Smith v. Resipro, LLC
1:24-cv-11732
N.D. Ill.Jul 8, 2025Background
- Ronetta Smith (individually and as guardian for two disabled adults) sued ResiPro, LLC and ResiCap, LP, alleging damages from defective home rehabilitation work performed prior to Smith's purchase of a property in Chicago.
- The property was one of 120 involved in a City of Chicago false claims and construction code enforcement action against ResiCap/ResiPro, settled for $2.2 million in 2024.
- Smith, a Section 8 voucher holder, did not contract with ResiPro/ResiCap directly; the prior owner Kondaur hired the contractors for pre-sale rehab.
- After purchase, Smith allegedly experienced severe construction defects, incurred $70,000 in repair bills, and claims health issues from mold; she and her wards vacated the home, living in a motel.
- Smith filed numerous state and federal claims, including fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act violations. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for limitations and factual insufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCA Sealing & Notice Compliance | Smith claimed under FCA after removal, argued notification in progress | No indication FCA requirements (sealing, DOJ notice) were met | Court reserved judgment; supplemental briefing ordered |
| Private Right Under IL Home Repair Fraud Act | Sought court to imply cause of action for enforcement | Statute is criminal, no private action implied | Dismissed with prejudice—no private right exists |
| Statute of Limitations: FHA, ADA, Rehab Act | Claimed tolling by conciliation or city proceedings, or equitable doctrines | Two-year period expired long before suit; no facts to support tolling | Dismissed with prejudice—claims time-barred |
| Consumer Fraud/Fraud/Negligence Claims | Argued deception, misrepresentation in rehab work induced purchase, cited Chicago Lawsuit | No privity; no actionable misrepresentations or detailed facts pled | Dismissed without prejudice—insufficient factual detail |
| Home Repair & Remodeling Act Standing | Claimed non-receipt of required disclosures/pamphlet | Only contracting party (prior owner) is covered; Smith lacks standing | Dismissed with prejudice—no privity, statute inapplicable |
| Tortious Interference Claim | Claimed interference with purchase contract | No breach or inducement pled; facts do not support claim | Dismissed without prejudice—elements not met |
| Civil Conspiracy Claim | Conspiracy among entities, broader scheme alleged | No underlying tort survives; parent/subsidiary can’t conspire | Dismissed without prejudice—no independent tort survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (heightened pleading requirements, facial plausibility)
- United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838 (limitations as affirmative defense at motion to dismiss)
- State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. 26 (FCA notice and sealing requirements are mandatory)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (continuing violation doctrine in FHA context)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 951 (elements of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 675 N.E.2d 584 (fraud and duty to disclose under Illinois law)
- HPI Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 545 N.E.2d 672 (elements of tortious interference in Illinois)