Eesam Arabbo v. City of Burton
689 F. App'x 418
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Arabbo developed a 228-unit apartment complex (Blackberry) financed by an FHA-insured HUD-held note; by 2007 he sought refinancing after financial distress.
- HUD offered to sell the note; Arabbo proposed the City of Burton purchase the HUD note as intermediary so he could later buy it, requiring a five-member council approval and a HUD deadline the next day.
- Arabbo presented a 2% down payment but had not secured full financing; city attorney Joliat warned the purchase could violate the city’s investment policy and expose the city to HUD-mandated repairs and operational obligations if Arabbo defaulted.
- The city council voted 4–2 to reject the proposal; Arabbo alleged the rejection was motivated by anti-Arab animus by three councilmembers (Zelenko, Heffner, Martinbianco) and by attorney Joliat.
- Arabbo sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection) against the councilmembers and Joliat, and under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act against the individual defendants and the City; district court granted summary judgment to individual defendants (legislative or qualified immunity) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim; Arabbo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether councilmembers are immune for rejecting the refinancing proposal | Arabbo: vote was targeted at him and motivated by anti-Arab animus, so act was administrative, not legislative | Council: decision was legislative policymaking about city finances and risk, entitled to absolute legislative immunity | Held: Act was legislative; absolute legislative immunity applies to councilmembers |
| Whether attorney Joliat can be liable for discriminatory advice | Arabbo: Joliat made derogatory remarks and influenced council, showing discriminatory intent | Joliat: provided legal advice about policy and risks; no evidence of intentional discrimination; entitled to qualified immunity | Held: No evidence of clearly established constitutional violation; Joliat entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether evidence of discriminatory comments creates a genuine issue of material fact | Arabbo: notes and testimony about comments and tone show discriminatory motive | Defendants: isolated, hearsay, and non-specific evidence insufficient to show intentional discrimination | Held: Evidence insufficient to defeat immunity; court need not reach merits of discriminatory-motive claims |
| Whether appeal as to City of Burton remains | Arabbo: sought state-law claim against city | City: Arabbo did not amend complaint to assert § 1983 claim against city; he did not challenge dismissal of state claim | Held: Appeal dismissed as to city because no federal claim remains against it |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (legislative immunity protects acts by legislators when performing legislative functions)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (qualified immunity applies to private attorneys representing government clients)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Kamplain v. Curry Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 159 F.3d 1248 (distinguishing administrative acts directed at individuals from legislative acts)
- Cinevision v. City of Burbank, 745 F.2d 560 (vote concerning administration of an existing contract can be administrative)
- Gillis v. Miller, 845 F.3d 677 (standard of review for summary judgment in this circuit)