Daniel Maher and Colin’s Place LLC v. White Bear Township
Daniel Maher and Colin’s Place LLC v. White Bear Township, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04081
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Daniel Maher and Colin's Place LLC v. White Bear Township, Judge Magnuson granted summary judgment in favor of White Bear Township, dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims that the Township violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to allow more than five residents at their sober house.
Operators of sober houses (residential facilities for people in recovery from substance use) who seek zoning accommodations from municipalities under the Fair Housing Act or Americans with Disabilities Act, particularly those attempting to house more residents than local zoning codes permit.
What happened
In Daniel Maher and Colin's Place LLC v. White Bear Township, plaintiff Daniel Maher purchased a home in White Bear Township in May 2022 to operate as a sober house — a residence for people in recovery from substance use — through his company, Colin's Place LLC. The Township's zoning rules allowed up to five unrelated individuals to live together, and Maher received a rental license to operate the sober house within that limit. When Maher applied to amend the zoning rules to allow up to ten residents, the Township Board held a public hearing and denied the request, concluding the sober house could function effectively with five residents, while suggesting Maher could convert the property into a duplex to house more people. Maher and Colin's Place LLC then sued, arguing the Township's actions discriminated against people with disabilities in violation of federal fair housing and disability rights laws.
The plaintiffs pursued two legal theories: disparate treatment (arguing the Township intentionally discriminated against them because their residents are disabled) and failure to reasonably accommodate (arguing the Township refused to make a necessary adjustment to its zoning rules to allow the sober house to operate as needed). The Township moved for summary judgment — a request for the court to rule in its favor without a trial because there are no genuine factual disputes requiring a jury. The plaintiffs also filed a document called a 'Statement of Material Facts in Dispute,' which the Township sought to have struck from the record.
Judge Magnuson granted the Township's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. On the disparate treatment claim, the court found the plaintiffs offered no evidence of discriminatory intent — no discriminatory statements, no proof that any biased comments reached the Board, and no authority for the argument that simply having to apply for a zoning amendment constitutes discrimination. On the reasonable accommodation claim, the court found the plaintiffs provided no evidence that expanding occupancy beyond five residents was actually necessary for the sober house to function, noting the Board genuinely considered the request and offered an alternative path through a duplex conversion. The court also denied the Township's motion to strike the plaintiffs' filing as moot, since the case was resolved on the merits.
The detailed version
- Daniel Maher and Colin's Place LLC v. White Bear Township, Civ. No. 24-4081 (PAM/SGE)
- Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge. **Decision date:** October 20, 2025
Background
In May 2022, plaintiff Daniel Maher purchased a single-family home in White Bear Township, Minnesota, to operate as a sober house — a residential facility for individuals in recovery from substance addiction — through his limited liability company, plaintiff Colin's Place LLC. The property is located in an R-1 Suburban Residential zoning district, which permits no more than five unrelated individuals to share a household. Maher obtained a rental license in May 2022 allowing him to use the property as a sober home for five or fewer residents.
In December 2022, Maher applied for an amendment to the Township's zoning ordinance that would allow him to house up to ten residents at the property. He argued at a March 2023 public hearing before the Township Board that a larger group of seven to nine men working toward sobriety together would build more community. Two witnesses from the Minnesota Association of Sober Homes testified on his behalf, though one noted he himself operated a sober house with only four residents. The Board denied the amendment, finding the sober house could achieve its purpose with five residents, and suggested that converting the property into a duplex could allow each half to house five residents. This lawsuit followed.
Claims
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) et seq. Both statutes prohibit municipalities from discriminating on the basis of disability in housing and in programs and services. The plaintiffs pursued two theories: (1) disparate treatment — intentional discrimination based on disability — and (2) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation — the Township's alleged failure to modify its zoning rules to allow the sober house to operate as desired. The plaintiffs clarified at the hearing that they were not pursuing a disparate-impact theory (which would not require proving intentional discrimination).
Procedural posture
White Bear Township moved for summary judgment (Docket No. 20) and also moved to strike (Docket No. 40) the plaintiffs' separately filed 'Statement of Material Facts in Dispute' and unsupported factual assertions in their opposition memorandum. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Motion to Strike
The court denied the motion to strike as moot given its ruling on summary judgment. It noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only allow courts to strike pleadings, and the plaintiffs' 'Statement of Material Facts in Dispute' was not a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, the court observed that Local Rule 7.1(c) did not permit such a filing, and that the plaintiffs' opposition memorandum also failed to cite the record as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). The court noted it could have granted summary judgment on this basis alone.
Disparate Treatment Analysis
To succeed on a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate discriminatory intent. The court found the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence of discriminatory purpose. The Township's zoning code already permitted a sober house of up to five residents, and the plaintiffs were licensed to operate one. The plaintiffs offered no direct evidence of discriminatory statements or motive. Their argument that merely having to apply for a zoning amendment constituted disparate treatment was rejected as unsupported by authority. Although the plaintiffs referenced alleged out-of-context comments by Township staff, they failed to cite to the record and failed to show that such comments were shared with or influenced the Township Board. As to alleged problematic remarks by Board Chair Prudhon, the court found the plaintiffs submitted no supporting evidence, and further noted that even if Prudhon had acted with discriminatory intent, he had only one vote, and '[a]n individual member of a decision-making body who acts with an impermissible purpose cannot be held liable for a collective decision if the remainder of the body acted without such a purpose,' citing Holman v. Cnty. of Carlton, Minn., Civ. No. 20-224, 2022 WL 3371001 (D. Minn. 2022). The record showed the Board's discussion was focused solely on the number of residents.
Reasonable Accommodation Analysis
A reasonable accommodation claim requires the plaintiff to show that the requested accommodation was both reasonable and necessary. The court found the plaintiffs provided no evidence that expanding occupancy beyond five residents was necessary for the sober house's operation. The Board did consider the amendment as both an ordinary zoning request and as a reasonable accommodation request, and it suggested an alternative path — converting the property to a duplex and applying for a conditional use permit — that could have allowed more residents. The plaintiffs also argued that applying for a reasonable accommodation was futile, but the court rejected this argument because the plaintiffs had in fact filed for an accommodation, negating the futility claim.
Ruling
Judge Magnuson granted Defendant White Bear Township's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 20). The Motion to Strike (Docket No. 40) was denied as moot. The matter was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile these claims.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.