Judge dismisses lawsuit filed by group displaced from Rowan County mobile home park

People living in the North Fork Mobile Home Park say they were given short notice to relocate.
People living in the North Fork Mobile Home Park say they were given short notice to relocate.(WKYT)
Published: Nov. 2, 2021 at 2:28 PM EDT
Email This Link
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn

ROWAN COUNTY, Ky. (WKYT) - A judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by people who were displaced from the North Fork Mobile Home Park in Rowan County.

Earlier this year, neighbors were forced to leave the mobile home park after a sale of the land.

They then took legal action against the city of Morehead, challenging an ordinance that created the Morehead Gateway Development Area, which is where the mobile home park once stood.

The suit alleged the city failed to meet legal requirements to establish the development area and did not consider the impacts it would have on residents, or give them proper notice.

Read the conclusion of the judge’s dismissal below:

Dismissal of this lawsuit is required. When taking the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint as true, it is clear that the City adopted the Ordinance in furtherance of economic growth under its broad “home rule” powers. The City has satisfied the “reasonable or sufficient relationship” test imposed on it by Kentucky law such that it is inappropriate for this Court to review the City’s adoption of the Ordinance or to declare the City’s act of passing the Ordinance invalid.

As an alternative, but equally sufficient ground, dismissal is also required because Plaintiffs lack both constitutional and statutory standing leaving this Court without subject matter jurisdiction to resolve this matter. This Court will not entertain a lawsuit “brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests.” Garriga v. Sanitation Dist. No. 1, 2003 Ky. App. Unpub., 2003 WL 22871550, *20 (Ky. App. Dec. 5, 2003). Among other things, standing requirements are “designed to ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented. . .”. Garriga, 2003 WL 22871550 at *20. No interests are served by allowing Plaintiffs to continue pursuing a claim that cannot possibly redress the injuries they allege. Plaintiffs have admitted to this Court more than once that the relief they seek will not redress the injuries they allege. For this reason, and all others stated herein, dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is required.

Copyright 2021 WKYT. All rights reserved.