Gonzalez v. City of W. Palm Beach
| Decision Date | 19 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 13-80952-CIV-MARRA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | GLORIA GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, DORRITT MILLER, LUZ RIVERIA, KIMBERLY SPENCE and EARLY JOHNSON Defendants. |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants, Luz Riveria's1 ("Rivera") and Dorritt Miller's ("Miller") Motion to Dismiss [DE 5] and Defendant, City of West Palm Beach's Motion to Dismiss, Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement [DE 6]. Also before the Court are the following: City's Motion to Strike Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 12(f) [DE 14]; Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the City of West Palm Beach Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 8]; Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 9]; Plaintiff's Motion for Trial and to Quash Defendant's Sovereign Immunity and Motion to Quash the Defendant's Motion to Strike [DE 16 and 19]; Plaintiff's Motion for Trial and Complaint of Bias, Discrimination, and Motion to Quash Defendant's Motion to Quash [DE 21]; Plaintiff's Motion for Trial and to Quash Defendant's Sovereign Immunity, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Defendants' Motion to Strike [DE 23]; Plaintiff's Motion for Trial- Plaintiff's Motion to QuashDefendant's Sovereign Immunity and Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Defendants' Motion to Strike and Plaintiff Response [DE 24]; Plaintiff's Motion for Forma Pauperis [DE 25]. These matters are ripe for review. The Court has reviewed all of the papers submitted by the parties in connection with these motions; the entire file in this matter; and is otherwise duly advised in the premises.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida on or about August 19, 2013.2 Defendants City of West Palm Beach, Dorritt Miller and Luz Riveria removed the action to this Court, which has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The City of West Palm Beach (the "City") runs a loan program to stimulate and encourage affordable, safe, sanitary and decent living conditions in the City. The City implements this policy through rental housing rehabilitation by providing assistance to investment property owners through low-interest loans for construction, rehabilitation or general physical improvements to rental dwellings. [DE 1-1at 37]. This program provides federal HOME and state SHIP funds. [Id. at 26]. In accordance with the loan agreement executed by the City and the respective property owner, properties improved through the use of funds from the program are subject to certain restrictions [Id. at 41, 43].
Cynthia Holman ("Holman") participated in the City's loan program. Holman and the City executed the City of West Palm Beach Rental Housing Rehabilitation Loan Agreement ("Loan Agreement") on February 17, 2009. Holman received a loan from the City in the amount of $46,137.40. [Id.]. The property to which the Loan Agreement applies is located at 623 49th Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33407 (the "Property"). [Id. at 38].
The Loan Agreement states that in accordance with the Final Rule found at 24 C.F.R. 92.252, rental units receiving financial assistance must be rented to very low and low income persons and households. [Id. at 41]. If either party fails to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall have the right to terminate the agreement. In the event of default, the borrower must repay the full amount of the loan. [Id. at 43].
After receiving the loan from the City, Holman entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiff starting November 1, 2010. Plaintiff resided at the Property until January 30, 2013. Holman had renewed the lease in August, 2012, but subsequently changed her mind because she planned to move back onto the Property. [Id. at 2]. Holman's refusal to renew Plaintiff's lease is the basis of Plaintiff's claim against Defendants, who Plaintiff alleges failed to act to require Ms. Holman to comply with the requirements of the loan.
After Plaintiff complained to various City employees regarding the termination of her lease, a letter was sent on February 19, 2013 to Ms. Holman by Early Johnson, the Executive VP/COO, CRA of FL, stating that property owners participating in the program have a responsibility to submit to the City's Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) at least annually a report on rent and occupancy as well as to notify HCD of any changes in occupancy during the year. [Id. at 35]. It reminded Ms. Holman that the time period for which she was required to rent the property was 15 years. It further advised that a lease can only beterminated for good cause, such as serious or repeated violations of the terms and conditions of the lease; violations of applicable Federal, state, or local laws; or other good cause as specified in the lease. [Id. at 35].
Defendants Riveria and Miller argue that Plaintiff's Complaint is defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 as a "shotgun" complaint. [DE 5 at 4]. They claim to be unable to prepare a response, because the pleading is ambiguous; fails to set forth the elements of her claimed causes of action; contains unnecessary evidentiary details; and fails to separate her factual allegations into separate counts. [Id. at 4-6]. These Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from being sued in their individual capacities because the facts alleged do not demonstrate the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. [Id. at 6-7, 9-10]. They note that it is well settled that the Constitution does not require the government to protect citizens from one another. [Id. at 9]. They outline why the Complaint fails to adequately allege a First Amendment violation; a violation of the Fair Housing Act; a violation of Title VII; a breach of contract; or a §1983 Equal Protection claim. [Id. at 7-9].
The City of West Palm Beach also argues that the Complaint is an insufficient "shotgun" complaint that violates the requirements of Rules 8(a) and 10(b). [DE 6 at 2-4]. The City also alleges that it fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because it does not allege the elements of any cause of action. [Id. at 5]. As with the other moving Defendants' papers, despite the claimed inability to understand Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant City then goes on to address Plaintiff'sclaims, arguing that she has failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; or 42 U.S.C. §1983. [Id. at 5-8].
In response, Plaintiff has filed a number of motions. The first is Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the City of West Palm Beach Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 8]. In this motion, Plaintiff alleges that the case was improperly removed [Id. at ¶4]; that she agreed to an extension of time only for Defendant City [Id. at ¶15, 19-20]; and that the other Defendants are in default [Id. at ¶22]. In response to the City's motion to dismiss, she argues that the City is responsible for Cynthia Holman's acts [Id. at ¶26].
Plaintiff also brought a Motion to Vacate Defendants Motion to Dismiss [DE 9]. Plaintiff again argues that the case was improperly removed and that the individual defendants are in default. [Id. at ¶3]. She argues that she brought her case in state court, not federal court. Her position appears to be that it is unfair to judge her Complaint under the federal rules. [Id. at ¶7]. Regarding her breach of contract claim, she refers to the City of West Palm Beach Rental Housing Rehabilitation Loan Agreement between the City and Cynthia Holman. [Id. at ¶9]. She also notes that Defendant Riveria was a witness to the Loan Agreement. [Id. at ¶23] She alleges that she was deprived of a right under state law to obtain public records. [Id. at ¶18]. Regarding the First Amendment, Plaintiff states that she was not alleging a violation of the First Amendment, rather, she was exercising her First Amendment rights to speak of the wrongful acts against her. [Id. at ¶17].
Plaintiff argues that Defendants Miller and Riveria had a duty to enforce the City's contract with Holman. She states that they failed to monitor Holman to ensure that she complied with the terms of the loan. [Id. at ¶18]. After they were advised that Holman was violating the terms of the loan, they did nothing. [Id. at ¶¶21-22].
Finally, Plaintiff has filed a copy of Plaintiff Objection Conflicts of Interest Plaintiff Response to Defendant Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time [DE 12] and Plaintiff Objection to the Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to the Complaint [DE 13]. These two documents address Plaintiff's argument that she did not agree to an extension of time for Defendants Miller and Riveria. Both documents have state court captions. The Court assumes that Plaintiff has filed these to demonstrate to this Court that these issues were raised when the case was still before the state court.
The City replies by moving to strike all personal attacks made against counsel for the City [DE 14].4 The City also argues that to the extent that Plaintiff is pleading an oral contract, it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. [Id. at ¶¶2-3]. The City separately replies to Plaintiff's Objection to Enlargement of Time to File Response to the Complaint [DE 15], outlining the procedural history of this issue and arguing that both the removal and the City's motion to dismiss are proper. [Id.].
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Trial and to Quash Defendant's Sovereign Immunity and a Motion to Quash the Defendant's Motion to Strike [DE 16]. Plaintiff argues that her statements about the City's attorney are an expression of her First Amendment rights. [Id. at 1]. Regarding the Loan Agreement, Plaintiff argues that she is a part of that contract as a low...
To continue reading
Request your trial