Maryland Manor Associates v. City of Houston
816 F. Supp. 2d 394
S.D. Tex.2011Background
- Maryland Manor seeks to replace a 67-unit apartments with a 23-story mixed-use building and 5-level parking garage on a 1.6-acre tract in Houston.
- City of Houston initially approved a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in 2007 finding no adverse traffic impact, then rescinded that approval later that year.
- Plaintiffs engaged in a protracted plan-review process with staff responses, plan revisions, and alleged pretextual reasons for continued denials and an attempt to pass a new ordinance targeting their project.
- April 7, 2009 drive-way permit application was denied based on the driveway-permit ordinance and traffic concerns, despite prior traffic approvals.
- August 2009 the City granted a different permit for a neighboring or differently described project generating fewer trips; plaintiffs challenged the denial and filed suit asserting federal constitutional and Texas state-law claims.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the City’s motions to dismiss, and denies the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend; status conference scheduled.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland Manor states a valid class-of-one equal protection claim. | Maryland Manor alleges disparate treatment compared to similarly situated properties. | City contends comparators are not similarly situated and ordinance is rational. | Class-of-one claim survives dismissal at this stage. |
| Whether Maryland Manor states a substantive due process claim. | Denied permit arbitrarily or irrationally impacts property rights. | Traffic regulation is a legitimate, rational objective. | Partially denied; certain due process theory dismissed while others survive. |
| Whether state constitutional damages claims are proper. | Seeks equitable relief under Texas Constitution. | Texas Constitution does not authorize monetary damages. | Monetary-damages claims dismissed; equitable-relief claims survive. |
| Whether the vested-rights claim under Texas Local Government Code § 245.002 is viable. | Right to review under the ordinance as it existed at first filing. | Ordinance interpretation allowed broader consideration; no vested right. | Vested-rights claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Iqbal v. Hasty, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; not mere labels or conclusory statements)
- Stotter v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2007) (class-of-one requires rational basis and similarity of comparators)
- Willowbrook v. Novick, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one framework for equal protection)
- Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1988) (equal protection requires similar treatment of similarly situated parties)
- Simi Inv. Co. v. Harris Cnty., 236 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2000) (substantive due process requires rational relation to legitimate interest)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 1996) (traffic regulation as legitimate government interest)
- DeBlasio v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 53 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 1995) (substantive due process in land-use context)
- Nunez v. Simms, 341 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2003) (legitimate claim of entitlement to property interests)