Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs Adam and Sara Hussain are married with two children and reside
at Sheridan Apartments, a residential dwelling owned and managed by
Defendant. (Compl. 5.) Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens who identify themselves
as Muslim. (Compl. 9.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to take
reasonable steps in response to discriminatory and harassing conduct based
on religion, which was wholly and exclusively carried out by neighbors at
Sheridan Apartments. (Compl. 2, 14, 15.)
Plaintiffs moved into Sheridan Apartments in February of 2013. (Compl.
8.) Plaintiff Adam Hussain has a beard, and Sara Hussain wears a hijab,
both of which Plaintiffs contend are outward displays of their religion and
make them identifiable to others as Muslim. (Compl. 10, 11.) Plaintiffs
allege that after moving into the apartment managed by Defendant,
cotenants repeatedly harassed them because of Plaintiffs religion. (Compl.
14.) Plaintiffs contend that this harassment was severe and pervasive,
based on religious intolerance on the part of other tenants- none of whom
are identified by name in the Complaint. (Compl. 14.) The alleged
discrimination includes defacement of a flyer with religious slurs, a note
taped onto Plaintffs mailbox, yelling, writing epithets on Plaintiffs car, beer
cans thrown onto Plaintiffs patio, and threats of physical harm. (Compl.
15.)
motion to dismiss, the court assumes all factual allegations in the complaint
are true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Additionally the court must determine if a claim to relief is plausible on its
face. Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Servs., Inc., 688 F.3d 393, 403 (6th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)) (alteration in
original). Although detailed factual allegations, it must contain sufficient
factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal evidence of the elements of the claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). The complaint must provide more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. Id. at 1955.
Overall Issue- Plantiffs have failed to state allegations cognizable under the
FHA
Post Acquisition
Cotenant harassment
Federal Housing Act of 1968
State rules from statute
First section provide fair housing throughout US
3604
3617
To prevail in a discrimination claim under a P must establish
Trafficante (first case for FHA)
Plaintiffs complaint has failed
1. While some courts have applied 3604 and 3617 to postacquisition claims, Plaintiffs case falls outside the scope.
Statutory language at issue
While circuits are split, traditionally most courts have held
Ps case is distinguishable from the cases that have extended
discrimination to post-acquisition
Pre-Halprin history
Halprin constructive eviction only
Bloch and subsequent Halprin history
Hidden Village- held that 3617 applied, but some evidence existed that
D had discriminated during acquisition as well.
Case Conclusion- some circuits have held post-acquisition actionable, but
this logic is badly decided
Plaintiffs allege that FHA applies to their claim, and yet courts
2.
outside the scope of what courts have determined LLs liability under postacquisition claims.
acquiring a job
Whereas the FHA, as stated previously, is focused on acquisition
LL has no power to directly control behavior, unlike employer-employee
LL can issue guidelines, whereas an employees behavior has direct,
immediate consequences
Observation of employee behavior is furthermore more easily and
readily available, than a tenant residing in a home.
LL does not observe a tenant on a daily basis, information about
personal behavior is few and far between since interaction is intermittent
Making D liable for cotenant harassment is far outside the scope of the
FHA, and not actionable for the simple reason that
If P is harassed by neighbors, holding LL liable is not the proper remedy
P has other, more easily available remedies
Should assign liability to the party who actually is discriminating
Not the party who simply makes available a dwelling in exchange
for rent
Making a LLs duties include the direct and personal actions of cotenants
is not rational
Like post-acquisition, this would be an even further violation of public
policy
Would have the opposite effect- LLs discriminating against potential
trouble makers in offering housing to avoid possible litigation
Plaintiffs want to effectively make LLs the insurer of cotenant
discriminatory actions
Increase rents substantially
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that
Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice.
Catherine J. Villanueva
Attorney for Quality Properties, Inc.