2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 13 of 17 detenninative of zoning decisions, the opinion of the council member in whose ward a project is proposed is given substantial weight. Goodman's actions, coupled with the lingering effects ofaldennanic courtesy and the reliance, on the part of City Council in general, on undisclosed communications and evidence not made a part of the official record vitiated [6] Plaintiffs right to a fair hearing and violated its right to procedural due process. v. Plaintiff's 42 U.S. C. ~ 1983 Claims A cause of action exists under ~ 1983 if a party was deprived ofa federal right and that the person(s) so depriving acted under color of state law. See e.g., Minnesota Council of Dog Clubs, et al. v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); See also Montell v. Dep't of Social Servs. 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (United States Supreme Court case first extending section 1983 liability to municipalities, which allows for monetary damages to be awarded) The applicable federal statute provides in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usages, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit, inequity, or otherredress.... 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983. Plaintiff has proven a violation of its constitutionally protected procedural due process rights as found herein based directly upon the City Council and its members acting under the color of state law in deciding Plaintiffs zoning application and subsequent appeal. The City condoned or otherwise ratified the unlawful conduct of Goodman and others whose conduct directly injured Plaintiff thereby making it liable for her actions. Therefore, since the Court [mds a denial of Plaintiffs procedural due process rights exists, equitable remedies and/or actual damages may be awarded under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. Id. See also Brewer v. Chauvin, 938 Fold 860 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that public employee denied procedural due process may recover punitive damages and shifting the burden of proof to the employer to show that even if procedural due process provided the decision was supported by the preponderance of the evidence). Moreover, 42 U.S.c. ~ 1988 (b) expressly allows for "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs" when succeeding on Section 1983 claims. BY THE COURT Dated: September 16, 2009 Stephen C. Aldrich Judge of District Court http://www.minnlawyer.com/userfiles/pdf/Order..1020(Final).htm 9/17/2009