United States District Court, D. Minnesota
F. Rooney and James D. Heiberg, for plaintiff.
N. Fussy, MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
Mahmood Khan is a landlord who has been granted multiple
rental- dwelling licenses by defendant City of Minneapolis
(“the City”). In this action, Khan challenges the
City's revocation of his licenses, alleging that the City
deprived him of substantive due process and violated the Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et
matter is before the Court on the City's motion for
judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons that follow, the
motion is granted, and Khan's lawsuit is dismissed.
the owner of 43 licensed rental properties in Minneapolis.
Compl. ¶ 13. Khan has approximately 350 tenants, all but
two of whom are members of classes protected under the FHA.
Compl. ¶¶ 14-15. Most of Khan's properties are
located on the City's north side. Compl ¶ 19.
2010, the City revoked one of Khan's rental licenses due
to two instances of illegal occupancy of the basement. In
re Khan, 804 N.W.2d 132, 136 (Minn.Ct.App. 2011). A few
years later, the City revoked another of Khan's rental
licenses, this time for multiple garbage-disposal violations.
Khan v. Minneapolis City Council, No. A14-0455, 2014
WL 7237193, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 22, 2014). In February
2015, after the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected
Khan's challenges to the second revocation, the City
began the process of revoking all of Khan's remaining
rental licenses under Minneapolis City Ordinance §
244.1910(a)(13). That ordinance permits the revocation of all
of a landlord's rental licenses when that landlord has
had two or more rental licenses revoked or
canceled. Compl. ¶¶ 33-34.
challenges to the revocation of his remaining licenses were
rejected by an administrative hearing officer, the
Minneapolis City Council, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
In re Khan, No. A16-0633, 2017 WL 1376379
(Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 20, 2017), rev. denied, (Minn.
Mar. 30, 2017), cert. denied, 2017 WL 3839456 (U.S.
Nov. 6, 2017) (No. 17-324). While the state proceedings were
pending, Khan filed this federal action challenging the
revocation of his remaining licenses. The parties stipulated
to a stay pending the outcome of the state proceedings. ECF
Nos. 16, 17. After the Minnesota Supreme Court denied
Khan's petition for further review, the Court lifted the
stay and Khan moved for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”). The Court denied Khan's motion
following a hearing. ECF No. 41. Defendants now move for
judgment on the pleadings.
Standard of Review
motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)
is assessed under the same standards as a motion to dismiss
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Ashley Cty. v. Pfizer,
Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all of the
factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Aten v.
Scottsdale Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir. 2008).
Although the factual allegations need not be detailed, they
must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570.
if the parties present, and the court considers, matters
outside of the pleadings, a Rule 12(c) motion must be treated
as a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Here,
Khan submitted various materials in opposition to
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
See ECF Nos. 45, 47. But the Court has not
considered those materials, and thus the Court will not
convert defendants' motion into one for summary judgment.