In North End Chamber of Commerce ("NECC") v. City of Boston, the NECC and several restaurants in the North End neighborhood of Boston ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against the City of Boston ("City"), alleging that the City unlawfully curtailed and later banned on-street dining in the North End. The Court granted the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint ("Complaint").
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the City implemented an outdoor-dining program authorizing restaurants in designated areas to offer dining on public streets. In 2022, the City imposed an "impact fee" of $7,500 on participating North End restaurants and a monthly fee of $480 for each parking space used by the restaurants' outdoor patios. The City did not charge these fees to participating restaurants in any other Boston neighborhood. The City also limited the outdoor-dining season in the North End to five months, compared to the eight-to-nine months outside of the North End. The following year the City completely banned on-street dining in the North End but not elsewhere. Plaintiffs then filed the Complaint.
The City moved to dismiss, claiming the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that it violated Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 8"). The Court agreed with the City as to compliance with Rule 8. Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to write "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The Court concluded that the Complaint, which was over two hundred pages long and "omitted virtually no detail," contained excessive assertions that were unnecessary to advance the causes of action. The Court warned that "unnecessary prolixity" is disfavored by the Court because it imposes a significant burden on both the Court and the responding party.
Plaintiffs also claimed that the NECC lacked associational standing to sue either directly or on behalf of its members. The Court disagreed, holding that the NECC had standing to sue for its equitable relief claim, but did not have standing to sue for monetary damages. The NECC was not entitled to compensation for the various injuries suffered by its members, and the member restaurants were necessary parties to assess each of their damages separately.
The Court next concluded that Plaintiffs' equal protection claims failed. First, the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to allege the sort of discrimination that would trigger strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is triggered if the action in question burdens a suspect class, has discriminatory intent with respect to racial or national origin, or impinges upon a fundamental right. The Court disagreed that the Constitution vested Plaintiffs with a fundamental right to on-street-dining. Nor did the City's policies explicitly differentiate among individuals based on a suspect classification, such as race, ethnicity, or national origin. The Court also disagreed that the City acted with discriminatory intent where Plaintiffs failed to identify a "clear pattern" of conduct historically targeting the North End or "white, Italian Americans." Nor was there evidence that the regulations had disproportionate impact on persons of Italian heritage. Plaintiffs therefore failed to plausibly allege the sort of discrimination that would trigger strict scrutiny.
The Court proceeded to apply rational-basis review, under which a classification will withstand a constitutional challenge so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest and is neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor irrational. Here, to justify the fees imposed on Plaintiffs, the City considered the "unique impacts of outdoor dining on the quality of residential life," such as "trash, rodents, traffic, and parking problems." To justify the ban on on-street dining in the North End, the City cited the North End's high density of restaurants and foot traffic, narrow streets and sidewalks, resident parking scarcity, and other related considerations. The City also pointed to the scheduled closures of the Sumner Tunnel and continued congestion around the North Washington Street Bridge construction project. The Court concluded that the City's explanations for the policies sufficiently showed that the reasons underlying the policies were rationally related to legitimate government interests.
The Court also addressed Plaintiffs' "class-of-one" claim, whereby an equal protection claim may in some circumstances be sustained when a plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference. The Court reasoned that neither the neighborhood itself nor the restaurants therein were similarly situated to those outside the North End because the North End is exceptionally dense and located adjacent to two major construction projects. The Court also held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead that the City acted with bad faith or had malicious intent to injure them, and therefore concluded that the Complaint failed to plausibly plead a class-of-one claim.
Plaintiffs also asserted violations of procedural and substantive due process. As the Court explained, the former ensures that government will use fair procedures with respect to a constitutionally protected property interest, and the latter functions to protect individuals from particularly offensive actions by officials even when the government employs facially neutral procedures in carrying out those actions. The Court held that both claims failed because Plaintiffs plainly did not have a property interest in on-street-dining licenses.
Finally, Plaintiffs alleged that the impact and parking fees imposed on Plaintiffs for the outdoor-dining program constituted an unlawful tax. The Court disagreed. The fees were not an unlawful tax where: (1) they were charged in exchange for a benefit (a permit to authorize on-street dining that would otherwise be unlawful); (2) Plaintiffs paid the fee by choice, and had the option to avoid the charge by not participating in the program; and (3) the charges were collected to compensate the governmental for its expenses in providing the services rather than to raise revenue. For example, the impact fee paid for services that were related to the program, including rat baiting, power washing of sidewalks, and painting of street lane lines. The parking fees were paid directly to garages to provide parking for residents who lost it as a result of the outdoor-dining program. Plaintiffs therefore failed to show that the fees were unlawful taxes.
For all these reasons, the Court allowed the City's Motion to Dismiss.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
