This lawsuit was filed in state court in March 2007 by a landlord in Valley Park, Missouri, to challenge the City's anti-immigration ordinances, which reached both housing and employment issues. The plaintiff was one of several parties to an earlier case, in which the court had ruled prior ...
read more >
This lawsuit was filed in state court in March 2007 by a landlord in Valley Park, Missouri, to challenge the City's anti-immigration ordinances, which reached both housing and employment issues. The plaintiff was one of several parties to an earlier case, in which the court had ruled prior versions of the ordinances unlawful under state law. Reynolds v. City of Valley Park, IM-MO-1. The City then passed amended versions, which are the subject of this lawsuit, and also of a new iteration of the Reynolds case ("Reynolds II"). In Reynolds II, the plaintiffs won a temporary restraining order in April, which was then continued by consent of the parties until final resolution. See IM-MO-1 for more details on the ordinances and both Reynolds litigations.
The plaintiff in this case filed a petition for a preliminary injunction, and the case was then removed by defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, before Judge E. Richard Webber.
In July 2007, the City repealed the immigration-related components of the housing ordinance. Accordingly, on August 9, 2007, the parties in this case agreed to dismiss the housing-related causes of action. The employment matters remained in issue; the plaintiffs argued that the employment ordinance was inoperative, because its enacting language stated that it came into effect only on the end of the injunction in Reynolds v. Valley Park, and that injunction had become permanent. After the filing of the dismissal, the City enacted legislation which made the employment ordinance effective immediately. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a declaration that the employment ordinance was invalid and unenforceable and moved to amend their complaint. Both parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On October 5, 2007, Judge Webber issued an order granting plaintiffs leave to take nine additional discovery depositions. Plaintiff's request to depose the City Attorney was, however, denied. The depositions were completed on October 19, 2007, and the parties supplemented their summary judgment briefs to address the additional factual information gleamed from the depositions.
On January 31, 2008, Judge Webber issued his Memorandum and Order in which he held that the Ordinance at issue was not preempted by federal law, nor did plaintiffs prove that the Ordinance violated equal protection, due process or Missouri state law. Accordingly, the Court denied plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and entered judgment in favor of the City.
Following plaintiff's appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the lower court's order on June 5, 2009. At the time this summary was written, there have been no further appeals. Elizabeth Daligga - 07/16/2012