Pierre v. Winn Managed Properties, LLC
Civil Action No. 2016-0683
| D.D.C. | Dec 14, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Francis Pierre sued HUD and his property managers (Winn Managed Properties, LLC and Southern Hills L.P.) under Section 8/public housing, seeking over $571 million for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence related to utility reimbursements/allowances.
- Complaint alleges plaintiff discovered misapplied "Utility Allowance" (improperly added to rent) in late 2013 or early 2014 and complained in writing; suit filed April 12, 2016.
- HUD moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity (lack of consent to suit) and other grounds; property managers moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
- Court notified plaintiff of deadlines to respond to defendants' motions; plaintiff failed to respond and sought no further extensions after an initial extension.
- Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against HUD and that the allegations against property managers were conclusory and insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6); claims against HUD dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and claims against managers dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Case dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit may proceed against HUD despite sovereign immunity | Pierre alleges HUD involved in Section 8 housing obligations and seeks damages | HUD says sovereign immunity bars suit absent unequivocal statutory consent | Court: Dismissed HUD claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) |
| Whether plaintiff's claims are time-barred by D.C.'s 3-year statute of limitations | Pierre alleges discovery occurred in late 2013/early 2014; suit filed 2016 | Managers argue damages from 2003–present are barred by the 3-year limit | Court: Cannot find claims conclusively time-barred on face of complaint; statute-of-limitations dismissal denied at this stage |
| Whether plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against property managers | Pierre asserts unpaid utility allowances totaling >$45,000 and alleges prior written complaints | Managers argue allegations are conclusory, lacking factual enhancement to state a claim | Court: Plaintiff offered only conclusory allegations; claims against managers dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Effect of plaintiff's failure to respond to motions | Pierre provided no substantive opposition after court deadlines/extension | Defendants relied on unopposed motions to dismiss | Court: Plaintiff's failure to respond conceded HUD jurisdictional argument and weighed in favor of dismissal where claims were deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (sovereign immunity requires consent to suit)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (consent to suit must be unequivocally expressed in statute)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain factual content to state a plausible claim)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (statute-of-limitations dismissal inappropriate when complaint not conclusively time-barred)
- Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (federal courts must assure themselves of jurisdiction)