AREVALO v. MARTINEZ
2:11-cv-02339
W.D. Tenn.Aug 21, 2014Background
- Flood in Memphis May 2010 damaged MMC, a mobile home park owned by/affiliated with UMH Properties, Inc.
- Most residents were Hispanic with limited English proficiency; many purchased homes via UMH subsidiaries or through straw buyers.
- Plaintiffs allege FHA, THRA, TCPA violations, latent defect disclosure, habitability, landlord-tenant duties, contract, misrepresentation, and conversion claims.
- Nineteen plaintiffs were ordered to arbitrate; ten plaintiffs remained for court adjudication.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing lack of particularized pleadings, time-bar issues, and arbitrability.
- Defendants seek dismissal of nearly all claims with prejudice; court must assess whether claims are adequately pleaded and timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHA/THRA claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Guevara et al. allege targeted discrimination under §3604(b) and §3604(c) | Defendants contend no plausible FHA/THRA claims | FHA/THRA claims survive dismissal for pleading sufficiency |
| Whether §3604(b) claims are precluded by post-acquisition conduct | Discrimination occurred pre- and post-residency | Post-acquisition conduct should be outside FHA scope | Claims survive threshold analysis; post-acquisition conduct may be actionable under FHA |
| Whether §3604(c) claim regarding lack of minority residents is viable | Allegations show targeted marketing to Hispanics and discouraging African-Americans | Claims are too speculative | Plausible §3604(c) injury and standing shown; claim denied dismissal |
| Whether TCPA claims are time-barred or inadequately pled | Discovery-rule tolls accrual; factual specifics provided | Claims time-barred or insufficiently pled under Rule 9(b) | TCPA claims survive; discovery rule requires more factual development for statute of limitations; some fraud-based TCPA claims may be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (standing and injury in §3604(c) context; broad remedial FHA purposes)
- Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (injury from exclusion of minority tenants constitutes FHA injury)
- Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (pleading FHA claims may be short and plain under Rule 8(a))
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (Rule 8 pleading standard; no heightened pleading for FHA claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (requirement to plead plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)