Roberts v. Hamer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17823
6th Cir.2011Background
- Roberts sued as next friend for her two minor children under RLPHRA and TSCA after alleged lead-paint disclosures were omitted in a lease of an apartment from the Hamers in Covington, KY (2002).
- Defendants allegedly failed to provide the lead hazard information pamphlet and disclosure of known lead-based paint or hazards before leasing.
- Plaintiffs allege children resided in the building for years with unknown high lead levels, causing ongoing harm.
- Roberts filed a seven-count complaint: RLPHRA claim (count I) and TSCA/state-law claims (counts II–VII).
- District court dismissed the federal RLPHRA claim and abstained from the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and denied leave to amend for an individual RLPHRA claim.
- Roberts appealed focusing on the RLPHRA dismissal only and challenges to the motion to strike evidence and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RLPHRA provides statutory standing to sue. | Roberts's children have standing as de facto lessees. | Only a purchaser or lessee may sue under §4852d(b)(3). | No; private action limited to purchasers or lessees. |
| Whether the statute creates a private right of action for children of lessees. | Children are de facto lessees with Article III standing. | Plain statutory text limits action to purchasers/lessees; no implied expansion. | No private right for children of a lessee. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing. | Complaint adequately states a claim under RLPHRA. | Lack of statutory standing requires dismissal; claims fail on the merits. | Plain language confines action to purchasers/lessees; dismissal affirmed. |
| Standard of review for dismissal based on statutory standing. | Court should apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards, accepting allegations as true. | Review properly considered statutory standing as a merits question. | Court applied de novo review of statutory construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason ex rel. Heiser v. Morrisette, 403 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.2005) (holds private action limited to purchaser/lessee under §4852d(b)(3))
- Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.2000) (signals regulations clarify lessee definition)
- Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep't of Educ., 615 F.3d 622 (6th Cir.2010) (statutory standing treated as merits question, not jurisdiction)
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kent, Mich., 510 U.S. 355 (1994) (statutory question not jurisdictional)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory standing concept distinct from Article III standing)
- Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. Mgmt., Inc., 567 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.2009) (clarifies distinction between jurisdiction and statutory standing)