Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RUBIN v. HUD

September 7, 1972

Leon RUBIN et al.
v.
The DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al.


John Morgan Davis, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVIS

Presently before this Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the above captioned action on the grounds (1) that we lack jurisdiction over the subject matter, Rule 12(b)(1) Fed. Civ. and (2) that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6) Fed. Civ.

 Plaintiffs are the co-owners of a specialty printing business known as "Fair-mount Printing House" which is located at 1502-06 West Thompson Street, Philadelphia, Pa. In accordance with a Declaration of Taking filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, docketed as of the September Term, 1970, No. 3891, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter RDA) condemned the Plaintiffs' property as part of the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area, Model Cities Neighborhood Development Area II, Philadelphia. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter HUD) financially assists the RDA. According to Plaintiffs the RDA, after a staff review of Plaintiffs' expert appraisal, offered $240,000 for their property and machinery, but subsequently rescinded the offer although not until after it had been accepted by the Plaintiffs. On March 31, 1970, the RDA then offered Plaintiffs $32,680 for the real estate including that machinery and equipment which the RDA contended formed part of the real estate. Plaintiffs refused the offer and the case was heard by a Board of View on November 11, 1971 for a determination of damages.

 Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining HUD and RDA from committing any money or engaging in any further activity with regard to the Model Cities Neighborhood Development Area until the RDA and HUD comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq. (1971) (hereinafter ACT).

 In their original Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that HUD's grant, loan, or other funding of the RDA is unlawful because the RDA has failed to comply with the following sections of the ACT:

 (1) Section 301(3), 42 U.S.C. § 4651(3); the RDA has not provided Plaintiffs with a written statement of and summary of the basis for the amount it established as just compensation; and

 (2) Section 302, 42 U.S.C. § 4652; the RDA has not offered Plaintiffs a sum for its real estate, improvements, and machinery and equipment permanently installed in its premises.

 In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs added to the list of sections of the ACT with which they allege the RDA has failed to comply:

 (1) Section 205, 42 U.S.C. § 4625; the RDA has not offered the Plaintiffs relocation assistance.

 (2) Section 213, 42 U.S.C. § 4633; the RDA has refused to review or provide a forum for review of Plaintiffs' grievances as to the payment for his property.

 (3) Section 301(4), 42 U.S.C. § 4651(4); the RDA has required Plaintiffs to valuate their premises without first offering to pay them the value set at its own approved appraisal.

 (4) Section 301(7), 42 U.S.C. § 4651(7); the RDA has refused to offer Plaintiffs the amount of its approved appraisal, has attempted to dispossess Plaintiffs and coerce them into accepting an amount below its own accepted and approved appraisal.

 Plaintiffs have alleged violation of sections appearing under both Subchapter II and Subchapter III of the ACT. The provisions of Subchapter II govern relocation assistance to be rendered to persons displaced as a result of Federally assisted programs. The provisions of Subchapter III govern real property acquisition to implement the Federally assisted programs. We shall first consider the Motions to Dismiss with respect to the Subchapter III allegations, specifically § 301(3), § 301(4), § 301(7) and § 302.

 Pursuant to § 305, 42 U.S.C. § 4655, the requirements of Subchapter III of the ACT are applicable only to real property acquired after January 2, 1971, which is the effective ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.