Cooper v. Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34475
| S.D. Ohio | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs are female residents of the Anna Louise Inn, living there as home for 11 months to 34 years.
- CUB owns the Inn; Western & Southern allegedly seeks to force a sale to redevelop the site for high-end use.
- Western & Southern allegedly campaigned to oust the Inn residents, including public disparagement and intimidation.
- Alleged actions include frivolous appeals of zoning decisions, photography of residents, and accusations of criminal activity.
- Plaintiffs sue under FHA provisions 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and 3617 and Ohio law for privacy and related claims, seeking damages and fees.
- Court denies 12(b)(6) motion, allowing FHA claims to proceed and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3617 claims are pleaded plausibly. | Plaintiffs claim Western & Southern interfered with their FHA rights with discriminatory animus. | No direct ability to disrupt housing rights; actions are economic against non-owners; 3617 requires direct disruption. | Plaintiffs plausibly plead § 3617 claim; non-owner may still disrupt rights with discriminatory animus. |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington bars FHA claims. | No, Noerr-Pennington does not shield unlawful § 3617 conduct; includes harassment beyond petitioning. | Noerr-Pennington provides protection for petitioning; potential sham exception may apply. | Noerr-Pennington does not bar the FHA claims; sham and additional harassing conduct undermine protection. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. | State claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact and are connected to FHA claims. | If federal claims fail, no basis to retain state claims. | Supplemental jurisdiction exercised; state-law claims retained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Babin v. City of Flint, 18 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1994) (broad 'interfere with' scope under § 3617; non-owners may be liable if directly disrupting rights)
- Mediacom Southeast LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 672 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards; context-specific plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Graoch Assocs. #33, L.P. v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan H.R.C., 508 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2007) (disparate treatment standards; role of position to affect housing rights)
- Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern Rail Presidents Conference, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine origin; petitioning protected)
- California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (petitioning protection; limits in sham exception)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (Noerr-Pennington backdrop)
- Eaton v. Newport Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1992) (Noerr-Pennington extension to FHA context)