Forest City Residential Management, Inc. v. Beasley
71 F. Supp. 3d 715
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Forest City sues to determine if Beasley may use medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation under FHA/RA in federally assisted housing.
- Beasley, diagnosed with MS, has a Michigan medical marijuana card and uses marijuana in her Forest City rental.
- Beasley signed leases/addenda allowing termination for drug-related activity; Forest City seeks eviction- related relief and preemption rulings.
- Kenyon is in default/dismissal status; case proceeds against Beasley and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Court denies Beasley’s dismissal, grants in part and denies in part Forest City’s summary judgment, addressing preemption and FHA/RA issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Forest City have standing? | Forest City alleges injury to policy enforcement and housing environment. | Forest City lacks injury, thus no standing. | Forest City has standing. |
| Should the court exercise declaratory jurisdiction here? | Federal question exists over FHA accommodation; declaratory relief helpful. | Declining jurisdiction would avoid state landlord-tenant dispute. | Court exercises jurisdiction; grants declaratory relief on preemption and FHA. |
| Does the CSA preempt the MMMA as to Beasley’s use of medical marijuana? | CSA does not permit state medical marijuana; preempts MMMA. | No direct conflict; MMMA not preempted. | CSA preempts MMMA. |
| Is Beasley entitled to a reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana under FHA or RA? | Accommodation would be reasonable/necessary; HUD memo governs interpretation. | Accommodating medical marijuana would constitute a fundamental alteration. | Beasley not entitled to FHA/RA accommodation; HUD memo persuasive under Skidmore; denial of summary judgment on some claims. |
| Should the court decide whether eviction for marijuana use is permissible? | Declaration sought that eviction based on CSA violation is allowed. | State eviction issues should be decided in state courts. | Court declines to decide eviction- related declaration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard post-Twombly)
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (persuasiveness vs Chevron deference)
- Michigan Savings and Loan League v. Francis, 683 F.2d 957 (6th Cir. 1982) (Declaratory Judgment Act discretionary jurisdiction)
- Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 746 F.2d 326 (6th Cir. 1984) (factors for exercising declaratory jurisdiction)