DeSuze v. Ammon, 990 F.3d 264

Background

Linden Plaza, a privately owned affordable housing complex in Brooklyn, sought HUD/HPD approval to raise rents in 2007; the owner submitted a HUD application that included approximately $140 million in "decoupling" expenses that helped justify the increases.
Tenants received notice and participated in HPD proceedings but were not given the HUD application details; HUD approved the application in December 2007 and HPD in March 2008.
Tenants first learned in April 2011 (and obtained further detail in 2013) that decoupling expenses in the HUD application contributed to the rent increases.
In 2018 the Tenants sued: asserting state-law claims against the owner, APA claims against HUD for procedural violations (including alleged deviation from 24 C.F.R. § 245.330 and reliance on Notice H 00-8), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against New York City/HPD for discriminatory policy favoring preservation transactions.
The district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of standing on one APA theory and as time-barred; the Tenants appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the Tenants lack standing to challenge the approval-sequence rule; all federal claims were untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (with § 2401(a) treated as a claims-processing rule); equitable tolling and the continuing-violation doctrine did not rescue the claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
APA standing to challenge HUD's use of Notice H 00-8 vs. 24 C.F.R. § 245.330 (order-of-approval claim)	Tenants: the local-to-federal approval sequence was required and protected tenants' participation rights; deviation injures tenants.	HUD: Notice H 00-8 preserved tenant participation protections; order of approval was not a right designed to protect tenants' concrete interests.	No standing: the sequence itself was not designed to protect tenants’ concrete interests; tenant participation protections existed regardless of order.
Timeliness of APA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)	Tenants: accrual should run from when they discovered the full HUD application details (post-2007), delaying the limitations period.	Federal Defs: claims accrued at final agency action (2007) or, at latest, when tenants learned the basis (2011); suit filed in 2018 is beyond six years.	Time-barred: claims accrued no later than April 2011; filed after six-year limit; dismissed.
Nature of § 2401(a) deadline: jurisdictional bar vs. claims-processing rule	Tenants: (implicitly) may seek collateral or equitable relief if § 2401(a) is jurisdictional.	Defs: § 2401(a) restricts suits but does not divest courts of jurisdiction in the same manner as a jurisdictional bar.	§ 2401(a) is a claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional; court may consider equitable tolling—but tolling denied here.
Timeliness of § 1983 claims and continuing-violation doctrine	Tenants: City’s ongoing pro-preservation policy makes approvals a continuing violation, saving time-barred discrete approvals.	City/HPD: each approval (2008, 2014) was a discrete act with independent accrual; claims are barred after 3 years.	Dismissed: § 1983 claims subject to 3-year limit; continuing-violation doctrine does not apply to discrete administrative approvals.

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (procedural-rights standing framework)
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (claim accrual and "zone of interests" analysis)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claims-processing rules)
Sai Kwan Wong v. Doar, 571 F.3d 247 (accrual of APA claims tied to final agency action)
Jackson v. Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (treating § 2401(a) as nonjurisdictional)
Chance v. Zinke, 898 F.3d 1025 (same regarding § 2401(a))
Clymore v. United States, 217 F.3d 370 (timeliness under § 2401(a) as nonjurisdictional in Fifth Circuit precedent)
Gonzalez v. Hasty, 802 F.3d 212 (continuing-violation doctrine standards)
Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (3-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims)
Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76 (equitable tolling standard)