Code Enforcement Cases in the Fire Law News: One Filed, One Dismissed

Lawsuits arising out of code enforcement responsibilities lead to approximately 1.8% of fire service civil litigation (113 out of 6,166 cases in my database). Two such cases are in the Fire Law News today—one newly filed in Massachusetts involving underground fuel storage tanks, and the other a federal decision out of Michigan dismissing constitutional claims arising from fire code and licensing enforcement.

The newly filed case was brought in Bristol Superior Court by Khalil Dobeib and Milad Dbaib, doing business as K&M Auto Repair, against the City of Taunton, the Taunton Fire Department, Deputy Chief Robert J. Bastis Jr., the Taunton City Council, and the Fire Prevention Regulations Appeals Board. The complaint centers on underground storage tanks at 274 Winthrop Street in Taunton, where K&M operates under a fuel storage and dispensing permit. According to the complaint, on October 6, 2025, Deputy Chief Bastis issued a written order stating that the tanks had not been properly closed and had remained out of service for more than five years, citing 527 CMR 1.00 § 66.21.7.4.3.2.1 and directing that all underground storage tanks be removed within forty-five days. 

The plaintiffs contend that the cited regulation provides two compliance paths—permanent closure in place or removal—but that the notice only referenced removal. They allege that omission rendered the notice defective because it failed to advise them of what they characterize as a lawful alternative. The complaint further alleges that they timely appealed to the Fire Prevention Regulations Appeals Board, which held a hearing in February 2026, but that before the state appeal period expired, the fire department issued a February 10, 2026 “Final Order” again directing removal and later asked the city council to schedule a hearing to revoke the fuel storage and dispensing license. 

The complaint also points to a February 12, 2026 letter signed by Deputy Chief Bastis requesting revocation of the license for what the letter described as “Planet Petroleum,” even though the plaintiffs allege no such entity exists. They further claim the city characterized the appeal as already exhausted even though the Fire Prevention Regulations Appeals Board decision, signed March 9, 2026, advised that an appeal could be taken within thirty days. The suit seeks judicial review, declaratory relief, and an injunction preventing enforcement of tank removal and license revocation while appeals remain pending. 

The second case is West v. City of Eastpointe, decided March 31, 2026, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. There, Andre West sued the Eastpointe, several police officers, and Fire Marshal Alton Polk after city officials shut down activity at a commercial property known as Big Daddy Games. West had purchased the property in 2023 and sought to continue operating it, but the building did not yet have a business license, liquor license, or occupancy approval when officials found patrons inside. 

According to the court, officers first entered the building on September 8, 2023, after receiving a complaint that the business appeared open. Body camera footage showed cars in the lot, lights on, an unlocked front door, patrons entering and leaving, and staff behind the bar. When asked for licenses, West’s representatives could not produce any, and officers later found liquor bottles and drinks testing positive for alcohol. A citation followed for operating without a business license and serving liquor without a license. 

A week later, Fire Marshal Polk texted West advising him not to use the building for public or private events until licensing, zoning, fire, and building inspections were complete. That same night, officials returned after reports of another gathering. West maintained it was a private family event, but police reported patrons entering and exiting, alcohol consumption, and food service. Fire department personnel entered, removed occupants, and boarded up the building. 

West filed suit pro se alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming among other things that the enforcement interfered with religious practice, constituted unlawful searches, and reflected racial discrimination. Judge Laurie Michelson rejected those claims and granted summary judgment to all defendants. The court held that West lacked standing on several claims because the property was owned by LLCs, found no constitutional violation in the September 8 entry because the premises appeared open to the public, and concluded that even where factual disputes existed over the September 15 entry, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence that the fire marshal’s actions were pretextual, noting that Polk had expressly warned West in writing that occupancy without inspection violated fire code requirements. 

The court summarized the fire code issue directly: “The building or structure shall not be occupied prior to the fire code official issuing a permit and conducting associated inspections indicating the applicable provisions of this code have been met.” Because West had not obtained an occupancy permit, the court found he had no protected entitlement to use the building before inspection approval. 

The court also summarized West’s suit as follows:

• His pro se lawsuit seeks to re-cast the standard enforcement of unremarkable municipal ordinances into civil rights violations, including infringement of the right to assemble and religious expression, unlawful searching and taking of property, and deprivation of due process of law. His effort is unsuccessful. Thus, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.