Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0175-G.
September 10, 2001.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The defendants Dale Hannah ("Hannah"), Earl Horton ("Horton"), and the City of Cleburne ("Cleburne") each bring a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against them for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The motions are granted for the reasons and to the extent stated below.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from the denial of a zoning application. The plaintiffs Jimmy M. Landers and Walter Landers (collectively, "the Landers") are co-independent executors of the estate of Jewell Landers, original owner in fee simple of certain real property (the "property") located in the City of Cleburne, Texas ("Cleburne"). Plaintiffs' Original Complaint ("Complaint") at 2. The property was put on the market for sale in 1987. Id. at 3. In 1996, Applebee's International, Inc. ("Applebee's") made an offer to purchase the property, providing certain conditions were met, including a zoning change so that the property could be developed for Applebee's intended use. Id. The property was and remains zoned by Cleburne as C2 General Business District. Id. The Landers sought to have the property re-zoned as a "C4" private club district. Id. The re-zoning would allow Applebee's restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based Upon the Statute of Limitations ("Limitations Motion") at 1. The City Planning and Zoning Commission twice recommended approval, and the Cleburne City Council (the "Council") twice voted against re-zoning the property, Complaint at 3, first in 1996 and again in 1999. Id. Both times, Cleburne councilmen Hannah and Horton voted against re-zoning the property. Id. at 10.
The Landers were forced to sell the property to another buyer at a significant discount to the market value of the property had it been zoned C4. Id. at 3-4. As a result, the Landers filed this suit alleging that the Council's denial of their zoning application violated federal and state law. Id. at 1.
II. ANALYSIS A. Standard for Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." However, a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing WRIGHT MILLER, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1357 at 598 (1969), for the proposition that "the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted"), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 (1983). In determining whether dismissal should be granted, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. See Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising and Sales System, Inc., 30 F.3d 627, 629 (5th Cir. 1994); Norman v. Apache Corporation, 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994); Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 1991).
B. The Defendants' Grounds for Dismissal
The individual defendants Hannah and Horton first contend that the Landers' claims should be dismissed in their entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) at 1. Next, the defendants collectively contend that the Landers' procedural due process claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Due Process Claims at 2-4. Finally, the defendants collectively contend that all claims asserted against the defendants regarding their denial of the Landers' 1996 re-zoning request are barred by limitations and must be dismissed. Limitations Motion at 3-4. These contentions will be examined in turn.
1. Individual Defendants Hannah and Horton's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Claims under Rule 12(b)(6)
The individual defendants Hannah and Horton contend that all of the plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). These claims are virtually identical to those brought by a similarly situated plaintiff, Cleburne's Grass Roots, L.L.C., against these defendants for exactly the same type of conduct. In Cleburne's Grass Roots, L.L.C. v. City of Cleburne, et al., No. 3:00-CV-2465-D, 2001 WL 238132 (N.D. Tex. March 7, 2001), this court, Judge Fitzwater presiding, dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants Hannah and Horton. The reasoning of Cleburne's Grass Roots is unassailable, and this case is indistinguishable from it. For the reasons stated in Cleburne's Grass Roots, the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants Hannah and Horton are dismissed.
The Landers seek leave to amend their complaint against the individual defendants Hannah and Horton should the plaintiffs' claims against those defendants be dismissed. As previously noted, the claims brought by the Landers against the individual defendants Hannah and Horton are virtually identical to the claims brought against the same two defendants in Cleburne's Grass Roots. To allow the Landers to re-plead their claims against Hannah and Horton would be futile and would only serve to delay resolution of this case. Therefore, the Landers' request to amend their complaint is denied.
2. Motion to Dismiss the Landers' Procedural Due Process Claims
The defendants collectively contend that the Landers' procedural due process claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The procedural due process claims against all of the defendants are likewise virtually identical to those in the Cleburne's Grass Roots case. Hence, this court again concurs with the reasoning of that case and dismisses the Landers' procedural due process claims against all of the defendants.
3. Statute of Limitations for the Landers' 1996 Claims
The defendants maintain that limitations bars the claims brought by the Landers for denial of their 1996 re-zoning request. The Landers respond that their cause of action is based only on the defendants' 1999 denial of their re-zoning application. Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants Hannah and Horton's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) at 10. Specifically, the Landers assert that their claims are based only upon the defendants' conduct in February 1999. Id. Because the Landers admit that any reference to the 1996 actions of the defendants is only evidentiary, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Landers' 1996 claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the motion of the individual defendants Hannah and Horton to dismiss all of the Landers' claims against them for failure to state a claim is GRANTED. The defendants' collective motion to dismiss Landers' procedural due process claim is also GRANTED. The defendants' collective motion to dismiss all claims based on the 1996 rezoning application for failure to state a claim is DENIED as moot.