You are on page 1of 27

....AO 4'\0 (Rev.

10/93) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


District of MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property
Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company, Plaintiffs SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
V.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation, Defendant.
CASE NUMBER: ODlV tft 0
JYLT/~

TO: (Name and address of Defendant)

City of Saint Paul, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., 390 City Hall, St. Paul, MN 55102.

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
John R. Shoemaker
Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C.
Centennial Lakes Office Park
770 I. France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, MN 55435

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day of service. Ifyou fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for
the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable
period oftime after service.

fIB 2 2 2008
DATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Robert McCampbell and Raven


Property Management, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.

City of Saint Paul, a Court File No. _


municipal corporation,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.

Robert McCampbell and Raven Property Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited

liability company(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following

Complaint against the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This civil action arises under the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota. This

Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:

(I) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act

of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; and

(2) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983 (civil rights action).

The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613, 28 U.S.C. Section

1331 (federal questions), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 1367, as Plaintiffs are alleging state claims arising from a common nucleus ofoperative facts

with Plaintiffs' federal claims.


Plaintiffs seek injunctive reliefagainst Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 .

Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Robert McCampbell ("Plaintiff') is a citizen of the United States and a Minnesota

resident residing in Dakota County.

2. Raven Property Management, L.L.C. is a Minnesota limited liability company that

owned and managed real estate in the City of St. Paul. Plaintiff McCampbell was and continues to

be the sole owner of Raven Property Management, L.L.C.

3. Defendant City of Saint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under, and

by virtue of, the laws of the State of Minnesota.

4. Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs were property owners in the low-income

rental business with properties located at 780 Jackson Street, 615/617 Case Avenue and 1015

York Avenue in the City ofSt. Paul.

5. Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively low income African-Americans, and

other persons of minority status, all of whom were individuals protected under anti-

discrimination laws, hereinafter referred to as "protected class tenants."

6. During 2001 through 2006, Plaintiffs provided affordable housing in St. Paul that

was in short supply in the City.

7. Plaintiffs' rental property located at 1015 York Avenue was a 17 unit building. In

2005,16 of the rental units were occupied by African-Americans and one rental unit was

occupied by a Native-American family.

8. Plaintiffs' tenants were typically highly transient resulting in high tenant turnover

2
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' 1015 York property averaged one to two vacancies on a monthly basis.

9. It was common for Plaintiffs to have rental applications from people of color

moving into St. Paul from Chicago and Detroit and other cities. Plaintiffs' tenants were a good

source of referrals and many times they referred other family members, relatives and friends to

Plaintiffs for housing in St. Paul.

10. At times during the period of 2003 through 2005, Plaintiffs had all of the rental

units leased at their 1015 York property and Plaintiffs had to turn away potential tenants,

including African-Americans.

11. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and

representatives, the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tenant advocate groups, and others involved in

housing policy issues, recognized that African-Americans faced significant barriers to affordable

housing in the City.

12. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and

representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy

issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in St. Paul due to

significant racial conflicts between white neighbors and African-American tenants.

13. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and

representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy

issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in the city due to

frequent misuse of the "complaint based code enforcement system" whereby certain complainants

were illegally targeting "people of color" for code enforcement operations designed to shut down

3
those minority occupied rental properties, or force the "protected class" tenants from those rental

properties. Certain of Defendant's officials and code enforcement officials and inspectors

pursued discriminatory code enforcement operations to placate racist constituents and to further

political agendas. Defendant failed to take action to stop these discriminatory practices.

14. During 2002 through 2006, certain City officials and employees made racists

comments to members of the minority community and to property owners providing housing to

members of that community, to the effect that those minorities were not welcomed in St. Paul

and should not be given housing.

15. Andy Dawkins, the director of Defendant's Neighborhood Housing and Property

Improvement department (NHPI) from 2002 through 2005, strongly suggested in 2005 to low-

income landlords that the bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul.

16. Mr. Dawkins also told a low-income housing advocate with Project Hope that the

City did not want low-income tenants renting in St. Paul.

17. During 2002 through 2006, certain of Defendant's code enforcement inspectors

were condescending toward minority owners of "protected class" rental properties and towards

their minority tenants.

18. African-American have historically constituted the largest segment of the "poor"

in the City and this was true during 2001 through 2006, while Plaintiffs provided low-income

housing in St. Paul.

19. For decades, African-Americans have comprised the largest percentage oflow-

income tenants in the City and the highest percentage of those waiting for affordable housing in

the City.

4
20. City representatives have repeatedly discussed in public the claim that there is an

over concentration of poverty in certain areas of St. Paul.

21. City representatives have long recognized the racist tendencies of a significant

number of city residents towards African"Americans and other minorities.

22. PHA, the largest low-income landlord in the city, has acknowledged that due to

political pressure, PHA worked with City officials and influential neighborhood groups to select

the locations of all of the 400 scattered site homes PHA owns. These homes are occupied by

federally subsidized tenants, ~any of whom are minorities. Many ofPHA's tenants are members

of the "protected class" and about one-third have consistently been African-Americans.

23. During at least 2002 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and

representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy

issues, recognized that private owners oflow-income rental housing in St. Paul: provided the

majority of affordable housing for the "protected class" tenants in the City; had high maintenance

and repair costs due to ownership of older housing stock and tenant conduct related causes; were

housing a significantly higher percentage of "protected class" tenants than PHA; were in need of

cooperative relationships with Defendant, its officials, employees and representatives and other

third parties in order to continue to provide critically needed affordable housing; and would be

adversely affected if Defendant raised the code enforcement standard applicable to privately

owned low-income rental properties.

24. Despite the barriers to providing affordable housing to those in need, Plaintiffs

worked hard at providing safe, decent and sanitary housing and had many thankful tenants.

25. Defendant, through its Police Department, recognized Plaintiffs for their efforts to

5
properly manage their Case Avenue rental property thereby reducing adverse tenant and guest

behavior issues.

26. Plaintiffs employed a full-time caretaker for management of the 1015 York rental

property, including handling oftenant applications, interviewing and screening tenants,

maintenance and repair matters, and other matters involved in Plaintiffs' rental business.

27. Plaintiffs consistently rented to those individuals who held Se,ction 8 Housing

Choice Vouchers. Almost all of Plaintiffs' Section 8 tenants were African-Americans. Plaintiffs

had a monthly average of three rental units leased to Section 8 tenants in their 1015 York

property.

28. Plaintiffs' 1015 York building was inspected by Section 8 inspectors under

direction of PHA. Section 8 inspectors conducted inspections of Plaintiffs' building utilizing the

federal Housing Quality Standards ("HQS"). Following each such inspection, Plaintiffs took the

necessary action to obtain certification of their rental units to receive federal funding in the form

of rent subsidies.

29. Each of the three rental properties Plaintiffs owned in the City were multi-unit

buildings subject to the City's "certificate of occupancy" ("C of 0") code enforcement inspection

system administered by the City's Fire Prevention Office of the Fire Department.

30. Under the "C of 0" inspection system, Plaintiffs' rental properties were inspected

by Fire Inspectors at least once every two years.

31. During the "C of 0" renewal process in 2004, the City revoked the "C of 0" of the

1015 York property. Following Plaintiffs' completion of repairs to the property, the City issued a

new "C of 0" on the property.

6
32. During 2004 through 2005, each time City code officials issued orders related to the

property, Plaintiffs completed the necessary repairs to the subject units and to the building.

33. During 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs continued to experience a high degree of wear and

tear to their rental properties and tenant and guest caused damage to their property. The high degree

ofwear and tear and intentional damage was similar to the wear and tear and damage experienced by

other providers of low-income rental units in the city, including PHA and Section 8 project based

landlords.

34. During 2004 and 2005, senior Fire Inspector Pat Fish made comments to Plaintiff

McCampbell on at least two occasions that, "I don't know why you rent to these people." Inspector

Fish was referring to Plaintiffs' African-American tenants. It was clear to PlaintiffMcCampbell that

Inspector Fish did not want him renting to low-income tenants ofhis race. Despite the racist remarks

by a senior City inspector, Plaintiff McCampbell confirmed that he would continue to provide his

tenants with affordable housing that was in critically short supply in the City.

35. During 2005, City officials placed Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a list of

alleged "problem properties" claiming certain "nuisance activity" was occurring at the property. City

officials threatened to revoke the "C of 0" for Plaintiffs' building. These same officials and

employees attempted to justify the targeting of Plaintiffs' rental property for heightened code

standards through their classification ofthe property in a derogatory manner. Inspector Fish was the

chairperson of Defendant's Problem Property Task Force during this time.

36. A "Problem Property" is defined by Defendant as a building where "both building

maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist. City officials have admitted that the actual

definition of what constitutes a "problem property" varies from one neighborhood to another

7
neighborhood in the city.

37. The City through its officials and employees, and with assistance from certain third

parties including block club and district council representatives, create periodic lists containing the

addresses ofprivately owned rental buildings considered to be "problem properties." These "problem

properties" are then subject to heightened code standards and increased code enforcement activities

by City inspection officials and employees, including repeated attempts to gain access to interiors of

rental properties, multiple inspections, "white glove" code standards, issuance of condemnations,

removal of grand fathering protections, demands for extensive and expensive renovations, all in a

concerted effort to raise the costs of low-income landlords and to force said landlords to sell their

properties.

38. After declaring Plaintiffs' property a "problem property," Plaintiffs experienced

repeated inspections oftheir 1015 York rental property designed to harass Plaintiffs and their tenants

and to encourage the tenants to leave their rental units, and to force a "change of ownership" in the

rental property to a new owner that would not rent to low-income African-Americans.

39. In December 2005 through January 2006, City code officials and employees cited

Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a number of occasions with claimed code violations.

40. On January 17,2006, Plaintiffs' building was condemned for a few items claimed to

be deficient. By early February 3, 2006, City code officials acknowledged in writing that Plaintiffs

had taken the necessary action for the City to remove the condemnation and City Officials and

employees thanked Plaintiffs for their cooperation.

41. During this same period, Defendant's officials and employees continued to illegally

target Plaintiffs and their tenants with confrontational and harassing code enforcement operations

8
designed to remove Plaintiffs' rental income while at the same time dramatically increasing their

costs and expenses.

42. After the repeated inspections where city officials and employees applied a "white

glove" code enforcement standard to Plaintiffs' property, city officials once again condemned

Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on February 24,2006. Plaintiffs again took corrective action to

address the code issues raised by Defendant and most of the claimed violations were corrected.

Nevertheless, Defendant continued the condemnation of the building.

43. However, due to the illegal targeting and code enforcement actions, Plaintiffs lost all

rental income to their 17 unit rental building. Without the rental income and facing significant costs,

Plaintiffs lost their rental business. Many ofPlaintiffs' tenants left their rental units during this time

due to Defendant's actions.

44. In the late 1990's, Defendant's officials and employees were informed by low-income

rental property owners that ifthe City raised the level ofthe code standards applicable to low-income

rental properties, the higher cost ofcomplying with the heightened standard would force the owners

from the market.

45. During approximately 1999 through 2001, Defendant created and applied a "Problem

Properties 2000" ("PP2000") initiative to address claimed code enforcement and occupant behavior

issues. PP2000's main emphasis was for City inspectors to work together with low-income landlords

to address the claimed problem properties. According to code inspectors working in the PP2000

program, the program was a success not only in reducing the complaints against problem properties

but also in addressing the concerns of City officials, neighbors, tenants and landlords.

9
46. Sometime during 2001 or early 2002, Defendant's officials and employees eliminated

the PP2000 program and thereafter implemented a confrontational, heavy-handed approach to low-

income landlords including claimed owners and tenants of "problem properties".

47. In March 2002 Defendant released a Chronic Problem Properties Report that detailed

the City's prior experience with "problem properties". The Report acknowledged that City policy,

custom and practice applied to "some" problem properties included a knowing and intentional lack of

published or documented standards for selectively targeting a property for increased code

enforcement as a "problem property".

48. The City's March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including fire,

police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of gaining

access to interiors ofhomes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on landlords who did

not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.

49. The March 2002 Report made much to do about the excessive costs to the City from

the privately owned low-income rental properties the City described as "problem properties," due to

tenant behavior issues and code enforcement issues related to the physical condition of those

properties. However, in conducting its study and issuing its Report, City officials and employees

purposely failed to account for the significant costs the City had incurred and was continuing to incur

from the residential rental operations of the largest landlord in the low-income rental market, its

sister government agency, PHA.

50. The City's March 2002 Report surprisingly failed to even mention the existence ofthe

PHA, with its over 440 million dollar rental portfolio and 4400 rental units. PHA's rental portfolio

10
consisted of over 400 single family home scattered across the City, clustered duplexes, 16 hi-rise

rental buildings and four family developments consisting of town homes.

5!. PHA and the City have long standing agreements and contracts between them

concerning a wide variety of concerns to both PHA and the City, including a special policing

contractual arrangement since 1991 whereby the City has provided and continues to provide a

platoon of police officers and liaison officers to police PHA's family developments, and an

additional police officer to live in each of PHA sixteen hi-rises.

52. The City and PHA have a long standing agreement that PHA is exempt from interior

inspections on PHA's 400 scattered site homes in the City. The City's policy, practice and custom is

to avoid demanding and performing any interior inspections in PHA single family homes spread

across the city. This cozy relationship between Defendant and PHA is also demonstrated by the

lower standard of code enforcement applied by Defendant to PHA's "C of 0" rental properties than to

Plaintiffs' rental property and the rental properties of other private owners oflow-income housing.

53. PHA and the City admit that all ofPHA properties must conform to all the same fire,

safety, minimum housing codes, and all other applicable codes that have applied to Plaintiffs'

property and the properties of all other private providers oflow-income rental housing.

54. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems

similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock including Plaintiffs' 1015 York property.

PHA administers its own maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing

stock.

55. Many of PHA's rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA

to be in need of major capital improvements. Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital

11
repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been

deferred to later years for additional federal funding.

56. Plaintiffs' property and those of other targeted rental property owners have not been

afforded PHA's competitive advantage of deferral ofcapital improvements but instead private low-

income rental property owners and their "protected class" tenants have suffered immediate and long

term adverse consequences from Defendant's discriminatory and illegal code enforcement

operations.

57. PHA's rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues as

the rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected

class" members including those property owners providing critical housing under the Section 8

program.

58. PHA manages the housing inspections of Section 8 rental units. PHA claims that as

part of its inspections "vacant [rental] units are prepared to high standards for each new resident" in

order to meet local codes and HUD's,standards. PHA conducts inspections of Section 8 rental units

in the City at least armually. Even though Section 8 rental units pass federal standards, Defendant

frequently interferes with the tenant's housing and the landlord's property by conducting additional

harassing inspections and many times condemning these same units that had passed federal

inspections.

59. PHA's rental housing stock has historically been subjected to City code enforcement

but to a minimal degree compared to City code enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly

situated private rental property owners.

60. Due to federal budget cuts, PHA has sold and is continuing to sell single family

12
homes from its scattered site portfolio. PHA claims that all of its rental properties conform to all

applicable codes. However, the Truth in Sale of Housing ("TISH") reports prepared by licensed

evaluators/inspectors using the City's code guidelines reveal that PHA's single family homes have

many "below minimum code" conditions and "hazardous" conditions in their rental homes.

61. City records show that PHA single family homes have experienced water intrusion

into basements of its rental homes resulting in serious mold conditions. Other records demonstrate

that serious mold conditions have been created and allowed to continue inside PHA homes due to

tenant conduct.

62. Despite Defendant's knowledge of these conditions, Defendant has not taken any

action to require inspections of those particular homes, or to see if the serious code violations and

health concerns have been immediately addressed and corrected by PHA. Additionally, from the

1990s through 2006, Defendant did not demand interior inspections of PHA' s 400 rental homes.

Defendant has not used these serious code violations in PHA homes to justify adverse actions against

PHA. Where similar circumstances are presented in privately owned rental units, Defendant have

immediately sought to punish the private landlords by condemnation of the properties in question,

requiring the tenants to leave the properties and requiring expensive renovations through full code

compliance certifications.

63. PHA properties are subject to the permit requirements of City codes. Whenever

repair, replacement and or renovation work is needed on a property, PHA is responsible for applying

for a City permit, paying the permit fees, and ensuring that the required interim and final permit -

safety inspections are requested. Certified city building officials are designated to conduct the permit

- safety inspections on items such as furnace replacements, roofrepair and replacements, electrical

13
work and other work on properties in the city. The permit inspections are intended to ensure that the

particular repair, replacement or improvement was performed according to all the applicable

building, safety, fire, electrical, and other codes so that the occupants safety and the safety of

neighbors are ensured.

64. Defendant's permit records at the City's Office of License, Inspections and

Environmental Protection ("LIEP") demonstrate that when it comes to permits issued by the City to

PHA for furnace replacements and roof replacements, City inspection officials have consistently

failed to conduct the mandatory permit inspection, either because PHA officials informed the

inspectors that PHA did not think the inspection was necessary, or because PHA's contractors

repeatedly failed to request said inspections from LIEP officials. City inspectors merely note the

request by PHA to forego the inspection, or note that no request was made for the inspection, and the

City inspectors fail to inspect said properties.

65. The result of Defendant's failure to ensure that code required permit inspections are

completed and work approved, is that PHA tenants and PHA neighbors, are not afforded the

protections ofthe codes for their safety. City and PHA officials have known for many years ofthis

practice of failing to have permit inspections performed on PHA properties. This "blind eye" by the

City to PHA rental properties, seriously jeopardizes PHA tenants and neighbors while at the same

time the Defendant's targeting of Plaintiffs and other landlords jeopardizes their rental businesses

and disrupts the lives of their tenants.

66. Defendant City does not subject PHA's rental housing stock to harassing inspections

on the exteriors and interiors of its rental properties, to condemnations of its buildings that forcibly

evict its tenants from their homes, to placement ofPHA's rental properties on the "Vacant Building"

14
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations

under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, or to many of the other

actions the City takes against the privately owned low-income rental owners.

67. Conversely, Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected class"

members are subjected by Defendant's officials and employees to harassing inspections on the

exteriors and interiors of their rental properties, to condemnations of their buildings that forcibly

evict its tenants from their homes, to placement of their rental properties on the "Vacant Building"

lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations

under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, to many other actions that

create an environment in the city where these private landlords cannot operate low-income rental

businesses and leads to abandonment oflow-income rental properties in the city.

68. PHA's rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems, including those

that require frequent calls for City police protection, that are similar to the tenant and guest behavior

problems of Plaintiff's properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly situated

property owners in the City.

69. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties ofPlaintiffs and other property

owners who are in direct competition with PHA for the same low income, predominately minority

tenants, based upon claimed tenant behavior problems that also exist in PHA properties.

70. Defendant's officials and employees knew and intended that their selectively

aggressive code enforcement operations against the targeted low-income landlords, and their tenants,

would have a discriminatory impact upon members ofthe "protected class" living within the City and

upon the private property owners providing housing to said "protected class".

15
71. Said officials and employees also knew and intended that such enforcement would

directly contradict the affirmations by Defendant to HUD, the purported purposes of the federal

housing funds received by the City and the affordable housing policies of the federal government.

72. Defendant's discriminatory housing policy, custom and practice as set forth herein

had a discriminatory impact on the protected class, and those providing housing to same, including

Plaintiffs, and the policy, custom and practice has continued since at least 2002 in the City.

73. Defendant's discriminatory housing practices as set forth herein, including but not

limited to, illegal condenmation of Plaintiffs' rental property and those of other low-income

landlords, interfered with the ability of"protected class" tenants' to maintain housing, locate housing,

locate replacement housing and interfered with those tenants' employment, all to the tenants

detriment.

74. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials and employees,

Plaintiffs and other low-income landlords were forced to incur significant unnecessary expenses

which placed a heavy fmancial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units,

sell their rental properties or lose their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units

for "protected class" members in the City.

75. As a result of this wrongful conduct, Defendant also obtained, under color oflaw or

official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and other related City fees

from Plaintiffs and other low~income landlords.

76. As a direct result ofthe discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions directed

against Plaintiffs, they lost tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities,

mortgage payments and other expenses of the subject property, lost their investment in the rental

16
property, incurred significant other expenses, and were forced to surrender the property to the

banking institution that held the mortgage on the property. Plaintiffs incurred other damages as a

result of the discriminatory actions of Defendant.

77. Other private owners of low-income rental properties providing critically needed

affordable housing to "protected class" members during the period of 2002 through 2006 were

subjected to similar discriminatory code enforcement and other illegal conduct as Plaintiffs were

subjected to by Defendant and its officials and employees, and these private owners were not offered

the same benefits and preferences that Defendant provided to PHA. Many ofthese private landlords

like Plaintiffs suffered great damage including loss of their rental properties as a direct result ofthe

discriminatory policies and illegal conduct ofDefendant and its officials and employees. The tenants

of these landlords also suffered a great deal due to the discriminatory policies of Defendant.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601 ET SEQ., 3613 AND 3617

78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 as set forth

above.

79. Commencing in about 2002, Defendant, through its officials and employees including

inspectors from Defendant's Fire Department, commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory

policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted the low-income

rental properties owned by Plaintiffs and other St. Paul landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and

associating with individuals with protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing

Act and Amendments, including African-Americans, other Black Americans, Hispanic Americans,

17
Asian Americans, American Indians, individuals with disabilities ("protected class"), all living

within the City of St. Paul.

80. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct

did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with these low-income landlords including Plaintiffs, on

account of their having aided, associated with or encouraged their "protected class" tenants in

exercise of these tenants' rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.

81. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice had, and continues to have,

the approval of the City Council, the Mayor, and many of the City's other officials and employees.

This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement conduct has

been and continues to be encouraged and aided by certain influential members of district councils

and block clubs and other individuals with political power in the City.

82. Defendant's officials, employees, representatives and agents instituted a campaign to

interfere with and impair the ability of low-income landlords including Plaintiffs to provide housing

for low and moderate income members of the African-American community and other "protected

class" members in the city.

83. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct

was intentional and malicious in Defendant's efforts to rid the City of "protected class" members,

and Plaintiffs and other owners who were assisting these individuals by providing them with low-

income housing that was in critically short supply in the City.

84. Officials and employees of Defendant City, including certain inspectors from the

City's Fire Prevention Office, intended that Defendant's policy would have a discriminatory impact

18
upon members of the African-American community and other "protected class" citizens and on

Plaintiffs and others providing housing services to those "protected class" members.

85. Said Defendant's code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon

members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other

property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.

86. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice included providing special

treatment for Defendant's sister government agency, PHA, that was not provided to the owners of

privately owned low-income housing and their tenants, including Plaintiffs and their tenants.

87. Said illegal conduct resulted in actual damages to low-income landlords including to

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result ofsaid discriminatory policies, customs and

practices, including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests, including loss ofincome,

profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, forced payments, forced

sale ofrental property, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees. Plaintiffs seeks

all their compensatory damages against Defendant.

88. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions

and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its officials,

employees, representatives and agents.

89. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,

employees, representatives and agents.

90. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofinterference and retaliatory

conduct continues presently in the City.

19
91. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 pennanent injunctive relief to

prohibit Defendant, and its officials, employees and representatives from continuing its wrongful

conduct, as Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described

above, has existed for an extended period of time and presently continues within the City.

COUNT II
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981

92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 91 as set forth

above.

93. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially

discriminatory intent, has denied Plaintiffs on account of race, the same right to make and enforce

contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit ofall laws or proceedings for the security ofpersons

and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, ajl in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42

U.S.C. Section 1981.

94. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially

discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and right to make and enforce contracts

with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to enjoyment ofall benefits, privileges, tenns, and

conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with their non-white tenants.

95. As a direct result of said the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials, employees,

representatives and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the fonn of economic loss, including

out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs, and

damages for deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks

20
damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir

costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from Defendant.

96. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.

COUNT III
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982

97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 96 as set forth

above.

98. Defendant City official, employees, representatives and agents, have denied Plaintiffs,

an their African-American and other protected class tenants, on account ofrace, the same rights as

are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property,

all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. Section 1982.

99. Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more

fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those of their tenants.

100. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered

damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and

investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of civil and

constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks damages for anguish, emotional distress,

humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from

Defendant.

101. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.

21
102. Plaintiffs also seeks a permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant through its

officials, employee, representatives and agents from continuing Defendant's pattern ofdiscriminatory

code enforcement as described above.

COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983

103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 102 as set forth

above.

104. Certain officials and employees ofDefendant City, all in their official capacities, did

wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants of rights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe

United States, including the right to be free from taking oftheir property without compensation, the

right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue an

occupation, business or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference, or

government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments

and rights established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.

105. Certain of Defendant City's officials were all in their official capacities following an

unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement at the time of

said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.

106. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury

to Plaintiffs.

107. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result ofthe policy, custom

and practice set forth herein.

22
108. Certain officials, employees, representatives and agents of Defendant City acted

under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in their

occupation, business and/or profession to deprivation of their rights and undue interference on

account of Plaintiffs' tenants being African-American and other "protected class" members.

109. The intentional and malicious conduct ofDefendant's officials and employees was a

violation ofPlaintiffs' rights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, including the

right to be free from taking of property without compensation, the right to due process, the right to

equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from

deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth,

Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,

1982 and 1983.

110. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered

damages in the form of economic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.

111. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Defendant.

STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS

COUNT V
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 111 as set

forth above.

113. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their

respective tenants for lease of private housing in the City of Saint Paul.

114. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' leases with its tenants.

115. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.

23
116. Defendant intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and

malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs' rental property and orders for tenants to vacate said rental

property and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.

117. Defendant intentional interference with Plaintiffs' contracts was without any

justification.

118. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendant's tortuous interference with

Plaintiffs' contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost profits,

incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs due to the malicious conduct of Defendants'

officials and employees.

119. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.

COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY

120. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 119 as set forth

above.

121. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had a rental business in the

City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.

122. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their

rental business and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.

123. Defendant, through its officials and employees, engaged in wrongful conduct, as more

fully described above, that wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' reasonable business expectation and

which had an adverse effect on Plaintiffs' rental business.

24
124. Defendant's wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously

intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable

business expectation.

125. Said Defendant's wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or

harm to, Plaintiffs' rental business and business expectancy and the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

126. Without Defendant's wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that

Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.

127. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendant's wrongful

interference with Plaintiffs' rental business; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and

profits, have been forced to sell their rental property, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs, fees

and expenses in needless repairs all due to Defendants' wrongful conduct.

128. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:

1. A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.

2. A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.

3. A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.

4. A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.

5. A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.

6. A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.

7. Ajudgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this matter

on all Counts herein.

8. A judgment for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements

25
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.

9. A pennanent injunction restraining Defendant and its officials, employees,

representatives and agents, from further violations as set forth herein.

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the

premises.

11. For trial by jury on .all issues so triable.

SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.

Dated: p...-()..'J...~
ey Lie. #161561)
Lie. # 178226)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26