Daniels v. Leibowitz, Case No.: GJH-16-2645
| Decision Date | 03 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: GJH-16-2645 |
| Parties | VIRNA DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. LORI LEIBOWITZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Virna Daniels brings this case against Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Lori Leibowitz, Hong Park, Blake Fetrow, Teresa Cooke (collectively, "the Legal Aid Defendants"), the Housing Authority of Prince George's County ("HAPGC"), Eric Brown, Carolyn Floyd, Pamela Jones, Mavis Headley, Angela Hasty, Carla Carter (collectively, "the Housing Authority Defendants"), Wendy Powers, Tip Powers, Certified Termite and Home Inspection Co., Sharon Styles-Anderson, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Bill Tamburrino, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD") and Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. See ECF No. 72. The focal point of Daniels' claims is the housing subsidy that she received through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, a federal program administered locally by the HAPGC, from at least 2010 until her termination from the program in August 2014. Id. Daniels alleges that her subsidy was miscalculated, that Legal Aid failed to properly represent her in a previous case regarding her subsidy, and that she was improperly terminated from the program. Id. Daniels also used the subsidy to secure a mortgage to purchase a home in 2010. Id. With her subsidy terminated, she is at risk of foreclosure for failure to pay the mortgage. Id. Therefore, another line of claims relate to issues surrounding the initial purchase of the home, including failures by various defendants to properly inspect the house before she purchased it. Id. The Legal Aid Defendants and the Housing Authority Defendants have both filed Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 75 and 80,1 which are now fully briefed. ECF Nos. 90 & 97 (Legal Aid Defendants) and Nos. 93 & 95 (Housing Authority Defendants).2 In a series of motions, Plaintiff has also requested summons to add additional defendants to the ease, ECF No. 85, and moved to voluntarily dismiss several defendants, ECF No. 101.3 Plaintiff also filed a request for a preliminary injunction to stay state court proceedings regarding a foreclosure. ECF No. 102. A hearing on these motions is unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Legal Aid Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 75, will grant in part and in deny in part the Housing Authority Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 80, and will deny Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 102. In addition, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for additional summons and will grant her request to dismiss several defendants from the case.4
Daniels was a participant in the Housing Choice Voucher Program ("HCVP"), a program run by the federal government to help low-income families obtain affordable housing. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. This program is administered locally by the HAPGC. Daniels has been aparticipant in the HCVP since at least August 2010. ECF No. 72 ¶ 22. In 2011, represented by Legal Aid Bureau Inc., she brought a case against the HAPGC and its Executive Director, Eric Brown, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the housing authority violated her due process rights by failing to provide her with an informal hearing to challenge the alleged underpayment of her 2010 housing subsidy. See Daniels v. Hous. Auth. of Prince George's Cty., 940 F. Supp. 2d 248, 251 (D. Md.), aff'd sub nom. Daniels v. Brown, 550 F. App'x 138 (4th Cir. 2013) (hereinafter, "Daniels I"). Daniels also alleged that the housing authority violated her right to a properly calculated housing subsidy. Id.
After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Daniels regarding her due process claims, finding that HAPGC failed to hold a hearing where she could contest the housing authority's determinations of her household income. Id. at 276-77. However, the court awarded only $1.00 in nominal damages, finding that Daniels "failed to present any testimony or evidence that she suffered emotional distress or mental anguish as a direct result of Defendants' having denied her a hearing." Id. at 277 (emphasis in original). In terms of Daniels' claims that her housing subsidy was miscalculated, the court again ruled in her favor as to one claim, noting that HAPGC failed to properly give Daniels credit for certain medical expenses she incurred between November 2011 and April 2012 when calculating her subsidy, resulting in an additional $24.00 damage award. Id. at 276. But the court ruled in favor of the defendants regarding Daniels' claims of additional miscalculations, finding that HAPGC's actions were not inconsistent with pertinent regulations and were not arbitrary or capricious. Id. at 269-70. In addition, the court also found that while her post-trial briefings alleged damages regarding subsidy miscalculations through 2013, "[p]laintiff failed to demonstrate at trial how Defendants miscalculated her subsidy or how she suffered any damages beyond April 2012." Id. at 275. Daniels appealed tothe Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's ruling. See Daniels v. Brown, 550 F. App'x 138 (4th Cir. 2013). On April 4, 2016, Daniels filed the instant case in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County, and on July 21, 2016, federal defendants HUD and Bill Tamburrino, a HUD employee, removed the case to this Court. ECF 1.
In Count I of her Second Amended Complaint, Daniels brings a claim against the Legal Aid Defendants alleging legal malpractice in their representation of her in Daniels I. ECF No. 72 ¶¶ 12-14. In support of this claim, Daniels states that Legal Aid did not win the case for her, that they did not request the appropriate amount of damages, that they were negligent, and that there was a conflict of interest between them and the defendants, the HAPGC and Brown, because Legal Aid agreed to a continuance in the case. Id. ¶ 13. She also claims that Legal Aid forced her to sign a retainer and then refused to immediately turn over her legal documents when requested. Id. Count IV repeats some of the same claims as Count I regarding Legal Aid's previous representation of Daniels, adding that Legal Aid failed to argue that her housing subsidy was miscalculated based on the fact that her children were going to school. Id. ¶ 29-30. She also claims that Legal Aid's actions caused her to suffer emotional distress and constituted a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Count V raises fraud claims, with Daniels arguing that Legal Aid suppressed information about known damages to the house to the court. Id. ¶ 36.
In Counts II, III, IV and V, Daniels renews claims against the Housing Authority Defendants regarding many of the same issues raised about her housing subsidy in Daniels I, asserting that the Housing Authority Defendants violated her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 42 U.S.C. § 1437(1). Id. ¶¶14-33. Specifically, in Counts II and III she alleges that the Housing Authority Defendants failed to calculate her subsidy correctly, in part as an act of retaliation for her refusal to allow photographs of her family to be used in promotional materials; failed to notify her of a change in her subsidy prior to purchasing her home; and failed to perform a housing inspection prior to the purchase of her home. Id. ¶¶ 15-22. She also alleges a new claim, saying that she was wrongfully terminated from the subsidy program without due process. Id. ¶ 18. In Count IV, Daniels states that the Housing Authority Defendants violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to follow local and federal regulations as they relate to the implementation of the subsidy program, id. ¶ 31, leading her to suffer from emotional distress. Id. ¶ 33. Finally, in Count V, Daniels brings claims of negligence and fraud against "all Defendants," including the Housing Authority Defendants, for failure to perform a housing inspection prior to her purchase of her home. Id. ¶¶ 38-43.
In addition to her main claims against the Legal Aid and Housing Authority Defendants, Daniels brings a variety of claims against individuals defendants. In Count III she alleges thatSharon Styles-Anderson committed malpractice in her representation of Daniels in a hearing that led to the loss of her housing voucher. Id. ¶ 26. In Count V, Daniels alleges claims of fraud and negligence against Certified Termite and Home Inspection Company for their failure to inspect her home properly before she purchased it. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. In Count V, Daniels also raises general claims of fraud, breach of contract and negligence against "all Defendants" involved in the inspection and subsequent purchase of her home. Id. ¶¶ 34-44.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to present a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss invoking 12(b)(6), "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) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial