Greens at Chester, LLC v. Town of Chester

Background

Greens at Chester LLC sued the Town of Chester, the County of Orange, James M. Farr, Robert Valentine, Alexander J. Jamieson, and Steven M. Neuhaus. The developer alleged that the defendants obstructed its approved housing development because of opposition to members of the Hasidic Jewish community moving into the Town and County. The developer asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1985, the Fifth Amendment, the Fair Housing Act, and state law, seeking damages and permanent injunctive relief.

The New York Attorney General moved to intervene on behalf of the People of the State of New York. Intervention is the process by which a person or entity that is not originally a party joins an existing lawsuit. The Attorney General proposed Fair Housing Act claims alleging intentional discrimination and interference with housing rights, and sought broader relief, including measures to prevent future discrimination and require changes in policies and training.

Issues

The defendants raised several objections before the court considered intervention. The Town argued that the Attorney General lacked authority to bring a Fair Housing Act action because the statute does not expressly authorize state attorneys general to sue. The court concluded that the Fair Housing Act is construed broadly and that the Attorney General’s interests were arguably sufficient to qualify as those of an injured or potentially injured party under the statute.

The court also considered standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a party show a sufficient connection to the dispute, including an injury that the court can remedy. The court held that the Attorney General had standing based on the State’s interest in protecting residents from discrimination and the proposed complaint’s request for relief broader than the developer could obtain for itself.

The County argued that intervention would be futile because the Attorney General’s claims were premature and failed to state claims under Fair Housing Act §§ 3604(a) and 3617. The court rejected those arguments at this stage, finding that the proposed complaint alleged sufficient facts concerning the County’s alleged efforts to stop the development, pressure the developer to pursue commercial use, and request additional water testing. The court also rejected the County’s argument that the Attorney General should be disqualified because the State Department of Health had allegedly been involved in the water-testing issue.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Attorney General satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The motion was timely; the Attorney General had a strong interest in preventing alleged discriminatory housing practices; the requested broader relief could be impaired if the Attorney General could not participate; and the developer did not adequately represent the Attorney General’s distinct interest in preventing discrimination and promoting equal housing opportunity for New Yorkers generally.

The court separately held that permissive intervention was proper under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) because the Attorney General’s proposed Fair Housing Act claims shared common legal and factual questions with the developer’s claims. The court therefore found that intervention was proper under either basis.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the New York Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene. It ordered that the Attorney General’s complaint be served and filed within ten days of the order. The opinion states that the Town’s and County’s separate motions to dismiss would be decided separately; it does not decide those motions here.