Burshteyn v. Cmty. Hous. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 03 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-00830-SRC |
| Parties | YEFIM BURSHTEYN and FAINA GERMAN, Plaintiff(s), v. COMMUNITY HOUSING ASSOCIATION, INC. and COMMUNITY HOUSING MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on the Partial Motion to Dismiss [21] of Defendants Community Housing Association, Inc. and Community Housing Management Corp. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion, in part, and denies the motion, in part.
Plaintiff Yefim Burshteyn has rented and lived in an apartment at the Covenant House Apartments in St. Louis, Missouri for approximately thirteen years. Mr. Burshteyn resided in the apartment with his late wife, Sara Burshteyn, until her death in January 2017. Plaintiff Faina German is the adult daughter of the Burshteyns. The present action arises from a dispute, or more accurately a series of disputes, between the Burshteyns and Defendant Community Housing Association, Inc., the owner/landlord of Covenant House Apartments. Defendant Community Housing Management Corp. is the management company for Community Housing Association, Inc., which manages Covenant House Apartments. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants participate in programs receiving federal financial assistance through the Community Development Block Grant Program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Plaintiffs' twelve-count, 255-paragraph, and rather freewheeling Complaint alleges a broad array of misconduct by Defendants, both actionable and not. Essentially, Plaintiffs' allegations fall into four categories. First, Plaintiffs allege that one of Defendants' employees injured Yefim Burshteyn by forcefully opening the door to the Burshteyns' apartment while Mr. Burshteyn was standing behind the door. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to properly maintain the Burshteyns' apartment, including failure to identify and remedy a bed bug infestation within a reasonable time. Third, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against them on the basis of both national origin (the Burshteyns are Russian-speaking immigrants) and physical disability. Finally, Plaintiffs allege misconduct by Defendants' employees, principally by the social services worker assigned by Defendants to provide translation services for the Burshteyns.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert both federal and state law claims against Defendants. In Count I of their Complaint, Plaintiffs' bring claims for discrimination on the basis of familial status and national origin, in violation of Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act. In Count II, Plaintiffs assert a state law claim for breach of lease. In Count III, Plaintiffs allege coercion, intimidation, and retaliation in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act. In Count IV, Plaintiffs assert claims for disability discrimination pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination Act. Count V is a state law claim for negligence. Counts VI and VII are state law claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and the covenant of good faithand fair dealing. Count VIII is a claim for contribution. In Count IX, Plaintiffs assert state law claims for vicarious liability, negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision. Count X is a state law claim for abuse of process. Count XI is a claim for equitable accounting, and Count XII is a claim for punitive damages.
Defendants' present Partial Motion to Dismiss does not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for negligence (Count V), discrimination based on national origin under the Fair Housing Act (included under Count I), or disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (included under Count IV). Defendants move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' remaining claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The notice pleading standard of FRCP 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give "a short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." To meet this standard and to survive a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). This requirement of facial plausibility means the factual content of the plaintiff's allegations must "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 911 F.3d 505, 512 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The Court must grant all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2010).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must liberally construe a complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 862 (8th Cir. 2010). However, if a claim fails to allege one of the elements necessary to recovery on a legal theory, the Court must dismiss that claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 355 (8th Cir. 2011). Threadbare recitals of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rule 8 does not "unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. "A pleading that merely pleads labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of factual enhancement will not suffice." Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Although courts must accept all factual allegations as true, they are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citation omitted); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.
Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Therefore, a court must determine if the well-pleaded factual allegations "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. This "context-specific" task requires the court to "draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 682. The well-pleaded facts must permit more than the "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
In Count I, Plaintiffs assert a claim under Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq. The FHA makes it unlawful:
To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against the Burshteyns "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of dwellings because of national origin and familial status...." Doc. 1 at ¶ 119. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claim of discrimination based on familial status only. The FHA defines "familial status" as:
42 U.S.C. § 3602(k). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' familial status claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not alleged that any person under the age of 18 lived with them at any relevant time. Plaintiffs allege that Yefim Burshteyn lived only with his late wife, Sara. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 7-8.
In Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs do not argue that their Complaint sufficiently alleges a familial status claim under the FHA. Because Plaintiffs have not alleged familial status as the FHA defines that term, and because they have not opposed Defendants' Motion to Dismiss their familial status claim, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' FHA claim of discrimination based on familial status.
Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for breach of lease (Count II) for failure to state a claim. Under Missouri law, the elements of a prima facie case for breach of lease are: (1) the establishment of a valid lease, (2) mutual obligations from that lease, (3) lack of performance from the breaching party, and (4) damage to the non-breaching party. Arnold Crossroads, LLC v. Gander Mountain Co., 471 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). Regarding the first element, Plaintiffs allege that Yefim Burshteyn "for approximately thirteen years rents [sic] from Defendant...Apartment J203 at Millstone Campus Drive, St. Louis Missouri 63146." Doc. 1 at ¶ 7.
For purposes of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court assumes (without deciding) that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the establishment of a valid lease. However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead the second element of a breach of lease claim, i.e., mutual obligations...
To continue reading
Request your trial