Summary
This memorandum opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addresses a plaintiff's motion to remand based on Younger abstention and a defendant's motion to dismiss a Fair Housing Act claim. The court denies the motion to remand regarding the federal FHA claim but grants the motion to dismiss without prejudice due to insufficient allegations of disparate impact or disability discrimination under the FHAA. The court notes that if the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint to properly plead an FHA claim, the case will be remanded to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Younger abstention requires remand of the state‑law claims.
- Whether the FHA claim survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- Whether the federal court retains jurisdiction after dismissal of the FHA claim.
Holdings
- The claim under the Fair Housing Act is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
- Abstention and remand are warranted for the state‑law claims, but not for the FHA claim.
- If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the case will be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction; if an amended complaint is filed, the court will retain jurisdiction over the FHA claim and remand the remaining state claims.
Key quotations
“"The Township argues that Younger abstention applies only in limited circumstances involving state criminal, enforcement, or certain civil proceedings, which are not at issue here."” (at 4–8)
“"The claim under the FHA will be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the case will be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction."” (at 22)
Factual background
RHD, a nonprofit, sought a zoning permit to provide supportive housing for homeless individuals at Eagleville Hospital. The Township initially approved the use under its institutional zoning designation, then reversed its decision without clear justification. RHD alleges the reversal discriminates against protected classes under the Township’s Human Relations Ordinance, Pennsylvania law, and the federal Fair Housing Act.
Procedural history
RHD sued in Pennsylvania state court to obtain a zoning permit; the Township removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1441 asserting federal‑question jurisdiction under the Fair Housing Act. The parties filed a motion to remand and a motion to dismiss the FHA claim.
Remand instructions
If plaintiff files an amended complaint, retain jurisdiction over the FHA claim; otherwise remand for lack of federal jurisdiction.