Coe v. Cross-Lines Ret. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 23 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-2047-EFM |
| Parties | DONALD COE, LINDA SMITH, and EDWARD YOST, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., and YOUNG MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Donald Coe, Linda Smith, and Edward Yost Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 148). The named Plaintiffs seek class certification of six issues in their ongoing lawsuit against Defendants Cross-Lines Retirement Center, Inc. (“Cross-Lines”) and Young Management Corp. (“Young”). The lawsuit arises out of the allegedly rampant bed bug infestations prevailing at Cross-Lines' apartment complexes. Because Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 with regard to five of the six proposed issues, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion in part and denies it in part.
Each of the named Plaintiffs, two septuagenarians and one octogenarian, rent residential apartments in apartment complexes owned by Cross-Lines and operated by Young Cross-Lines' property manager. Cross-Lines is a nonprofit corporation, having as its goal the provision of rental housing to elderly families and individuals. Because of its nonprofit status, Cross-Lines receives federal subsidies to purportedly allow it to offer lower rent.
The facts underlying Plaintiffs' claims are fairly straightforward. As colorfully stated in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the apartments' neglected condition leave “elderly and disabled tenants captive to bed-bug infestations, decaying rodent bodies, flooding, leaking, and mold.” After Defendants successfully moved to dismiss two of Plaintiffs' claims, seven remain: (1) injunctive relief; (2) violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”); (3) violation of the implied warranty of habitability; (4) breach of contract and statutory duty; (5) failure to provide essential services; (6) negligence; and (7) violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
The present Motion focuses on the bed bug infestation. Since 2016, 90% or more of the apartment units at Cross-Lines have had documented bed bug activity, with nearly half of those infested units requiring six or more treatments. Plaintiffs rely on these numerous and unending infestations for each of their remaining claims. In their present Motion, Plaintiffs seek certification of an issue class for the following proposed issues:
Fed R. Civ. Proc. 23 governs the certification of class actions. “In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.”[1]While this question necessarily involves examining the facts and legal issues, courts must refrain from evaluating the strength of the plaintiffs' case.[2] The burden is on the plaintiffs to make a prima facie case that the putative class meets Rule 23's requirements.[3] Taking the “substantive, non-conclusory allegations of the complaint as true,”[4] courts must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of a plaintiff's complaint to ensure it meets Rule 23's requirements.[5] Even so, “[c]ourts should err on the side of class certification because they have broad discretion to later redefine (or even decertify) the class if necessary.”[6]
As an initial step, Rule 23(a) requires the proposed representative plaintiffs to show: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
If the plaintiffs meet Rule 23(a)'s requirements, they must then show that the class fits within one of the Rule 23(b) categories. Where, as here, plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), they must show that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” In making this determination, courts should consider:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.[7] Finally, courts may certify a class as to only certain issues under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) “if doing so would materially advance the litigation.”[8] If plaintiffs restrict their proposed class to a specific issue, then “the proposed class must satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) only with respect to that issue.”[9] “Certifying a class to determine defendant's liability, while leaving the class members to pursue their individual damages claims, is a common example of partial certification.”[10]
Plaintiffs seeks to certify a class for only six issues. These are:
1. Has the infestation of bed bugs been so pervasive during the class period that every tenant was affected?
2. Did Defendants breach their standard of care by not requiring, and enforcing, the pest control companies to perform surrounding-unit inspections whenever a unit is found to have bed bugs?
3. Did Defendants breach their standard of care by refusing, or failing, to perform a full-building inspection of all units (Phase I and Phase II) at the same time?
4. Does the presence of bed bugs in an apartment make that unit unsafe, unsanitary, and/or unfit for living in?
5. Can an apartment which has bed bugs have an above-zero fair market value?
6. Are extermination services “essential” for an apartment unit in a multifamily housing structure when an adjacent unit has live bed bug activity? If yes, what services are “essential” (i.e., inspection, treatment, etc.)?
Because Plaintiffs restrict their proposed class to just these issues, the Court will examine Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)'s requirements solely as to these issues.
First the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case under Rule 23(a)'s four requirements. It will examine each in turn.
Plaintiffs propose the certified class to be “[a]ll persons who resided at Cross-Lines Retirement Center, 3030 and 3100 Powell Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, on or after February 1, 2017 through the date the Class is certified” excluding:
Defendants; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of Defendants; any successor or assign of Defendants; counsel in this action and anyone employed by counsel in this action; any judge to whom this case is assigned; that judge(s)' significant other(s); and members of the judge or judges' staff(s).
Under Rule 23(a), the proposed class must be so “numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”[11] To show numerosity, plaintiffs “must produce some evidence or otherwise establish by reasonable estimate the number of class members who may be involved.”[12] This Court has held that “a good faith estimate of at least 50 members is a sufficient size to maintain a class action.”[13] Even so, the numerosity inquiry looks beyond the sheer number of proposed class members.[14] Courts should also examine “factors like the practical viability of individual suits in terms of inconvenience, inefficiency and the size of the individual claims, requests for injunctive or declaratory relief, and the location and distribution of class members.”[15] For example, classes with a “fluid nature” that “makes identifying class members difficult, if not impossible” has been held to favor a finding a numerosity.[16]
Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that joinder of all class members is impracticable. Although Plaintiffs do not identify an exact number of class members, they note that Cross-Lines has 208 units and the class period spans over six years. There has been at least some tenant turnover during that period, and many of those units are inhabited by couples. Therefore, a class size of at least several hundred members is a reasonable estimate in this case.
Various factors beyond the mere size of the proposed class favor finding that joinder of all class members is impracticable. For example, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as a part of their requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial