Echoing claims made by the city of Huntsville earlier this month, a developer of a planned upscale subdivision at Monte Sano has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to stop the project.

See Forever Development Partners filed its motion Tuesday in Madison County circuit court, describing the lawsuit as “frivolous” and arguing that the plaintiffs have no legal claim to block the subdivision.

Arguments on motions to dismiss filed by the city and the developer against a group of neighbors who live near the planned subdivision will be heard Nov. 10 by Circuit Judge Alison Austin.

“Plaintiffs’ action is frivolous and their ‘complaint’ fails to comply with applicable pleading rules, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and perpetuates a tired argument without any basis in fact or law,” the See Forever motion said. “Indeed, from the face of the complaint and the zoning ordinance, it is clear that plaintiffs lack any basis for declaratory or injunctive relief. Additionally, plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any claim against the city or (developers).”

Huntsville attorney Matthew Reeves filed the motion on behalf of See Forever, a Colorado-based development firm.

See Forever is planning a 64-unit luxury subdivision off Gaslight Way named Summit at Monte Sano.

Seven residents who live near the wooded area where the subdivision would be built brought the lawsuit filed by Huntsville attorney Robert Rodgers. The plaintiffs have requested a bench trial.

The developers asked the city to rezone the 47-acre property owned by See Forever to accommodate the subdivision and the city council approved that rezoning earlier this year after review by the planning commission.

According to the lawsuit, the proposed subdivision violates city zoning, subdivision and traffic ordinances. The project will result in loss of property value for neighboring homes and those homes could suffer damage from flooding and erosion as a result of construction on the mountain slope, the lawsuit said.

The developers responded in their motion that those concerns have no legal standing.

“From the face of the complaint, it is clear that plaintiffs lack an ‘actual concrete and particularized ‘injury in fact,’” the See Forever motion said. “Plaintiffs simply complain about potential future impacts to their ‘property values,’ the ‘character of the surrounding neighborhood,’ and other theoretical harms. Of course, Alabama courts reject ‘financial loss and depreciation in the value of their property’ as a sufficient injury in fact. Moreover, neither a declaratory judgment nor injunctive relief can be granted for anticipated or speculative future controversies and harm.”

The developers’ motion to dismiss also “adopts and incorporates” the arguments made by the city in its motion to dismiss.