FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact:
Brooke Christy, Esq.
Bchristy@fairshake-els.org
(267) 817-5917
PITTSBURGH, PA — Fair Shake is pleased to announce that the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas has denied the Pittsburgh Land Bank's Preliminary Objections in a lawsuit brought by our client, Out of the End, a nonprofit led by local urban farmer Ebony Lunsford-Evans. The ruling allows the case to move forward into the next phase of litigation.
The lawsuit asks the Court to clarify what rights Adopt-A-Lot leaseholders have when they seek to purchase the land they have spent years caring for and improving. It also challenges what Plaintiff alleges was a lack of transparency and fairness in the Pittsburgh Land Bank's decision-making process.
The Pittsburgh Land Bank argued that the case should be dismissed before any evidence could be considered, asserting that leaseholders have no enforceable rights in the property disposition process and that the agency could not be sued under the claims raised. The Court rejected those arguments at this stage of the case, meaning the lawsuit will now proceed.
"This ruling is an important step forward," said Brooke Christy, attorney for Fair Shake. "It ensures that the Land Bank's actions can be fully examined in court. We're grateful for the Court's careful review and look forward to presenting the facts."
Background
The lawsuit centers on six publicly owned parcels in Pittsburgh's Manchester neighborhood that Out of the End has leased, maintained, and cultivated for years through agreements with the City of Pittsburgh and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
Out of the End worked with the community to transform the vacant lots into a valuable community resource by investing significant time, labor, and money into the parcels. After applying to purchase the parcels through the Pittsburgh Land Bank, Plaintiff alleges the application was denied despite Land Bank policies and agreements that favored selling property to existing leaseholders.
The Complaint alleges that the Land Bank failed to follow the laws and agreements governing how the public property should be transferred to active leaseholders. Among other claims, Plaintiff alleges:
Violations of procedural and substantive due process;
Violations of Pennsylvania's Local Agency Law;
Arbitrary and capricious governmental decision-making;
Breach of contractual obligations and third-party beneficiary rights arising from an agreement governing property transfers between the City, the URA, and the Land Bank;
Violations of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act relating to public decision-making;
Violations of applicable provisions of the Pittsburgh Code; and
Requests for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect Plaintiff's asserted rights in the property disposition process.
Plaintiff maintains that the Land Bank failed to follow applicable legal requirements governing transparency, fairness, and the disposition of publicly owned property with active leases, and that the denial of Plaintiff's application was contrary to governing agreements and established procedures.
What Happens Next
Now that the Court has denied the Preliminary Objections, the Pittsburgh Land Bank must file a formal Answer responding to the allegations in the Complaint. All parties will then begin discovery, the phase of the case where documents are exchanged, witnesses may be questioned under oath, and evidence is gathered.
"This decision allows the case to move forward so the facts can be fully developed," Christy said. "We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and ensuring that public land disposition processes are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law."
Because the litigation is ongoing, our team at Fair Shake will work with co-counsel from O'Brien Coleman & Wright and Out of the End to pursue the case through the court process. We look forward to presenting further evidence to support our claims.
DISCLAIMER: The allegations contained in the Complaint remain allegations. The Court's denial of the Preliminary Objections permits the case to proceed but does not constitute a determination on the merits of Plaintiff's claims.
