Wimsatt v. Fountainbleau Mgmt. Serv.
| Decision Date | 19 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-169-SA-JAD |
| Parties | TACITA WIMSATT, individually and as the guardian and next friend of DEMONTARIUS IRBY, KIHRIESHA IRBY, MICURRA IRBY, DAZIHYEISHA IRBY, and DAVID IRBY, JR. PLAINTIFFS v. FOUNTAINBLEAU MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Currently before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement [10], Motion to Strike [20], and Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and to Strike [24]. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement [10] and Motion to Strike [20] as moot. The Court also denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement, and to Strike [24].
Plaintiffs moved into an apartment at the Evergreen Square Apartments in Tupelo, Mississippi, in 2006. They allege that they immediately experienced problems with:
... damaged carpets, water leaks, broken appliances, faulty electrical systems, broken plumbing fixtures, HVAC problems, unsafe and unsanitary cabinetry and flooring, repeated sewage backups resulting in the expulsion of human feces and other wastes into the apartment, flooding, mold, noxious odors and insect infestations.
Plaintiffs allege that problems with plumbing and mold were common among the Evergreen Square Apartments-to the degree that in mid-summer 2008, only 162 of the 257 apartments were deemed habitable by the Tupelo Department of Planning and Development.
Plaintiffs claim that in spite of Plaintiff Tacita Wimsatt's requests to repair the problems in the apartment, Defendant's employees never made needed repairs. Plaintiffs also claim that when Wimsatt complained about the maintenance issues, Defendant ignored her and threatened to evict her if she did not pay her rent on time. Two of Defendant's employees allegedly told Wimsatt that the problems with the apartment were not being repaired because Defendant's home office refused to provide the necessary funds.
In an effort to improve the apartment complex's living conditions, Wimsatt began circulating a petition among the complex's residents. The petition asked the City of Tupelo Planning Department to investigate the conditions at the apartment complex, and it also asked the complex's management to correct the problems. Plaintiffs allege that the apartment complex's managers began to make false accusations against Wimsatt after learning of the petition. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant's employees "concocted incidents" and placed "infraction reports" in Wimsatt's tenant file. Thereafter, Defendant served Wimsatt with a notice of eviction and filed suit in Lee County Justice Court to have her removed from the property.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the County Court of Lee County, Mississippi, on June 4, 2010. Defendant removed the case to this Court on July 8, 2010 [1]. On August 16, 2010, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement [10]. Plaintiffs then sought leave to amend their Complaint [16] and responded to Defendant's first Motion to Dismiss [18]. In response, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' response to the Motion to Dismiss [20] and opposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend [21].
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend on September 21, 2010 [22].
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on September 30, 2010 [23], asserting state law claims of negligence, gross negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs claim that the apartment's maintenance issues caused damage to their personal property. Plaintiffs also claim that electrical problems in the apartment caused the HVAC unit to run constantly, which caused their power bills to be higher than they should be. Plaintiff David Irby, Jr. alleges that damaged flooring caused him to fall and suffer a head injury for which he received medical treatment. Plaintiffs Demontarius Irby and Dazihyeisha Irby allege that they have respiratory problems exacerbated by the apartment's conditions. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendant's failure to maintain the apartment in a habitable condition.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement and to Strike [24] on October 11, 2010.
Both Defendant's first Motion to Dismiss [10] and Defendant's Motion to Strike [20] concern Plaintiff's initial Complaint. Plaintiffs have since filed an Amended Complaint [23]. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [10] and Motion to Strike [20] as moot.
Plaintiffs filed a timely response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement, and to Strike [24] on October 17, 2010. Defendant did not file a rebuttal within the time allowed by the Local Rules. See L.U.Civ. R. 7(b)(4). Accordingly, that motion is now ripe for review.
"The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid claim when all well-pleaded facts are assumed to be true and are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Shandong Yinguang Chem. Indus. Joint Stock Co. v. Potter, 607 F.3d 1029, 1032 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)). "The court's task is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success." Id (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)).
"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." Sullivan v. Leor Energy LLC, 600 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2010). While a plaintiff's complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)) (punctuation omitted). There is no formulaic approach to determining whether a plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief. Rather, it is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S., 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it fails to state facts sufficient to support a claim for relief. Defendant has not presented arguments specific to each cause of action brought by Plaintiff. Rather, Defendant merely argues that the Amended Complaint fails to allege the particular location within the apartment complex where the deficiencies arose or the particular time they arose.
As noted above, Plaintiffs do "not need detailed factual allegations" to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Sullivan, 600 F.3d at 546. They must merely "provide the grounds of [their] entitlement," utilizing more than mere "labels and conclusions." Id. "[A]n action for personal injuries resulting from the allegedly unsafe condition of leasehold property is, in essence, a negligence action governed by the familiar elements of that cause of action." Sweatt v. Murphy, 733 So. 2d 207, 211 (Miss. 1999) (citing O'Cain v. Harvey Freeman & Sons, 603 So. 2d 824, 833 (Miss. 1991) (concurring opinion)). Accordingly, to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) Plaintiffs must plead sufficient facts to show duty, breach, causation, and damage. Id.. at 211-12.
Plaintiffs allege that they were residents of the Evergreen Square Apartments, which are owned by Defendant. They allege that their apartment had multiple maintenance issues-including flooding, mold, and plumbing problems which resulted in the expulsion of human waste. They allege that Defendants had a duty to provide a safe apartment and to correct dangerous conditions reported by them. They further allege that they repeatedly complained about said conditions, but Defendant never repaired them. Finally, they allege that the conditions caused specific damages-including personal injuries and emotional distress.
The Rules of Civil Procedure "do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955. Generally, a plaintiff must only plead the facts necessary to "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for the sort of negligence action contemplated by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Sweatt. See Sweatt, 733 So. 2d at 211. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant argues, in the alternative, that the Court should order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs should be required to allege: 1) further details concerning their emotional distress; 2) the specific location within the apartment complex where deficiencies arose; 3) the specific times when deficiencies arose; 4) the specific deficiencies of which Wimsatt complained; 5) the specific time and manner in which such complaints were made; 6) the specific issues with Plaintiffs' apartment which Defendant's employees stated its home office would not provide funds to repair; and 7) the specific place where Defendant's employees made such statements.
Rule 12(e) provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial