Rebecca Smith, Hous. Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Beverly Hills Club Apartments, LLC
| Decision Date | 28 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: 1:15-cv-23450-KMM |
| Parties | REBECCA SMITH, HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE, INC. ("HOPE"), ELIZABETH HOLSTON, JASMIN ROBERSON, JASON ROSE, ANDRE WHITE, SARA WHITE, G.W., S.W., KELVEN DAVIS, and ALEXIS CAMPBELL, Plaintiffs, v. BEVERLY HILLS CLUB APARTMENTS, LLC, UNITED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Inc., IDALIO RIVERO, and RUSTHBELL KATHERINA GARCIGA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32); Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and/or Stay and Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Rebecca Smith (ECF Nos. 18, 21); and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement (ECF Nos. 19, 20). The Motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motions, the pertinent portions of the Record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following Order.
Plaintiffs—ten individuals and the Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. ("HOPE"), a nonprofit housing advocacy agency—bring this Action pursuant to the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See generally Am. Compl. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiffs allege discrimination on the basis of race, with respect to leasing policies and practices at the Aventura Harbor Apartments in Miami, Florida ("Aventura Harbor"). Id. According to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, Defendant Beverly Hills Club Apartments, LLC ("Beverly Hills Club") is the owner of Aventura Harbor, id. ¶ 15, and Defendant United Property Management, Inc. ("United Property") is responsible for the management of Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶ 16. Defendants Idalio Rivero and Ruthsbell Katherina Garciga are the manager and leasing agent at Aventura Harbor, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.
In January 2014, Plaintiff Rebecca Smith, an African American woman, signed a "Pre-Employment Application" (the "Application") with Best Labor Contractors LLC ("Best Labor Contractors"). See Def.'s Mot., Ex. A (ECF No. 18-1). The Application included an arbitration provision under which Smith agreed to "resolve any issues that may arise out of [her] employment through arbitration and waive the option of trial by jury." Id. Later that month, Smith began working at Aventura Harbor. Am. Compl. ¶ 19 (ECF No. 5).
Smith alleges that during her twenty-one month tenure at her job, she observed racist policies and practices at Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶ 20. Smith further alleges that she received discriminatory treatment when she was denied the same employee benefits and discounts afforded to non-African American workers at Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶¶ 26-38. Specifically, Smith contends that Aventura Harbor offers its employees a twenty-five percent discount in rent, or a fifteen percent discount in rent at one of the sister properties. Id. ¶ 28. Smith claims that when she applied for an apartment at Aventura Harbor to live in with her sister, she was offeredonly a fifteen percent discount. Id. ¶ 29. In addition, Smith contends that Defendant Rivero told Smith that she would have to pay a one hundred and twenty-five dollar per month fee for an upgraded kitchen and washer/dryer unit, which Smith claims at least one Aventura Harbor employee was not being charged for. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32. Smith also states that she was asked to provide her own and her sister's identification cards, social security numbers and proofs of income in order for Aventura Harbor to conduct background checks, something allegedly not required of other non-African American employees. Id. ¶¶ 33, 34. In the Amended Complaint, Smith alleges that these discriminatory actions amount to violations of Section 3604 and 3617 of the Fair Housing Act, and Sections 1981 and 1982 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See generally id.
Unlike Smith, the other nine Plaintiffs are not employees at Aventura Harbor. In 2015 Plaintiff HOPE began to test for race discrimination at Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶ 39. Plaintiffs Holston, Roberson and Rose are African American testers for HOPE who sought information from Defendants about the availability of apartments at Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiffs Andre White, Sara White, G.W., S.W., Davis and Campbell are African American individuals who, independent of HOPE, sought information about the availability of apartments at Aventura Harbor. Id. ¶¶ 9-14. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Holston, Roberson, Rose, Andre White, Sarah White, G.W., S.W., Davis and Campbell allege that Defendants denied them the same rights afforded to non-African American individuals seeking information on apartment rentals. See generally id.
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on September 14, 2015 (ECF No. 1). Later that day, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5). In October 2015, Defendants Beverly Hills Club and United Property moved to dismiss or stay the action in favor ofarbitration as to Plaintiff Rebecca Smith (ECF No. 18), and separately moved to dismiss the Complaint or for a more definite statement (ECF No. 19), arguing that the Amended Complaint is an improper shotgun pleading. Defendants Rivero and Garciga filed the same two motions, each containing similar arguments to those filed by Beverly Hills Club and United Property (ECF Nos. 20, 21). On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 32). Defendants opposed the motion (ECF Nos. 42, 43), arguing that amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs' Reply brief also includes its response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or Stay the Complaint in Favor of Arbitration as to Plaintiff Rebecca Smith (ECF No. 48).
As explained more fully below, the Court now grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32), and grants Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Rebecca Smith (ECF Nos. 18, 20). Further, because the Court grants leave to amend the Complaint, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF Nos. 19, 21) are denied as moot.
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, arguing that amendment is futile because the proposed amendment remains a "shotgun" pleading that fails to put the Defendants on proper notice of the claims against them, and all of the new claims asserted in the proposed second amended complaint are subject to dismissal.
District courts should freely grant leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)'s policy of liberal amendment facilitates determinationof claims on the merits, and prevents litigation from becoming a "technical exercise in the fine points of pleading." Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 599 (5th Cir. 1981). Thus, consistent with Rule 15(a), unless there is "substantial reason" to deny leave to amend, the court's discretion is not broad enough to permit denial. Id.
A court may find that there is "substantial reason" to deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile. Id.; see also Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Denial of leave to amend based on futility constitutes a legal conclusion by the court that the complaint, as amended, would necessarily fail. See St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. Am.'s Favorite Chicken Co., 189 F.3d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp., 169 F.3d at 1320 () (internal quotations omitted). "The futility threshold is akin to that for a motion to dismiss; thus if the amended complaint could not survive 12(b)(6) scrutiny, then the amendment is futile and leave to amend is properly denied." Bill Salter Adver., Inc. v. City of Brewton, AL, No. CIV.A. 07-0081-WS-B, 2007 WL 2409819, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 23, 2007) ().
The threshold standard for a plaintiff's complaint to survive dismissal is "exceedingly low." Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985). While "[m]ere labels and conclusions" and "formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action" are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules, the pleader need not provide detailed factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, a complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief thatis plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The purpose of this requirement is "to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. With this purpose in mind, and heeding the Federal Rules' liberal amendment policy, the Court now turns to the proposed second amended complaint.
Complaints that violate Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are often referred to as 'shotgun' pleadings. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015); Lampkin-Asam v. Volusia Cty. Sch. Bd., 261 F. App'x 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2008). The Eleventh Circuit has described 'shotgun' pleadings as those which are "calculated to confuse the 'enemy,' and the court, so that theories for relief not provided by law and which can prejudice an opponent's case, especially before a jury, can be masked." T.D.S. Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amat v. Rey Pizza Corp., Case Number: 15-24687-CIV-MARTINEZ-GOODMAN
...considers mutuality of obligation to be met if each side gives some consideration." Smith v. Beverly Hills Club Apartments, LLC , No. 1:15–cv–23450–KMM, 2016 WL 344975, *8 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 28, 2016). "Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have held that employment applicat......