|
|
|
Residents' Claims Against the County Are Barred as Duplicative
(November 2009) By Tamiya N. Wilkes, Associate.
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Rousseau, et al. v. Howard County, Maryland, et al.,
Civil No.: JFM-09-1079 (D. Md. November 19, 2009)
Phillip Rousseau and other taxpayers, property owners, and
residents ("the Residents") of Howard County Maryland ("the County") filed suit
against the County. The Residents alleged that the County violated 42 U.S.C. §
1983, which states that "[e]very person who, under color of statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of any State…subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law…" Specifically, the Residents allege that the County
deprived them of their right to substantive and procedural due process, equal
protection under the law, and their fundamental right to free association, free
speech and ability to petition to the government and seek redress of grievances.
The Residents' allegations stem from the County's proposed implementation of
zoning changes within the County. The Residents claim that the County prohibited
them from petitioning the zoning changes prior to the implementation of a "Final
Development Plan" for a parcel of land in Columbia, Maryland to be used for the
construction of the a Wegman's grocery store and similar development plan for
the residential and commercial development at Turf Valley in Ellicott City,
Maryland.
The United States District Court for the District of
Maryland held that the Residents were barred from bringing the lawsuit because
the claims were duplicative of an earlier lawsuit. The Court therefore, granted
the County's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). In
reaching its holding, the Court explained that three of the Residents previously
challenged the zoning changes in a federal case that is currently on appeal to
the Fourth Circuit; both Complaints arose from the same facts. The Residents
alleged that their claims should not be barred because there was not a final
judgment in the previous federal case and different factual evidence was
required to prove each case. The Court held that the case involved a "classic
example of claim splitting" and a final judgment in the earlier suit is not
required to bar a duplicative lawsuit on the grounds of claim splitting. The
Court further held that although different factual evidence is required in each
case, the cases as a whole arose from same nucleus of facts and all claims
should have been brought in the first federal lawsuit.
The Court also found that because one of the Residents was
not a party to the initial suit, the claim splitting analysis did not apply to
him. However, the Court found that the Resident lacked standing to bring a
lawsuit against the County because he had only a generalized grievance; he did
not live near the challenged development areas and did not have any other
particularized injury.
|
|
|
Top
