ark. 285 (Ark. 2015) (framework for state due‑process claims).
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707 (Ark. 2002) (causation requirement for damages awards).
Christmas v. Raley, 260 Ark. 150 (Ark. 1976) (causal connection required between wrongful act and damages).