Borum v. Brentwood Village, LLC
Civil Action No. 2016-1723
D.D.C.Feb 12, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Adriann Borum, a Brookland Manor resident in a four‑bedroom unit with minor children, sued defendants (Brentwood Associates, Mid‑City Financial, Edgewood Management) challenging a redevelopment that will eliminate 4‑ and 5‑bedroom units and reduce 3‑bedroom units, alleging disparate impact and discriminatory statements under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA).
- Defendants obtained First‑Stage PUD approval in 2015 and filed Second‑Stage approval in 2016 (pending); plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and limited discovery on demographics relevant to class certification.
- Borum moved to certify a hybrid Rule 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) class defined to include households that reside or resided in 3–5 bedroom units with a minor child and either have been displaced since Oct. 1, 2014, or are at risk of displacement.
- The court divided the proposed class: it denied certification of the displaced/former‑resident subclass (insufficient showing on commonality, numerosity, typicality, adequacy) but certified a subclass of current residents in 3–5 bedroom units who house minors and are at risk of displacement as a direct result of the redevelopment (under Rule 23(b)(2)).
- Court appointed plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The certified class seeks injunctive/declaratory relief to eradicate disparate impact and bar discriminatory statements; damages for displaced persons were not certified at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Borum: hundreds of households (118 apartments; ~543 people) in 3–5BR units with minors are at risk; common question whether redevelopment disparately impacts familial status; Borum is typical and adequate | Defs: class overbroad; includes non‑parent adults, households that aged out, occupants of 3BRs who won’t be harmed; displaced subset lacks commonality/numerosity; individual issues and defenses predominate | Court: split proposal — denied certification for displaced/former residents subclass (insufficient Rule 23(a) proof); certified current‑resident at‑risk subclass (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy satisfied) |
| Whether non‑parental adults and other co‑residents have standing under the FHA | Borum: co‑residents (non‑parent adults living with minors) are "aggrieved persons" because they face concrete risk of displacement and share the injury | Defs: FHA protects minors domiciled with a parent/guardian; non‑parent adults shouldn’t be counted as class members | Court: co‑residents can be aggrieved persons with Article III standing when they suffer the same injury (risk of displacement) and seek the same relief; they count for class numerosity |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate for injunctive relief | Borum: seeks classwide injunction to modify redevelopment and bar discriminatory statements — remedies would be classwide and indivisible | Defs: class members differ in how they will be affected; individualized injunctions may be required | Court: (b)(2) satisfied — single policy and statements can be remedied across the class with injunctive/declaratory relief |
| Whether the court should certify the damages subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) for displaced persons | Borum: seeks damages for persons displaced since Oct. 1, 2014 and for those displaced during litigation | Defs: displaced subclass lacks common issues, numerosity, typicality; many individualized determinations needed | Court: declined to certify (denied for now) — displaced/former‑resident subclass fails Rule 23(a); Borum may renew if she later identifies typical named plaintiffs or sufficient numerosity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class certification requires rigorous, proof‑based Rule 23 analysis and commonality means a common injury)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (merits questions may be considered at certification only to the extent relevant to Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (adequacy inquiry and conflicts of interest among class members)
- Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (standing under FHA can extend to those alleging concrete injury from discriminatory housing practices)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (plaintiff must prove Rule 23 prerequisites and satisfy at least one Rule 23(b) provision)
- Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459 (D.C. Cir.) (district court has broad discretion on class certification)
- D.L. v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir.) (each subclass must satisfy Rule 23 requirements)
- Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir.) (disparate‑impact claims often more amenable to class treatment)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (class representative must have live claims at time of certification)