An Educational Insight into a Notable Building Code Enforcement Lawsuit

[Yankee Chronicler]

Essentially yes. Once it was proved that he was not treated any different than any other contractor, the game was over, although it took over 3 years to get through all of the depositions and court system.

That was essentially the same as in the case where I was sued, but ours had an additional nuance: the owner/applicant/plaintiff also alleged that because he was in the opposite political party from the incumbent mayor and had opposed the mayor's reelection, the mayor had ordered the building department to deny his application as political retribution.

In reality, as was testified to in my deposition, I was assigned to the plan review specifically because I didn't live in town, didn't know any of the players, and had no axe to grind beyond enforcing the code. None of the things I cited were made-up issues; all were supported by code citations. When the owner/applicant brought in the state building inspector (whom he knew personally), even the state building inspector had to tell his pal that the Building Department was right, and he (the owner/applicant) was wrong. The clown went ahead and sued us anyway, in federal court under the 14th Amendment.

 

[jar546]

Here is the redacted summary judgement:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF [STATE REDACTED]

[PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS], individually and t/d/b/a [BUSINESS NAME REDACTED]Plaintiff

vs.

[CODE GROUP ALIAS], [INSPECTOR 1 ALIAS] and [INSPECTOR 2 ALIAS]Defendants

---

MEMORANDUM

[PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS], both individually and as a business entity known as [BUSINESS NAME REDACTED], brings forward claims under federal constitutional rights concerning the construction of a new residence within [TOWNSHIP REDACTED], [STATE REDACTED]. [PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS] contends that [CODE GROUP ALIAS], along with inspectors [INSPECTOR 1 ALIAS] and [INSPECTOR 2 ALIAS], representing the township, imposed biased and inconsistent interpretations of the local building code. This alleged misconduct purportedly led to unnecessary delays and increased costs for the project.

Currently under consideration is a motion for summary judgment submitted by the defendants, focusing on Count I of the plaintiff’s complaint as per Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both parties have presented their arguments, rendering the motion ripe for adjudication.

Background

In 2011, [HOMEOWNERS' ALIASES], contracted with [ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR'S ALIAS] to build a home in [TOWNSHIP REDACTED], [STATE REDACTED]. [ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR'S ALIAS] was responsible for the initial design and securing the building permits after their plans were reviewed by [CODE GROUP ALIAS]. Following a termination of their agreement with [ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR'S ALIAS], the [HOMEOWNERS' ALIASES] engaged [PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS] for the construction, relying on the previously approved plans and permits.

During construction, an inspection by [INSPECTOR 2 ALIAS] highlighted deficiencies in the frame structure, prompting a request for engineering plans but without halting the project. Subsequent communication from the defendants indicated a project suspension, a claim that led [PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS] to seek intervention from the local zoning board and, eventually, from engineering services to address cited deficiencies.

[PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS] alleges that the ensuing months were marked by defendants' unwarranted generation of issues, leveraging subjective interpretations of building codes that not only incurred additional costs but also demonstrated preferential treatment towards other contractors.

After extensive legal and procedural engagements, including the dismissal of two counts from the initial complaint, the focus now narrows to the claim of unequal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, encapsulated in Count I.

Jurisdiction

This court holds federal question jurisdiction over the case, as it involves civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals no genuine dispute over material facts, allowing for a judgment as a matter of law.

Discussion

The core of the dispute rests on the assertion of unequal treatment, with [PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS] positioning as a "class of one". This necessitates a demonstration of intentional differential treatment without a rational basis compared to others similarly situated. The court's analysis finds shortcomings in [PLAINTIFF'S ALIAS]'s ability to substantiate these criteria fully.

Conclusion

Given the evidence and legal standards, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted due to the plaintiff’s inability to establish a viable "class of one" equal protection claim. This decision effectively resolves the dispute under the present count, leading to the case's closure.

Date: [DATE REDACTED]

[Judge's Name Redacted]United States District Judge

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Fascinating that in the land of the free and home of the first amendment that so much is redacted. In Canada, the only time a name/business is redacted is if if there is a minor involved, or if the court has issued a publication ban to protect the identity of a victim of sexual assault. (I seem to recall one case where an informant's name was protected. One.) And the judge's name would never be redacted in any event.

 

[jar546]

Fascinating that in the land of the free and home of the first amendment that so much is redacted. In Canada, the only time a name/business is redacted is if if there is a minor involved, or if the court has issued a publication ban to protect the identity of a victim of sexual assault. (I seem to recall one case where an informant's name was protected. One.) And the judge's name would never be redacted in any event.

I chose to redact it. It was my decision. It is publicly available for anyone that wants to research it if they can find it.