Appeals court rules plaintiff adequately alleged discriminatory permitting practices and remands case for further proceedings.
RICHMOND, VA, UNITED STATES, February 28, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ — On February 3, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Richardson v. Prince George’s County and remanded the case for further proceedings. The unanimous three-judge panel held that plaintiff Randy Richardson adequately alleged an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing and that his claims were ripe for adjudication.
According to the complaint, Richardson entered into a lease agreement in January 2020 for retail space at the Shops at Iverson Mall in Temple Hills, Maryland, where he planned to open a restaurant and music venue called Town Hall Live. The complaint alleges that employees of the County’s Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement (DPIE) informed Richardson he could not obtain a use and occupancy permit until Iverson Mall resolved certain permit deficiencies with the County.
The complaint further alleges that while Richardson was told to wait, several large businesses including Burlington, Chipotle, and Shoppers World were permitted to open in the same mall. Richardson alleges that DPIE issued correction orders and fines against him totaling more than $9,500, and that other businesses in the mall did not face similar enforcement actions.
According to court documents, the Director of Government Accountability in the County Executive’s office contacted Richardson to acknowledge problems with DPIE’s handling of the matter. The complaint states that the County offered Richardson a $330,000 settlement, which he declined before filing the lawsuit.
The district court granted the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Richardson lacked standing because he had not applied for and been denied a use and occupancy permit, and alternatively that his claims were not ripe.
The Fourth Circuit reversed on both grounds. Writing for the panel, Senior Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan explained that under Supreme Court precedent, when a plaintiff alleges a government entity has erected a barrier making it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than another group, the injury is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. The court found Richardson’s allegations sufficient to show he was “able and ready” to apply for a permit, as required for standing.
On ripeness, the court held that Richardson adequately alleged any attempt to obtain a permit would have been futile given the statements by DPIE employees that he could not receive a permit until the mall’s issues were resolved.
The court emphasized that its decision addressed only the sufficiency of Richardson’s complaint at the pleadings stage and did not opine on the merits of his claims. The court noted that because the parties have engaged in substantial discovery, consideration of the merits will likely occur in summary judgment proceedings.
Richardson is represented by Jordan D. Howlette of Justly Prudent in Washington, D.C. The County is represented by the Prince George’s County Office of Law. The case is Randy Richardson v. Prince George’s County, et al. (Case No. 23-1235), decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Lars Kroner
Justly Prudent
+1 202-921-6080
email us here
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Instagram
Facebook
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability
for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this
article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
