The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed a motion for reconsideration brought by the original defendant losing party homeowners association against a developer whose original state court action for a declaratory judgment to find that its planned development of an assisted living facility for people with handicaps was barred by the defendants in violation of the FHA was cancelled. The developer then sued and won in federal court to recover its project costs. The district court held that the motion for reconsideration on an interlocutory order under Fed. R Civ. P. 54(b) for clear error of law or manifest injustice must show that the party committing clear error must show that it was "dead wrong." Canadian Real Estate Holdings, LP v. Karen F. Newton Revocable Trust, 2023 WL 2586305, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-333-KPJ (E.D. Texas Mar. 21, 2023). Canadian Real Estate Holdings, LP ("CREH") purchased property in the residential Walnut Grove neighborhood in Collin County, Texas, with the goal of introducing a commercial assisted living facility. The Walnut Grove residents ("WGE") objected and sued to stop the project in Texas state court. Prior to the state court issuing a judgment in the case against CREH in 2019, CREH cancelled the project, sold its property there and brought this action for a declaratory judgment against the WGE Residents on April 27, 2021. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants discriminated against people with handicaps by enforcing restrictive covenants, by influencing Collin County officials' decision to refuse permits to Plaintiff, and by failing to make a reasonable accommodation, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604. Plaintiff sought engineering fees, holding costs, and attorney's fees expended in the underlying litigation. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 2021, arguing that the Complaint was barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and because Plaintiff lacked standing. On March 30, 2022, the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order denied the Motion, finding Plaintiff had standing and was not barred by judicial estoppel.
展开▼
