Treece et al v. Perrier Condominium Owners Association, Inc., et al., No. 2:2017cv10153 - Document 41 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Treece et al v. Perrier Condominium Owners Association, Inc., et al. Doc. 41 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A D W AYN E TREECE, ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 17-10 15 3 PERRIER CON D OMIN IU M OW N ERS ASSOCIATION , IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION "E" ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Defendants’ m otion to dism iss Plaintiffs’ claim s pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 The m otion is opposed. 2 Defendants filed a reply. 3 For the following reasons, the m otion is GRAN TED IN PART AN D D EN IED IN PART. BACKGROU N D Plaintiffs Dwayne and Phallon Treece originally filed suit against their landlord, Clifford Harlan, allegin g he engaged in unfair housing practices and seeking dam ages and injunctive relief. 4 Subsequently, the Treeces and Mr. Harlan aligned, filing an am ended com plaint as co-plaintiffs, alleging that Perrier Condom inium s Owners Association and individual defen dants Acruff, Haile, and J ablonowski engaged in unfair housing practices. 5 According to their com plaint, in August 20 17, Plaintiff Harlan rented his threebedroom con dom inium in the Perrier Street Condom inium s to Plaintiffs Dwayne and 1 R. Doc. 30 . R. Doc. 32. 3 R. Doc. 40 . 4 R. Doc. 2. 5 R. Doc. 16. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Phallon Treece. 6 Plaintiffs Dwayne and Phallon have four sm all children. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have taken coercive m easures to in terfere with Plaintiff Dwayne and Phallon’s right to occupy the un it free from discrim ination on the basis of their fam ilial status. 7 Plaintiffs allege Defendants voted to change the occupancy restriction of the units to be m ore restrictive, to im pose a fin e against Plaintiff Harlan for each day his lease violated that m ore restrictive policy, and to pursue a potential eviction of the Treeces. 8 Defendants filed the instant m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the Court no longer has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claim s because any live case or controversy ended when the Treeces and Harlan aligned as co-plaintiffs. 9 Alternatively, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claim s should be dism issed as m oot. 10 LEGAL STAN D ARD “Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”11 A m otion to dism iss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-m atter jurisdiction. 12 Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”13 The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court possesses subject-m atter jurisdiction. 14 The court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) 6 R. Doc. 16. Id. 8 Id. 9 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 3-5. 10 Id. at 5-7. 11 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Prods. Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir . 20 12). 12 See F ED . R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). 13 Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 14 Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). 7 2 jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the m erits. 15 Article III of the Constitution lim its federal-court jurisdiction to “cases” an d “controversies.”16 “It is a standard truism that ‘[t]here can be no live controversy without at least two active com batants.’”17 The Suprem e Court has interpreted this requirem ent to dem and that “an actual controversy . . . be extant at all stages of review, not m erely at the tim e the com plaint is filed.”18 “If an interven ing circum stance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcom e of the lawsuit,’ at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and m ust be dism issed as m oot.”19 A case becom es m oot, however, “only when it is im possible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”20 “As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however sm all, in the outcom e of the litigation, the case is not m oot.”21 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS I. JU RISD ICTION Defendants argue this Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claim s because any live case or controversy ended when the Treeces and Harlan align ed as co-plaintiffs. 22 Plaintiffs argue the Court should look to the am ended com plaint to m ake a jurisdictional determ ination and that a live controversy existed at all tim es during the litigation. 23 15 Id. U.S. CONST., ART. III, § 2. 17 Goldin v. Bartholow , 166 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Martinez v. W inner, 8 0 0 F.2d 230 , 231 (10 th Cir.1986)). 18 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (quotin g Preiser v. N ew kirk, 422 U.S. 395, 40 1 (1975)). 19 Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Sy m czy k, 569 U.S., at 72 (quoting Lew is v. Contin ental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477– 78 (1990 )). 20 Knox v. Service Em ploy ees, 567 U.S. 298, 30 7-0 8 (20 12) (internal quotation m arks om itted). 21 Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (20 13) (internal quotation m arks om itted). 22 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 3-5. 23 R. Doc. 32. 16 3 This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the claim arises under federal law, nam ely the Fair Housing Act. 24 The Fifth Circuit has explained, a court “m ust look to the am ended com plaint in assessing original federal question jurisdiction.”25 As such, courts in the Fifth Circuit looks to the am ended com plaint for purposes of determ ining jurisdiction when the claim s involve a federal question, regardless of whether the am ended com plaint rem oves 26 or confers 27 jurisdiction. For exam ple, in Boelens v. Redm an Hom es, Inc., the Fifth Circuit found the am ended com plaint rem oved the court’s jurisdiction. Conversely, in 16 Front Street, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Silicon, L.L.C., the Fifth Circuit found the am ended com plaint conferred jurisdiction on the court. 28 Looking to the am ended com plaint in this case, Plaintiffs state a claim invoking this Court’s original federal question jurisdiction. 29 Plaintiffs bring claim s alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §360 4, giving this Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Additionally, this Court did not lose jurisdiction to adjudicate this controversy when the Treeces and Harlan aligned as co-plaintiffs. At all tim es, Plaintiffs had a “personal stake in the outcom e of the lawsuit,” which could be redressed by a favorable decision from this Court. 30 Accordingly, the Court D EN IES IN PART the m otion to dism iss for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. 24 R. Doc. 16; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. §360 4. Boelens v. Redm an Hom es, 759 F.2d 50 4, 50 8 (5th Cir. 20 15). 26 Id. 27 16 Front Street LLC v. Miss. Silicon, LLC, 8 86 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 20 18). 28 88 6 F.3d at 554. 29 R. Doc. 16. 30 Lew is, 494 U.S. at 477– 78. 25 4 II. MOOT CLAIMS Defendants argue the Treeces’ claim s for declaratory and injunctive relief are m oot because they no longer occupy the unit in the Perrier Street Condom inium s. 31 Plaintiffs adm it that several of the claim s in the am en ded com plaint have been rendered m oot by the expiration of the Treeces’ lease and tenancy. 32 Specifically, Plaintiffs adm it the following requests for relief are m oot: (1) the Treeces’ request for a perm anent injunction enjoin ing Defendants from taking any action to enforce the Association’s unlawful occupancy restrictions as it relates to their tenancy, to term inate the Treeces’ tenancy on the basis of fam ilial status, or coerce Haralan to term inate their tenancy on the basis of their fam ilial status or the Association’s unlawful occupancy restrictions, R. Doc. 16 at ¶ 86; (2) the request for relief enjoining Defendants from taking any action in violation of their obligations under the lease agreem ent, R. Doc. 16 at p. 17 (Prayer for Relief, Sec. C); and (3) the request for relief enjoining Defen dants from taking any action to coerce Harlan to evict the Treeces, R. Doc. 16 at p. 18 (Prayer for Relief, Sec. E) 33 Although Plaintiffs do not adm it their request for relief enjoining Defendants from taking any action intended to interfere with the Treeces’ peaceful use and en joym ent of the property34 is m oot, this request for relief is also m oot because the Treeces no longer use and en joy the property. Accordingly, the Court GRAN TS IN PART Defendants’ m otion to dism iss these four requests for relief as m oot. III. N ON -MOOT CLAIMS Defendants argue the rem ainder of Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are m oot because those requests relate to the Treeces’ ten ancy of the 31 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 5-7; R. Doc. 40 at 6-7. R. Doc. 32 at 10 . 33 Id. n . 5. 34 R. Doc. 16 at 18 , sec. F. 32 5 unit. 35 Specifically, Plaintiffs request this Court enter an order that enjoins Defendants from discrim inating on the basis of fam ilial status, 36 enjoins Defendants from taking any act to enforce the occupancy restrictions, 37 enjoins Defendants from coercing Harlan to enforce the occupancy lim it, 38 and declares Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act. 39 Plaintiff argues that the court retains jurisdiction over the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief because they do not relate to the Treeces’ ten ancy and because both the Treeces an d Harlan have standing to request such relief. 40 When an “aggrieved person” brings suit for a violation of the Fair Housing Act, district courts are em powered to grant “any perm anent or tem porary injunction . . . or other order” as a rem edy. 41 The court m ay grant “an order enjoining the defen dant from engaging in such practice or ordering such affirm ative action as m ay be appropriate.”42 Relief for a violation of the Fair Housing Act “is to be determ ined on a case-by-case basis” aim ed “towards twin goals insuring that no future violations of the Act occur and rem oving any lingerin g effects of past discrim ination.”43 Standing under the Fair Housing Act extends to the full lim its of Article III. 44 To establish standing, “A plaintiff m ust always have suffered ‘a distinct and palpable injury to him self,’ that is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted.”45 A condom in ium owner has standing to sue the condom inium association alleged violations 35 R. Doc. 40 at 6-7. R. Doc. 16 at 17, sec. B. 37 Id., sec. D. 38 Id., sec. E. 39 Id., sec. A. 40 R. Doc. 32 at 10 -12. 41 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). 42 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). 43 United States v. Jam estow n Ctr-in-the-Grove Apartm ents, 557 F.2d 10 79, 10 80 (5th Cir. 1977). 44 Havens Realty Corp. v . Colem an, 455 U.S. 363, 372 (1982) (citing Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellw ood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979)). 45 Gladstone, 441 U.S. at 10 0 (quotin g Sim on v. Eastern Ky . W elfare Rights. Org. 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976). 36 6 of the Fair Housing Act and seek in junctive relief to rem edy those violations. For exam ple, in Sim ovitz v. Chanticleer Condom inium Association, condom inium owners had standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act for the condom inium association's alleged discrim ination in refusing to allow the owners to sell their units to buyers with children under age 18. 46 Sim ilarly, in Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Key Colony No. 4 Condom inium Association, condom inium owners had standing to assert claim s under the Fair Housing Act against the condom inium association for the association’s enforcem ent of a restrictive occupancy policy that discrim inated against fam ilies with children. 47 Plaintiffs’ claim s for injunctive and declaratory relief are not m oot m erely because the Treeces’ no longer occupy a unit in the Perrier Street Condom in ium s. The requests for injunctive relief addressed in this section are not related to their tenancy of the unit and are expressly authorized in the Fair Housing Act. 48 As the owner of a unit in the Perrier Street Condom inium s, Harlan has standing to seek injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court D EN IES IN PART Defendants’ m otion to dism iss the rem ain der of Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief as m oot. CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendants’ m otion to dism iss for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction is GRAN TED IN PART and D EN IED IN PART. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the following requests for relief are D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE AS MOOT: 46 Sim ovitz v. Chanticleer Condo. Ass’n, 933 F. Supp. 1394 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Hous. Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Key Colony N o. 4 Condo. Ass’n, 510 F. Supp. 2d 10 0 3 (S.D. Fl. 20 0 7). 48 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). 47 7 (1) Plaintiffs’ request for a perm anent injunction enjoining Defen dants from taking any action to enforce the Association’s unlawful occupancy restrictions as it relates to their tenancy, to term inate the Treeces’ tenancy on the basis of fam ilial status, or coerce Haralan to term inate their tenancy on the basis of their fam ilial status or the Association’s unlawful occupancy restrictions. 49 (2) Plaintiffs’ request for relief enjoin ing Defen dants from taking any action in violation of their obligations under the lease agreem ent. 50 (3) Plaintiffs’ request for relief enjoin ing Defen dants from taking any action to coerce Harlan to evict the Treeces. 51 (4) Plaintiffs’ request for relief enjoin ing Defen dants from taking any action intended to interfere with the Treeces’ peaceful use and enjoym ent of the property. 52 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Defen dants’ m otion to dism iss is D EN IED with respect to Plaintiffs’ rem aining requests for relief. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 11th d ay o f Octo be r, 2 0 18 . _____________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 49 R. Doc. 16 at ¶ 86. Id. at 17, sec. C. 51 Id. at 18 , sec. E. 52 Id., sec. F. 50 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
