Ngiendo v. Univ. Partners

• Decision Date: 27 October 2021
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-02393-HLT-TJJ
• Parties: QUINN NGIENDO, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

QUINN NGIENDO, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-02393-HLT-TJJ

United States District Court, D. Kansas

October 27, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HOLLY L. TEETER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo is pro se and brings several Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and state claims stemming from her time in two apartment complexes.^[1] Plaintiff's claims center on discrimination based on disability, race, and national origin. Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint against University Partners, LLC (“University Partners”), Cardinal Group Management Midwest, LLC (“Cardinal”), Everest Campus West, LLC (“Everest”), Asset Campus USA, LLC (“Asset”), and Waypoint Rockland West Owner, LLC (“Waypoint”).^[2] Doc. 85.

University Partners, Asset, and Everest move to dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).^[3] Docs. 87, 89, 91. For the following reasons, the Court agrees that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against University Partners, Asset, and Everest for failure to accommodate her post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against University Partners for failure to accommodate her shoulder and back injuries.

1

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to state a racial or national origin discrimination claim against University Partners or Everest. Plaintiff has, however, sufficiently alleged that Asset and Everest failed to accommodate and retaliated against her based on her rhinitis. Finally, Plaintiff has pleaded cognizable claims for disparate treatment based on race and national origin against Asset. The following federal claims thus remain in this case against the moving parties: (1) failure to accommodate Plaintiff's rhinitis under the FHA against Asset and Everest, (2) retaliation under the FHA against Asset and Everest, (3) disparate treatment based on race and national origin against Asset, and (4) state law claims against University Partners, Asset, and Everest.

I. BACKGROUND^[4]

On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff entered a term lease with Asset for an apartment at “The Connection.” Doc 85 at 2, ¶ 10. Plaintiff has rhinitis, which is triggered by allergens such as mold. Id. at 2, ¶¶ 15-16. Before renting, Plaintiff asked Asset either to let her see the unit she would be assigned to or to inspect the unit for mold. Id. 2, ¶ 13. Plaintiff informed Asset that she had rhinitis and needed a housing accommodation under federal law because she can't be around triggers like mold and dust. Id. at 2, ¶¶ 14, 17. Asset refused to show Plaintiff the actual unit she would occupy because it has a policy of not showing actual units to prospective tenants. Id. at 3, ¶ 21. Asset then placed Plaintiff in a black mold-infested unit. Id. at 3, ¶ 20. Plaintiff believes this was retaliation for seeking a disability accommodation. Id. Plaintiff was again rebuffed by Asset when she tried to rectify the situation. Id. at 4, ¶¶ 35-36. Asset refused to clean the unit to accommodate Plaintiff's rhinitis because it had a policy that barred staff from cleaning apartments. Id. at 4, ¶ 36.

2

Plaintiff is black, and her nation of origin is Kenya. Id. at 3, ¶ 26. Her roommates were from China and India. Id. at 3, ¶ 28. Plaintiff noticed that while they were in a moldy and filthy apartment, white tenants had better housing. Id. at 3-4, ¶¶ 29-33. Plaintiff believed that Asset was targeting minority races and those with foreign origins out of animus. Id.

Plaintiff also has PTSD, which makes her sensitive to noise. Id. at 5, ¶ 42. Due to the noisy housing environment, Plaintiff suffered anxiety and flashbacks. Id. at 7, ¶ 65. Plaintiff perceived her life was in constant danger. Id. Noises came from neighbors' wall tapping, stomping, running, and dropping heavy objects on her roof. Id. at 7, ¶¶ 65, 67. Plaintiff also believed that Asset employees were stomping, jumping, and dropping heavy objects to intimidate her. Id. at 5, ¶ 41. Asset did not stop the neighbors from making noise. See Id. at 7, ¶ 67. Plaintiff was treated with psychotropic medication by psychiatrists and received psychotherapy treatments that are still ongoing. Id. at 9, ¶ 79.

In April 2019, University Partners took over as owner and manager of “The Connection.” Id. at 9, ¶ 1. Plaintiff asked University Partners to accommodate her PTSD and intervene in her neighbors' noisemaking. See Id. at 9, ¶ 4. University Partners did not intervene. See Id. at 10, ¶¶ 5- 6. In April or May of 2019, Plaintiff injured her right shoulder while pushing her key into her bedroom door keyhole. See Id. at 11, ¶¶ 19-21. Plaintiff believes an Asset employee had attempted to lock her out by tampering with her bedroom door because Plaintiff had not evacuated the apartment yet. See Id. at 11, ¶¶ 19-20. Plaintiff developed adhesive capsulitis, which is also known as “frozen shoulder.” See Id. at 11, ¶¶ 21-22. The frozen shoulder was very painful and physically limiting. Id. In July 2019, Plaintiff had not renewed her lease. Id. at 11, ¶ 23. She requested a lease renewal because she was right-handed, had an injured right shoulder, and needed her belongings to stay where they were. See Id. at 12, ¶¶ 24-25. Plaintiff was still forced to move out because her

3

lease had expired, and she was evicted by housing court. Id. at 12, ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff believes that her denial of a new lease was motivated by hostility towards her race and national origin. Id. at 12, ¶ 32.

Plaintiff also has a back problem, which causes limping. Id. at 13, ¶ 40. Plaintiff believes that when University Partners sprinkled water on the sidewalks while watering the lawn it was discriminating against handicapped individuals. Id. at 13, ¶ 39. Plaintiff also had to go around a welcome desk on the sidewalk, which caused her to trip and nearly fall. Id. at 13, ¶¶ 40-41. Finally, Plaintiff also suffered a barrier when a “mega school bus” would block handicap access from the bus stop to the property. Id. at 13, ¶ 43.

After University Partners evicted Plaintiff, she moved to new housing in September. See Id. at 14, ¶ 3; 19 ¶ 39. Everest managed this housing property. Id. at 14, ¶¶ 2-3. When Plaintiff submitted her rental application, she provided a list of housing accommodation requests, including for her rhinitis and her PTSD. Id. at 14, ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff was not allowed to inspect her unit before renting due to Everest's policy of showing a model apartment to prospective tenants. Id. at 15, ¶ 9. Plaintiff was assigned to a dirty unit with water damage and black mold everywhere. Id. at 15, ¶ 11. Plaintiff asked Everest's assistant property manager to remove the mold and clean her unit to accommodate her rhinitis. See Id. at 15, ¶ 16. Everest just painted over the black mold. See Id. at 16, ¶ 17. Plaintiff experienced many physical ailments from the mold. See Id. at 19, ¶¶ 45-46. Her symptoms included asthma, wheezing, coughing, a clogged nose, and various skin and stomach conditions. Id. In October, Plaintiff was unable to use her kitchen and living room due to leaking water, and she believes Everest intentionally delayed maintenance because she had previously sought an FHA accommodation for her disabilities. See Id. at 19, ¶ 40.

4

Once again, Plaintiff's dwelling was noisy due to stomping, jumping, running, and dropping heavy objects. Id. at 16, ¶ 18. Over the weekend, there were parties until 4 a.m. as well. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff had an upstairs neighbor who started harassing her. Id. at 17, ¶ 27. The neighbor was involved in the general noisemaking, and Plaintiff started calling the police every day. Id. at 16, ¶ 23. The neighbor started kicking and knocking on Plaintiff's door, blocking her path in hallways, and lecturing Plaintiff for calling the police. Id. The neighbor called Plaintiff a racial epithet and told Plaintiff that she was too old and needed to move into a retirement home. Id. at 18, ¶ 37. The neighbor stabbed Plaintiff's door and left knife marks on it. Id. at 17, ¶ 28. Plaintiff believes that the neighbor intended to attack her and stab her. Id. at 17, ¶ 31. Plaintiff also believes that the neighbor's harassment was racially motivated because the neighbor also vandalized another black tenant's car by scratching a racial epithet into it with a knife. Id. at 17, ¶ 25. Plaintiff believes that Everest knew about all the neighbors' harassment activities. Id. at 17, ¶ 25. Everest did not remove the neighbors from housing. Id.

Plaintiff approached Everest several times about an accommodation for her PTSD. Id. at 20, ¶ 52. Again, Everest did not remove the neighbors. Id. at 20-21, ¶ 52. Plaintiff needed treatment with psychotherapy and psychotropic medications to cope with the housing environment. Id. at 20, ¶ 49. At some later point in the lease, Plaintiff's apartment suffered more water damage, leading to more mold, and Everest painted over the mold again. Id. at 21-22, ¶¶ 57- 58.

Cardinal took over management of the property in the summer of 2020, and it evacuated Plaintiff from the unit because of the mold. Id. at 22, ¶ 59. By that time, Plaintiff had a black mold condition and distressed lungs that required several visits to the emergency room and aggressive treatment. Id. at 22, ¶ 60.

5

II. STANDARD

A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a 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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “While the 12(b)(6) standard does not require that [the plaintiff] establish a prima facie case in her complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether [the plaintiff] has set forth a plausible claim.” Khalik v....