Glover v. HPC-Eight, LLC

• Decision Date: 04 April 2022
• Docket Number: Civ. 3:20CV01535(SALM)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: LISA GLOVER v. HPC-EIGHT, LLC and BUILDING & LAND TECHNOLOGY CORP.

LISA GLOVER v. HPC-EIGHT, LLC and BUILDING & LAND TECHNOLOGY CORP.

Civ. No. 3:20CV01535(SALM)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 4, 2022

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS

SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants HPC-Eight, LLC (“HPC”) and Building & Land Technology Corp. (“BLT”) (HPC and BLT are collectively referred to as the “defendants”) have each filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. #10] in its entirety [Docs. #43 #44].^[1] Self-represented plaintiff Lisa Glover (“plaintiff”) has filed a response to defendants' motions [Doc. #55], to which defendants have filed separate replies [Docs. #56, #57].

On February 4, 2022, the same date that plaintiff filed her response to the motions to dismiss, plaintiff also re-filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. #54]. Because plaintiff has already amended her pleading once as a matter of course, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2), the Court construes plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint as a motion seeking leave to amend the Amended Complaint.

For the reasons stated below, defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Docs. #43, #44] are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part and plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. #54] is DENIED, as futile.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants using a District of Connecticut Civil Rights Complaint form. See Doc. #1. Under the section of the form titled “Cause of Action” plaintiff wrote: “Housing Discrimination. Civil Rights Violations. Not enforcing the noise nuisance policies, creating a hostile environment. Favoring white residents over a Black, protective class[.]” Id. at 3 (capitalizations altered) (sic). Attached to the original Complaint are 26 pages of documents, including a “Final Investigative Report” from the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. See Id. at 6-32.

On March 4, 2020, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting a cause of action for “Housing Discrimination based on Race/Civil Rights Violations[.]” Doc. #10 at 1 (sic). Defendants appeared on April 1, 2021 [Docs. #11, #12], and on April 12, 2021, they filed separate motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, along with supporting memoranda. See Docs. ##16-19. On May 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to defendants' motions to dismiss [Doc. #24], which Judge Victor A. Bolden granted on May 21, 2021. [Doc. #25]. Judge Bolden permitted plaintiff until July 9, 2021, to file her response to the motions to dismiss. See id.

On July 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend the Amended Complaint. [Doc. #26]. On August 3, 2021, defendants each filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, along with supporting memoranda. See Docs. ##28-31. On August 12, 2021, Judge Bolden denied plaintiff's motion to amend and stated: “This Court has granted an extension of time for Ms. Glover to respond to th[e] motion [to dismiss] on more than one occasion, see ECF Nos. 21 & 25, but no response has been provided. The Court therefore DENIES Ms. Glover's motion to amend.” Doc. #32 (emphasis in original).

On December 16, 2021, defendants filed two Notices to Self-Represented Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismiss, each relating to the August 2021 motions. [Docs. #34, #35]. Each Notice certifies: “Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.” Id. at 3.

This matter was transferred to the undersigned on December 28, 2021. [Doc. #36]. On January 3, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order stating: “The self-represented plaintiff receives notice by mail and has not responded to the pending motions to dismiss. It is unclear from the language in the certifications whether the motions to dismiss and the notices were mailed to plaintiff.” Doc. #37. The Court ordered that “on or before January 10, 2022, defendants ... file a Notice indicating whether and when the motions to dismiss, supporting memoranda, and notices were mailed to the self-represented plaintiff.” Id. (emphasis in original).

On January 10, 2022, each defendant filed a Notice representing that certain documents, including the Notices to Self-Represented Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismiss, had not been sent to plaintiff by regular mail. See Docs. #38, #39. As a result, defendants requested permission “to re-file their Motions to Dismiss, dated April 12, 2021, along with a Notice to Self-Represented Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismiss, in order to cure any prejudice to the Plaintiff.” Doc. #38 at 2, Doc. #39 at 2. The Court granted defendants' request and further noted:

In light of Judge Victor A. Bolden's denial of plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. #32), the operative complaint in this matter is the Amended Complaint filed on March 4, 2021. (Doc. #10). Accordingly, on or before January 14, 2022, defendants shall re-file their motions to dismiss directed to the Amended Complaint, along with a Notice to Self-Represented Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismiss. Defendants shall ensure that those documents are sent to plaintiff at her address of record, and shall include a certification of such mailing when docketing the documents. Plaintiff will be required to file any response to the motions to dismiss on or before February 4, 2022. If plaintiff fails to file an adequate response to the motions to dismiss, the Court may grant the motions absent objection without further notice.

Doc. #40 (emphases in original). On that same date, the Court terminated, as moot, defendants' four pending motions to dismiss. See Doc. #41.

On January 10, 2022, defendants re-filed their motions to dismiss and supporting memoranda directed to plaintiff's March 4, 2021, Amended Complaint. See Docs. ##43-46. Defendants also filed two Notices to Self-Represented Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismiss. See Docs. #47, #48. On January 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a letter bearing the date of July 12, 2021. See Doc. #50. In response to that filing the Court entered the following Order:

Plaintiff has filed a document with the Court. See Doc. #50. It is not clear what the purpose of this document is. It is apparent that plaintiff has now received defendants' motions to dismiss, because the document quotes the memoranda in support of the motions. See Doc. #50 at 1[.] Plaintiff quotes the procedural background section of defendants' argument, and then proceeds to argue that her July 12, 2021, motion to amend the Complaint was timely filed. See Doc. #50 at 2-3. It concludes: “[T]he Amended complaint should not be considered late, nor my Amended complaint denied as requested by opposing counsel.” Doc. #50 at 3 (sic).

The Court notes that plaintiff never filed a motion to reconsider Judge Bolden's denial of her July 2021 motion to amend the Complaint.

Plaintiff's response to defendants' motions to dismiss is due on or before February 4, 2022. See Doc. #40, Doc. #49. If the document filed today is intended to serve as plaintiff's response to the motions, it is insufficient. If it is intended for some other purpose, the Court cannot determine that purpose.

Plaintiff is reminded that the defendants' motions may be granted and her claims may be dismissed without further notice if she does not file opposition papers as required by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure showing that the allegations of the operative complaint are sufficient to allow this case to proceed. See Doc. #47 at 1, Doc. #48 at 1.

Doc. #51 (emphases in original).

On February 4, 2022, plaintiff filed a letter dated January 28, 2022. [Doc. #53]. This letter again asserts that the proposed second amended complaint “was filed timely on Monday, July 12, 2021, ” and “should not be considered late[.]” Id. at 3. On the same date, plaintiff re-filed the same proposed second amended complaint that she had previously filed on July 12, 2021. [Doc. #54]. Plaintiff also filed a response to the motions to dismiss. [Doc. #55]. Each defendant has filed a reply brief in support of its motion. See Docs. #56, #57.

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendants assert two grounds for dismissal of the Amended Complaint. First, defendants assert that “the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction[]” pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Doc. #43 at 1, Doc. #44 at 1. Second, if “the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction, ” defendants assert that “the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[]” pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id.

A. Applicable Law

“To survive a motion to dismiss [pursuant to Rule 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) (citation and quotation marks omitted); accord Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 999 F.3d 842, 854 (2d Cir. 2021). In reviewing such a motion, the Court “must accept as true all nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor.” Kaplan, 999 F.3d at 854 (citations omitted).

“[W]hile this plausibility pleading standard is forgiving, it is not toothless. It does not require [the Court] to credit legal conclusions couched as factual allegations or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 975 F.3d 202, 207 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 556...