PARKER v. PANPHIL REALTY, LLC
2:25-cv-01493
E.D. Pa.May 19, 2025Background
- Gordon Roy Parker, a serial pro se litigant, sued several apartment owners, their agents, and Zillow, claiming that minimum credit score requirements for prospective renters violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Philadelphia's Renters’ Access Act.
- Parker did not allege that he is personally disabled or provided specifics about his credit score, nor did he actually apply for any apartment rentals in question.
- After Parker was told by an attorney for the apartment owners to only communicate through counsel, Parker amended his complaint to add retaliation claims under the FHA.
- The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Parker lacked standing and did not sufficiently plead a discrimination or retaliation claim under federal or local law.
- The court considered whether Parker had standing under theories of 'futility' (it would have been useless for him to apply) and 'tester' (posing as a potential renter for the purpose of investigation), and reviewed all allegations and procedural conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Futile to apply due to discriminatory credit score requirement; claims tester status | Parker never applied, no alleged disability, no individualized harm | Parker lacks standing—no concrete injury or tested status |
| FHA Discrimination Claim | Credit score policies deter disabled would-be renters, including himself | No denial of rental or identified disability, no actual application | Dismissed for lack of standing and factual basis |
| FHA Retaliation (re: attorney communication) | Directing Parker to contact counsel was retaliatory | No protected activity or adverse action; routine counsel conduct | Dismissed—email not coercive, not FHA-protected activity |
| Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims | May proceed with Philadelphia Code claims if federal case proceeds | Federal claims fail, so state law claims should be dismissed | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (testers have standing under FHA if actually denied truthful information)
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (standing based on futility of application in discrimination cases)
- Carney v. Adams, 592 U.S. 53 (2020) (must plead "able and ready" to seek benefit for futility-based standing)
- Ellison v. Am. Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200 (3d Cir. 2021) (futility and "able and ready" principles apply at pleading stage)