Willoughby v. Oakmead Associates, L.P., No. 3:2015cv00650 - Document 37 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/04/2016. Clerk mailed copy to Mike Willoughby. (nbrow)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Willoughby v. Oakmead Associates, L.P. Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division rn1! AUG - 5 20! 13 '·u·' CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA SHEILA L. WILLOUGHBY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cv650 OAKMEADE ASSOCIATES, L.P. Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter Associates, is before the Court L.P.'s MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. Oakmeade Associates, 22) . on Defendant (ECF No. For the 26) reasons L.P.'s MOTION TO DISMISS Oakmeade the AMENDED stated below, (ECF No. 26) will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the case: the dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. case is The motion is denied to the extent that it seeks attorney's fees. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Estate"), M. in an Oakmeade Estate of Sheila L. Willoughby proceeding through the appointed representative, Willoughby Sheila L. the ("Mike Willoughby"), Willoughby ongoing ("Sheila Willoughby") criminal Associates, alleges that, investigation L.P. Mike in early 2015, provided assistance against ( "Oakmeade") ("the her landlord, involving Dominion Dockets.Justia.com Power's Energy Assistance Program. 1). (Am. Am. Compl., ECF No. 18, In April 2015, Oakmeade refused to renew Sheila Willougby's lease. (Am. Am. Compl. Amended Complaint alleges that the termination of Sheila Willoughby's lease was "retaliation for participating reporting, into helping, fraudulent 1-2). The in 'protected and assisting activities that Oakmeade's rental properties. On October 29, 2015, Amended in criminal were by investigation occurring" in one of (Am. Am. Compl. 1-2). Sheila Willoughby filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 2016, a activities' Sheila Willoughby filed a (ECF No. 1) . On February 3, substantially similar case in this Court, Case No. 3:16-cv-00072. On February 16, 2016, before the Court Pauperis, her ruled on the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Sheila Willoughby paid the civil filing fee and filed complaint. (Docket Nos. 6, 7). On the same day, Sheila Willoughby also filed a motion to consolidate this case and Case No. 3:16-cv-00072. Willoughby's son, On March 14, filed a 2016, "Notice appoint him as his mother's of Mike Willoughby, Death" and a Sheila motion successor in this action. to (Docket Nos. 10, 11). On March 18, 2016, the Court denied the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot, accordingly dismissed denied the the Complaint dismissed Case No. Motion and to the 2 3:16-cv-00072 and Consolidate unf iled as amended moot, and complaints without prejudice because Mike Willoughby had not demonstrated that he was an appropriate representative of Sheila Willoughby's estate. (ECF No. 13). On April effect that mother's permitted 14, he had estate. Mike 2016, (ECF Mike Willoughby filed paperwork to the qualified No. Willoughby as 14). to On the March proceed mother's estate, 1 reinstated the case, as administrator 13, 2016, of the representative his Court of his and directed the Clerk to file the "Amended Amended Complaint." 2 (ECF No. 17). 1 The Court ordered that Mike Willoughby acquire counsel or show cause why he might proceed without counsel. It is a "general common-law rule that non-attorneys cannot litigate the interests of another" person or of artificial person. Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 536 n.1 (2007); see also Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1982); U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2008); OseiAfriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 878 (3d Cir. 1991); Sw. Exp. Co. v. I. C. C., 670 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1982); Heldt v. Nicholson, 229 F. 3d 1152 (6th Cir. 2000); In re IFC Credit Corp., 663 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2011); Nato Indian Nation v. State Of Utah, 76 F. App'x 854 (10th Cir. 2003); Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1994). However, several circuit courts have held that an administrator may proceed pro se when an estate has neither creditors nor beneficiaries other than the administrator. Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dep't, 819 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2016); Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F. 3d 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2015); Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2010); Jones ex rel. Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 401 F.3d 950, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting also that federal, not state, law governs the question of representation) . A deficiency in pleading based on representation by a nonlawyer is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6) matter. See Franklin v. Garden State Life Ins., 462 F. App'x 928, 930 (11th Cir. 2012). Defendants did not raise this issue in their motion to dismiss. 3 On June 30, 2016, Oakmeade filed this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6). (ECF No. 26). LEGAL STANDARD As a Estate's threshold pro se construction. (2007) matter, status See, the entitles e.g., Court its Erickson v. recognizes pleadings Pardus, to 551 that a the liberal U.S. 89, 94 (citations omitted); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, recognize Rule B's vision for "[e]ven pro se plaintiffs must 'a system of simplified pleadings that give notice of the general claim asserted, allow for the preparation issues litigated, of a basic and provide a means claims." Sewraz v. Guice, 26, 2008) (quoting (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). not that mean defense, narrow the v. Berzak, 57 (E.D. Va. Aug. F.R.D. 149, 151 The requirement of liberal construction the court can be for quick dispositions of sham 2008 WL 3926443, at *2 Prezzi to ignore a clear failure 'does in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. Skelton v. (D.S.C. (citing Weller v. 901 July 16, F.2d 387 2009) (4th Cir. 1990)). EPA, 2009 WL 2191981, Dept. Finally, the at *2 of Soc. Servs., basic pleading The Amended Amended Complaint was filed on May 13, 2016 (ECF No. 18), but was replaced by another document of the same name on June 20, 2016 (ECF No. 22). 2 4 standards set by Bell Atlantic v. and Ashcroft conclusory, v. Iqbal, factually 556 Twombly, U.S. 662 unsupported 550 U.S. (2009) claims 544 that apply (2007) foreclose to pro se litigants. A motion challenges to the dismiss legal under sufficiency Alternative Resources Corp., Fed. R. Civ. P. Fed. 8(a) (2) 458 of R. a Civ. complaint. F. 3d 332, "requires P. 338 only a 12(b) (6) Jordan v. (4th Cir.2006). short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is Evans v. and the Maryland F.3d 582, 585 grounds Dep' t of upon Transp., (4th Cir.2015) which it rests." McCleary- State Highway Admin., 780 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). When deciding court "draw [s] a motion to all dismiss reasonable plaintiff." Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir.2009). "will the pleader's accept "any conclusions that court "need not accept inferences v. Rule in 12 (b) ( 6) , favor of Consumeraffairs. com, However, description can be under reasonably a the Inc., while the court must of what drawn conclusory allegations happened" and therefrom," the encompassing the legal effects of the pleaded facts," Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Chamblee v. Federal Practice and Procedure § Old Dominion Sec. Co., 5 L.L.C., 1357 No. (3d ed.1998); 3: 13CV820, 2014 WL 1415095, accept *4 Va. true as (E.D. a legal allegations. Ashcroft v. 2014). Nor is conclusion Iqbal, 556 the court required unsupported by factual 678-79 662, U.S. to (2009). "Twombly and Iqbal also made clear that the analytical approach for evaluating Rule 12 (b) ( 6) to reject motions to dismiss requires courts conclusory allegations that amount to mere formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim and to conduct a contextspecific analysis to determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. & supra; Miller, should be Chamblee, granted allegations as "after if' true supra. and In sum, a accepting drawing all 12 (b) ( 6) all that the plaintiff cannot prove reasonable any support of his claim entitling him to relief. of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 set 11 Wright motion well-pleaded inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, certain 11 of factual it appears facts Edwards v. in City (4th Cir. 1999). ANALYSIS Construing the Amended Amended Complaint liberally, it is intended to prosecute a claim under the retaliation provision of the Fair Housing Act. It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged 6 any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title. 42 U.S.C. § 3617. discrimination Sections 3603, in color, religion, origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604, housing-related sex, §§ handicap, 3603, 3605, activities familial 3604, and 3606 prohibit 3605, Board of Managers of Whispering Pines, based status, on or race, national 3606; see also Miller v. 457 F. Supp. 2d 126, 131 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). To state a claim for retaliation under § 3 61 7, a plaintiff must allege that ( 1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity, (2) the defendant was aware of that activity, ( 3) the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action Protected activity under the [Fair Housing Act] refers to "action taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination. Miller, 457 F. Supp. at Community Action Program, 35, 54 131 Inc. (relying v. on Regional City of Middletown, Economic 2 94 F. 3d (2d Cir. 2002); Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 2000)). Participating in an investigation fraud relating to the Energy Assistance that protests religion, Therefore, sex, or opposes handicap, under the of civil criminal Program is not action discrimination based on familial status, allegations of 7 or or the race, color, national origin. Amended Amended Complaint, Sheila Willoughby did not participate in a protected activity. Therefore, state claim a the for Amended Title Amended Complaint to Accordingly, retaliation. VIII fails Oakmeade's motion to dismiss the action will be granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If Oakmeade desires seek them in a motion seeks an award of attorney's separate motion. attorney's fees, Thus, it fees, to the extent will be it must that denied the without prejudice. CONCLUSION For the Associates, reasons L.P.'s stated MOTION TO above, DISMISS Defendant (ECF No. Oakmeade 26) will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal dismissed with prejudice. The of motion the is case; denied the to case the is extent that it seeks attorney's fees. Plaintiff Estate's REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL (ECF No. 1, 2016, 21) the will be granted Estate filed (see footnote 1, a document supra). On August entitled SUPPORT OF HER REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. MEMORANDUM (ECF No. 36), IN which the Court will consider as a combined motion for leave to file yet another amended complaint with a supporting memorandum. The Estate's MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HER REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 8 (ECF No. 36) will be denied because it is obvious that there is no legally sufficient claim. be futile. Foman v. Davis, In other words, any amendment would 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Oakmeade has been put to unwarranted expense based on pursuit of what has been held to be a meritless claim. But, it is obvious that Mike Willoughby has orchestrated the filing of the case in his mother's name and prosecuted it after her death. The Court finds that Oakmeade should not face further litigation over a meritless claim. Finally, No. 29), Plaintiff Estate's Plaintiff Estate's REQUEST TO RENAME ACTION REQUEST SUMMONS (ECF No. 30), (ECF and Plaintiff Estate's REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ECF No. 31) will be denied as moot. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: August 2016 9
]]>
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.
