CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS LANDLORDS' LAWSUIT DENIED BY THE COURT - LAWSUIT CONTINUES

On May 21, 2010, Judge Timothy Wotkowiak, denied the City of Milwaukee's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by three Milwaukee landlords who sued the city as a result of its newly enacted ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections of rental housing in two areas of the city.

For background information on the ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010, please read my November 24, 2009 post. For background information on the lawsuit that was filed against the city you can refer to my December 31, 2009 post. And for information about the city's motion to dismiss and arguments both for and against the motion I would direct you to my May 4, 2010 post.

As stated in my earlier post, the plaintiff landlords made three key arguments as to why it was not necessary for them to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim prior to initiating the lawsuit. Judge Witkowiak agreed with the arguments offerred by the landlords on all three issues.

Issue #1:

The court indicated that it was not practical to require the landlords to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim -- which would have allowed the city 120 to respond -- in part because of the basis of the lawsuit. The landlords' lawsuit included the filing of a temporary restraining order to stop an immediate harm (the carrying out of the ordinance) and to make the plaintiffs wait for 120 days before they could even file suit would not be practical or just as the city would have been able to implement what is argued to be an unconstitutional program for at least 120 days before a court could review the issues and concerns with the ordinance.

Issue #2:

The court found that the city did have actual notice of the claim even though a formal notice was not served upon it. Judge Witkowiak spent considerable time pointing out all of various contacts made by landlords, the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin (AASEW) , and others which provided the city with actual notice of the concerns with the ordinance. The court made reference to the letter that the AASEW's lawyers (who also happen to represent the three plaintiff landlords)sent to City Attorney Grant Langley outlining the many problems with the proposed ordinance. The court also referred to the letter that I wrote as President of the AASEW to Common Council President Willie Hines and the city's other alderman, expressing the association's many concerns with the ordinance. The aformentioned letters, along with a DVD of the public hearing held before the ZND committee of the Commom Council, were all attached to the plaintiff landlords' brief in opposition to the city's motion to dismiss, and appeared to carry great weight with the Court.

Issue #3:

Judge Witkowiak also stated that the city sufferred no prejudice by not having been served with a formal Notice of Claim by the plaintiffs. The city appeared to argue that it was prejudiced because it had to prepare its legal defense to the lawsuit and that somehow that was to be considered sufficient prejudice to grant the city's motion. I have heard a lot of "out there" arguments during my 15 years of law practice, but that was a new one, for me. The court properly determined that that was not the type of "prejudice" that the city needed to demonstrate in order to prevail on its motion.

As such a result of this decision, the plaintiff landlords' lawsuit will now move forward and address the actual problems with the ordinance.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for June 15, 2010. On this date, the court will provide deadlines for the parties to complete various matters that will assist in moving the case forward, such as deadlines to complete discovery (the fact gathering process), deadlines to file dispositive motions (motions that could end the case without the need for a fact-finding trial), and other matters.

Based on the comments of the attorney's for both the city and the plaintiff landlords it appears that both sides may very well be contemplating the filing of a dispositive motion -- such as a summary judgment motion -- which would allow the court to decide the lawsuit as a matter of law, without the need for a fact finding trial, because there are no material facts that are in dispute.

I will keep you up to date on the status of the lawsuit as I learn more.