Tejada v. Littlecity Realty LLC
308 F. Supp. 3d 724
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former tenants of two Sunset Park, Brooklyn buildings purchased by defendants (LittleCity Realty LLC and LittleBoy Realty LLC) in 2001–2003; many units were rent-stabilized and predominantly occupied by Latino tenants.
- Plaintiffs allege a multi-year, discriminatory campaign (2001–2017) targeting tenants perceived as Latino: a lease addendum requiring disclosure of immigration status, frivolous eviction actions, harassment, failures to repair, and racialized statements by landlords.
- Plaintiffs allege the harassment displaced Latino tenants, the landlords then deregulated those units (illegally) and rented them to non-Latino tenants at inflated rents.
- Legal claims: Fair Housing Act (race/national origin), NYC Human Rights Law (perceived national origin/alienage/citizenship), NYC Housing Maintenance Code (harassment), and NYC Rent Stabilization Law (overcharges/deregulation/fraud).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds and for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over rent-stabilization claims; the court denied the motion to dismiss and set phased proceedings (Phase I: injunction/class certification evidentiary hearing; Phase II: trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental jurisdiction over Rent Stabilization/overcharge claims | State claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal discrimination claims (same witnesses, leases, tenant identities, rent history). | Rent-stabilization claims are separate and not part of the same Article III controversy; should be dismissed under §1367. | Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction; state and federal claims substantially overlap and judicial economy favors joint resolution. |
| Timeliness of Fair Housing Act claims (continuing violation) | Discriminatory acts formed an ongoing scheme from 2001–2017; at least one unlawful act occurred within limitations period, so the continuing-violation toll applies. | Individual acts are discrete/time-barred; plaintiffs filed outside the two-year FHA limitations period. | Court finds allegations plausibly plead a continuing violation; FHA claims not time-barred. |
| Timeliness of NYC Human Rights and Housing Maintenance Code claims | Same continuing-violation theory extends limitations; Housing Maintenance Code harassment claims (e.g., repeated baseless litigation, service interruptions) reach back to enactment. | City claims are time-barred (three-year rule) or otherwise untimely. | Court accepts continuing-violation theory for City claims; Housing Maintenance Act protection applies from its enactment (2008) forward. |
| Rent Stabilization overcharge claims & fraud tolling | Plaintiffs allege a fraudulent deregulation scheme (failure to report improvements, unjustified rent hikes, pattern of displacement) that warrants examining rent history beyond four years. | Overcharge claims are limited to four years and otherwise time-barred absent a clear colorable fraud showing. | Court finds plaintiffs have plausibly alleged fraud sufficient to toll/extend scrutiny beyond the four-year limit; Rent Stabilization claims survive dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility and inference principles in Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (continuing violation doctrine in housing discrimination)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (supplemental/pendent jurisdiction factors: judicial economy, convenience, fairness)
- Grimm v. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal Office of Rent Admin., 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010) (fraud exception allowing rent-history review beyond four years)