VERITAS RECOVERY CENTER, LLC v. CITY OF SOUTH AMBOY
3:23-cv-02420
D.N.J.May 4, 2023Background
- Veritas Recovery Center (VRC) operates a for‑profit substance‑abuse treatment facility at 540 Bordentown Ave., South Amboy, NJ, within a city redevelopment zone.
- A 2013 South Amboy ordinance amended the redevelopment plan to expressly permit alcohol/substance‑abuse treatment facilities but caps that use at 31,000 rentable square feet.
- VRC, seeking to expand to serve more (including disabled) patients, applied for a zoning permit in October 2022; the zoning officer denied the permit on October 28, 2022.
- VRC filed a Verified Complaint and a Motion for an Order to Show Cause (preliminary injunction) on May 2, 2023, asking the court to enjoin enforcement of the 31,000 sq ft limit; defendants did not file an opposition before the court ruled.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction because VRC failed to make a clear showing of immediate irreparable harm—VRC provided no specifics about its waitlist, wait times, or availability of alternative treatment options.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance violates ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and FHA | VRC: ordinance unlawfully limits facility size preventing disabled persons from obtaining needed treatment | City/Board: no opposition filed; position implicitly that ordinance is valid land‑use regulation | Court did not reach merits; denied injunction for failure to show irreparable harm |
| Whether the ordinance violates due process, equal protection, MLUL, and NJLAD | VRC: ordinance adoption and zoning enforcement were invalid and discriminatory | City/Board: no opposition filed; would defend zoning authority and lawful municipality action | Court did not adjudicate merits; denied preliminary relief due to lack of irreparable harm showing |
| Whether VRC demonstrated immediate, irreparable harm justifying a preliminary injunction | VRC: lack of expansion causes disabled patients on waitlist to risk death; monetary relief inadequate | City/Board: no filed response; court treated plaintiff’s assertions as unsupported/speculative | Held: VRC failed to make a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury; injunction denied |
| Whether the preliminary‑injunction factors favor relief (likelihood of success, balance of harms, public interest) | VRC: likelihood of success and public interest (opioid crisis) justify injunction | City/Board: no opposition; court nonetheless required threshold showing of irreparable harm | Held: Court declined to balance remaining factors because plaintiff failed prong two (irreparable harm) |
Key Cases Cited
- South Camden Citizens in Action v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 274 F.3d 771 (3d Cir. 2001) (sets four‑factor preliminary injunction framework and threshold requirements)
- Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1975) (supports consideration and balancing of injunction factors)
- In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1982) (failure to show likelihood of success or irreparable injury warrants denial)
- Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645 (3d Cir. 1994) (irreparable harm must be concrete, not speculative)
- Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000) (injunction appropriate only for a presently existing actual threat)
- ECRI v. McGraw‑Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1987) (requires a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury)
- Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 1997) (discusses inadequacy of legal remedies as component of irreparable injury)