Blaine/Atlantic Funding, LLC v. City of Blaine

Background

Blaine/Atlantic Funding, LLC (B/A) owned a 6.2-acre property in Blaine, Minnesota, that included a strip mall and a vacant former Rainbow Foods grocery store. The property was zoned for commercial use. B/A and Roers Companies developed a proposal for a four-story, 196-unit market-rate apartment complex called Blaine Lakes Apartments.

The proposal required several land-use approvals, including an amendment to Blaine’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, rezoning from community commercial to high-density residential, a conditional-use permit, and a change creating two lots. The City Planning Commission recommended approval, but the City Council voted against the Comprehensive Plan amendment because it received only four of the five votes required. The City Council then denied the remaining applications. Its written reasons included inconsistency with surrounding land uses, excessive size for the site and surrounding area, negative effects on neighboring properties, and increased traffic without proposed mitigation.

B/A sued under an Equal Protection Clause theory known as a “class-of-one” claim. That type of claim requires proof that the government intentionally treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated parties and that there was no rational basis for the difference. B/A compared its project with Cedar Green Apartments, Lexi Apartments, Arris II, and Blaine Apartments, which the City Council had previously approved.

The City’s Motion

The City moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule before trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result. The court denied the City’s motion because the City did not adequately identify record evidence showing that it was entitled to judgment.

The City relied on factual statements in B/A’s unsworn Second Amended Complaint and on exhibits attached to a declaration by the City’s attorney. The court explained that the complaint was not evidence for summary-judgment purposes. It also found that the declaration lacked a sufficient foundation because it did not explain how the attorney knew the facts stated, did not cite supporting record documents for certain representations, and did not establish that the attached exhibits had been produced in discovery. The court therefore concluded that the City had not provided evidence supporting judgment in its favor.

B/A’s Motion

B/A also moved for summary judgment on its class-of-one claim. The court denied that motion because the evidence created a genuine dispute about whether the City intentionally treated B/A differently from similarly situated parties.

The court concluded that Cedar Green Apartments and Blaine Apartments were not valid comparators because their sites were already designated for high-density residential use under the relevant planning documents. Those projects therefore did not require the same type of Comprehensive Plan amendment required by B/A’s project.

The court also concluded that Lexi Apartments was not a valid comparator as a matter of law because it was not near a low-density residential neighborhood and did not face opposition from neighboring landowners. The court considered those facts relevant to a reasonable land-use decisionmaker.

The court found a genuine dispute about whether Arris II was sufficiently similar to B/A’s project. Both projects were near arterial roads or highways, neither was designated as a priority redevelopment area, and both had similar size and density. But the surrounding planned land uses differed, Arris II had nearby high-density residential uses while B/A’s project did not, and the public raised a concern about increased criminal activity for B/A’s project but not for Arris II. Because the evidence supported both similarities and differences, the court held that summary judgment was not appropriate. The court did not decide whether the City had a rational basis for any different treatment because the comparator issue alone prevented summary judgment.

Order

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered that the City of Blaine’s motion for summary judgment was denied and that Blaine/Atlantic Funding, LLC’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The order left B/A’s class-of-one Equal Protection Clause claim unresolved.