Fair Housing Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Paul/ APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLEES’ MOTION TO STAY
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Saturday, February 21, 2009
Custom Search
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- RE: Steinhauser lawsuit depleting city attorneys ...
- St. Paul exempts itself from new housing ordinance...
- 32 homicides reported in metro suburbs in 2008
- Radio Free Nation LIVE Senator Elect Al Franken
- Hurry, Hurry, Get Your Watchdog News!
- Top 'Empty' Cities (rental and housing vacancies)
- MEMORANDUM ON THE GRAND JURY
- Prison violence and the budget deficit
- Report documents mortgage discrimination in Twin C...
- Proposed St. Paul budget cuts 'devastating,' mayor...
21 Comments:
There maybe copy errors.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Appeal No. 09-1209
Appellants, Civil File No. 05-1348
v.
(JNE/SRN)
APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO
APPELLEES’ MOTION TO STAY
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Appellees.
TO: THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE PARTIES ABOVE NAMED,
and their counsel of record.
Appellees are requesting this court to stay the briefing schedule in this case (Gallagher,
Civil No. 05-1348, Appeal No. 09-1209), based on the fact that the Gallagher case was
consolidated for the purposes of discovery only with two other District Court cases,
Steinhauser (04-2632) and Harrilal
Appellees are seeking the same briefing schedule for three separate cases that were
consolidated at the District Court level for the purposes of discovery only. As stated by
Appellee’s counsel in her motion, because Plaintiffs in the
(05-461). Appellees’ counsel bases her request on the
promotion of judicial efficiency. Appellants disagree, and ask this court to deny Appellee’s
request to stay the briefing schedule.
Steinhauser and Harrilal cases
made a motion to alter or amend the District Court’s summary judgment order, and the
Case: 09-1209 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2009 Entry ID: 3518457
2
Plaintiffs in the Gallagher case did not, the cases are now on a different timeline.
It is the desire of the plaintiffs in the Gallagher case to move forward with their appeal
to this court and to move forward toward final resolution of their claims. The determination
of the Gallagher plaintiffs’ rights should not be unnecessarily delayed because Appellees’
counsel does not want to argue again before the 8th Circuit. The parties never agreed to
further consolidation - the cases were consolidated before the District Court for purposes of
discovery only – that does not mean that the Gallagher plaintiffs must mirror everything that
the plaintiffs in the other cases do, and certainly does not mean that the Appellees should
prevail on this delay tactic. The reason the Gallagher plaintiffs chose not to make a motion to
alter or amend the District Court’s summary judgment order was to move their case toward
final resolution. Now Appellees argue that judicial efficiency requires more delay to the
Gallagher plaintiffs.
Appellants also propose that a single presentation or oral argument limited to 30
minutes for three cases (Gallagher, Steinhauser and Harrilal
Appellees also cite unnecessary duplication of resources as a reason to stay the briefing
schedule. However, in stating that the lawsuits contain “identical legal issues,” Appellees also
) consisting of 14
plaintiffs/appellants with at least 12 claims each would be insufficient for Appellants’ counsel
and potentially overwhelming to the court. Plaintiffs’ counsel were burdened with this
situation in attempting to address their plaintiffs’ rights in a single 30 minute summary
judgment hearing.
Case: 09-1209 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2009 Entry ID: 3518457
3
insert a footnote that they are not identical legal issues, rather the Gallagher case contains antitrust
and void for vagueness claims. In addition, the facts, tenants, and properties are different
and unique with respect to each of the 14 plaintiffs. If the legal issues are identical in the
three cases as Appellees assert, Appellees would not be duplicating work, as any briefing
prepared by Appellees in the Gallagher case could certainly be used again in the Steinhauser
and Harrilal cases, if they in fact appeal.
Appellees also fail to address FRAP 3(b) and 28(i), which address consolidation on
appeal. FRAP 3(b) states that parties may file a joint notice of appeal. The Gallagher
plaintiffs chose not to do so. FRAP 28(i) states that appellees may join in a brief. The
Gallagher plaintiffs have chosen not to do so.
As such, Appellees’ request to stay the scheduling order belies the notion of judicial
efficiency and delays the final decision on the Gallagher plaintiffs’ rights. Based on the
reasons set for the above, Appellants respectfully request that this court deny Appellees
motion to stay the briefing schedule.
AASE, ENGEL & KIRSCHER, PLLC
Dated: February 19, 2009 By: s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
180 East 5th Street, Suite 255
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
T: (651) 209-6884
Attorney for Appellants Gallagher, et. al.
Find the angry face.
Typical litigation strategy. They just do anything they can to stall and run up the atorney bills hoping that the other side runs out of money so they win by default. The "Machine" at it's best......grinding the small into hamburger and stuffing sausages with what's left.
No Steinhauser on this motion.
I smell hamburger. :)
10:26 said:
Typical litigation strategy. They just do anything they can to stall and run up the attorney bills hoping that the other side runs out of money so they win by default. The "Machine" at it's best......grinding the small into hamburger and stuffing sausages with what's left.
10:26 PM
That sure is the truth.
"They" run you along for years to make the suing parties money dry up and then you lose what you were suing over in the end.
Then in the end when you don't have a penny to your name and you go to court, and the Judge makes a motion on the case and calls it a Frivolous lawsuit and without merit, ...
.........
This keeps yelling to us saying.
.........
You Can't Fight City Hall
After everyone with any money or sense has left the city Amanda that's all that'll be left in town is walking human sausages stuffed with DFL Bullshit and trapped in a city full of corruption and deciet.
Read it again folks, the landlords are now trying to have all of their cases handles seperately at the court of appeals.
That means it is the landlords that are trying to make this as expensive as possible... having all sorts of appeals cases at the court of appeals.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
They are e seperate lawsuits you nut! Seperate facts, and different claims! How they supposed to all be thrown toegther?
2:42 because they were suppose to be about "a RICO conspiracy" and Federal Fair Housing claims (a class action suit). That is why they had been put together as one case against the City with "multiple victims."
To take them apart makes them what?
A dozen cases that say absolutely nothing.
They have no standing at all in Federal Court if there isn't a Federal law that is being violated. And, if there is a Federal law being violated they would be multiple victims of one criminal adventure, be it RICO or Fair Housing.
To try and separate them shows that there only interest is in wasting the City's time and money. The court isn't going to separate the appeal, it makes no sense. Particularly in this appeal where if one of the plaintiffs has a case they all get their day in the sun. If any of them believed there was a case there they would all want to be heard together.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
When did they veer get put together Chuck and what's this class action shit? If it's a class action, doesn't a judge have to certify them as a class? When did the judge do that? I don't remember hearing about it.
They would be multiple victims in a criminal adventure? Hvae you lost your mind completely man? The last I heard these were civil lawsuits. You need a rest Chuck.
Chuck continually ass-erts that their is nothing to the lawsuits. "frivoulous". Then why has he spent the equivalent of two man-years attempting and failing to counter them. The citys problems are not going to go away.
The Mosseheads Truth in code compliance.
Chuck just quit why your ahead.You don't know what you are talking about.The Gallagher case wants to move ahead and the Steinhauser case wants to make motions.Their stategy is obviously different and they want to get the ball moving.
Jim
OK, so this is directly lifted from Gallaghers... his lists Steinhauseer as similarly situated. The claims in the case are the same. They are suing under RICO and Fair Housing. They are civil cases, but they only win if the City was involved in a violation of the RICO statute which would mean they were involved in a criminal conspiracy.
"20. Numerous other property owners in the City were similarly situated to Plaintiffs during 2002
through 2005 as they provided rental housing services to “protected class” members,
including, but are not limited to, Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg, Kelly Brisson,
Leroy Miller, Muhannah Kakish, Steven Mark, Kenneth Krahn, Sandra Harrilal, Bee and
Lamena Vue, Steven Johnson, Calvin Burton, Julian Jayasuriya and Akinwale A. Akinropo.
2 1. Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Mark, Krahn, Harrilal, Vue, Johnson,
Burton, Jayasuriya, Akinropo and others have been subject to discriminatory and illegal City
code enforcement operations similar to what Plaintiffs have experienced as set forth herein
and they and other property owners have been injured by racketeering conduct of Magner,
Dawkins and Kelly, and other City officials and employees that is similar to the racketeering"
-snip-
My god you guys have no idea what the case is, or what the lawyers are trying to argue for the landlords, and it doesn't matter to you either.
The judge said there were no grounds for any of the cases even taken as a whole. Your best chance for an appeal is to find some small thread between all of the cases. So, a willingness to split them now just shows these folks to be the total ego maniacs they appear to be and that they can't get along even with each other against a common enemy.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Why do you only tell part of the truth Repke. The following is all of the charges they are suing under. This was also taken from the Gallagher case that Bob has posted here.
COUNT I1
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 196 1, ET SEQ.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
COUNT IV
CML RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 198 1
COUNT v
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
COUNT VI
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1985
COUNT VIII
ABUSE OF PROCESS
COUNT IX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
COUNT X
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
Seems to me like you missed a few Chuckie boy! It looks to me like there's more to win than just the rico shit you keep harping about.
What else is new? They always only bring up the parts that benifet their argument!
They are the same charges that are in the other cases and stem from the same base accusation that the City has some evil motive for doing inspections. That is the point. Seeing none of the defendents dispute that there were issues with the property only the moitive the City had for doing the inspection.
Again if any of the cases were to win the appeal they would all get a hearing it makes no sense other than to spend money to devide them.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck if you think its a dumb idea just shut up and let them make a mistake.Are you trying to help them now?What?Didn't Thune give you a reach around lastnight?
Seems to me like you missed a few Chuckie boy! It looks to me like there's more to win than just the rico shit you keep harping about.
I'll take the last two and give you an opportunity to actually catch up on the last six months.
COUNT IX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
Plaintiffs claim Defendants tortiously interfered with the contracts between them
and their respective tenants for lease of private housing in the City. To establish a claim
for tortious interference with a contract, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1)
existence of a contract; (2) alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) his or her
intentional causation of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages resulting
therefrom. Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 395 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir.
2005), citing Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc., 321 N.W.2d 895, 900 (Minn. 1982).
A successful claim requires proof of all five elements. Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.,
672 N.W.2d 578, 580 (Minn. App. 2003).
Plaintiffs have not alleged any material facts, or elicited evidence, to support a
tortious interference of contract claim against any of the Defendants. Plaintiffs have not
identified any evidence that Defendants intentionally procured breach of the contracts and,
in fact, Plaintiffs admit that many leases were breached because of tenant issues, not
anything to do with Defendants enforcing the housing code. (Exhibit 23, pp. 112, 126,
127, 197, 199; Exhibit 22, pp. 175-177; Exhibit 19, pp. 207, 302, 416-419).
It is Plaintiffs’ poor housing stock and neglect of their properties which caused any breach of an alleged lease. Even if Plaintiffs’ tenants breached a lease because of code enforcement,
Plaintiffs, as landlords, are the individuals responsible to keep their properties up to code
and consequently, are the cause of tenants breaking leases.
In short, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue of
material fact with respect to any of the tortious interference with a contract elements.
COUNT X
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
Plaintiffs allege Defendants tortiously interfered with the business expectancy they
had in their rental business in the City. To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with
business expectancy, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a reasonable expectation
of economic advantage or benefit belonging to the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant had
knowledge of that expectation of economic advantage; (3) that the defendant wrongfully
and without justification interfered with the plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of economic
advantage or benefit; (4) that in the absence of the wrongful act of the defendant, it is
reasonably probable that the plaintiff would have realized his or her economic advantage
or benefit; and (5) that the plaintiff sustained damages as a result of this activity.
Lamminen v. City of Cloquet, 987 F. Supp. 723, 731 (D. Minn. 1997), citing United Wild
Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628, 632-633 (Minn. 1982).
Plaintiffs have not alleged any material facts to support the elements of a tortious
interference with a business expectancy claim against any of the Defendants. Brisson
cannot prove the existence of a reasonable expectation of economic advantage because he
purchased the property knowing it needed substantial renovation and consistently failed to
cure such violations because of lack of money. (Exhibit 23, pp. 99, 251). His property
was eventually condemned due to his inability to meet deadlines in the correction and abatement orders on account of his financial situation, a problem apart from Defendants’
conduct. (Exhibit 23, pp. 127, 254, 268-269).
Further, there is no evidence indicating
Defendants interfered with any alleged business expectations and, in contrast, Plaintiffs
readily admit that at times code enforcement was good for their business. (Exhibit 23, pp.
126, 127, 197, 220-222; Exhibit 22, pp. 190, 191).
Finally, any economic loss suffered by
Plaintiffs is either non-existent or Plaintiffs have brought such loss upon themselves
because of their failure to remedy valid code violations. (Exhibit 23, p. 126, 127, 254).
Steinhauser cannot prove he sustained damage as a result of Defendants’ alleged
interference because he explicitly admits that he realized substantial profits from the sale
of his properties. (Exhibit 20, p. 15).
In sum, Plaintiffs allege a skeletal claim of tortious
interference with a business expectancy without establishing grounds for such claim.
Without more, the Court should conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and dismiss Plaintiffs’ allegation.
Eric
Just because these guys sold their property amd made money on the sale Eric doesn't mean that they don't have damages and you know it.
1:58
I didn't say that, insinuate that or believe that.
Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home