Homeroom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas

── Homeroom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas ── Case No.: 23-3168 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 23-3168 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 6, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court HOMEROOM, INC.; VAL FRENCH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No. 23-3168 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-02209-HLT-GEB) CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS; (D. Kan.) DOUGLAS GERBER; KEVIN MESSICK, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before CARSON, ROSSMAN, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal arises out of Appellee City of Shawnee’s Ordinance No. 3419, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live together in Shawnee, Kansas. Appellants HomeRoom, Inc., a property management company, and Val French, a private citizen, sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the Ordinance violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to intimate association and equal protection. The City moved to dismiss the * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 23-3168 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 2 complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion. 1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I2 In April 2022, the City adopted Ordinance No. 3419. The Ordinance defines “Co-Living Group” as “a group of four (4) or more unrelated persons age eighteen (18) or older living together in a dwelling unit, provided that if any one (1) of the adult persons is unrelated to another adult person in the group, the entire group shall be classified as unrelated.” RI.10, ¶ 26 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Ordinance, “related persons” means “(A) Persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship; or (B) A person having legal custody of a minor or the designee of a parent or other person having legal custody of a minor.” RI.10, ¶ 27 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Ordinance prohibits Co-Living Groups in every 1 The complaint also named two City employees as individual defendants. The district court dismissed the claims against those defendants as duplicative of the claims against the City. Appellants do not challenge that portion of the district court’s decision. 2 Because the appeal before us concerns a motion to dismiss, we take these facts from Appellants’ complaint. See, e.g., Matney v. Barrick Gold of N. Am., 80 F.4th 1136, 1141 & n.1 (10th Cir. 2023) (relying on facts in the complaint to describe the background when appeal involves challenge to a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss). 2  Appellate Case: 23-3168 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 3 residential-use zone in the City. It applies whether the residence is rented or owner-occupied. The City has established a pattern and practice of