Lawrence v. Ctr Prop ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30534 Document: 00515861532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-30534 May 13, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Shawndrika Lawrence,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Center Properties, L.L.C.; State Farm Fire and
Casualty; St. Bernard Parish Government; ReMax Real
Estate Partners; Gerald Miller; Anthony Vo,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:20-CV-247
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Shawndrika Lawrence appeals the district court’s
dismissal of her lawsuit arising out of an allegedly defective apartment she
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30534 Document: 00515861532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-30534
leased in 2014. Because Lawrence filed this lawsuit after the limitations
periods had lapsed on each of her claims, we affirm.
I.
This case involves a housing dispute. In November 2014, Lawrence
moved into an apartment in Chalmette, Louisiana, owned by Defendant-
Appellee Center Properties, L.L.C. Lawrence used a St. Bernard Parish
Housing Choice Voucher and a Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
contract to lease the property. Gerald Miller, an employee of Defendant-
Appellee ReMax Real Estate Partners, acted as the leasing agent and property
manager. The property initially passed inspection from a St. Bernard Parish
inspector.
After moving into the property, Lawrence discovered mold, water
damage, and a faulty shower, so she asked Miller to take action to abate the
issues. Lawrence alleges that Miller took no action to repair the property. At
Lawrence’s request, a St. Bernard Parish employee re-inspected the property
and discovered abundant black mold. Lawrence alleges that she sent a sample
of the mold to “a mold testing company,” which concluded that the mold
could her harmful to her respiratory health. Despite two failed inspections
and Lawrence’s repeated request for repair, ReMax took no action to abate
the mold.
In April 2015, Lawrence was served with a notice of eviction for failure
to pay rent. ROA.456. The notice stated that Lawrence owed $2,112 in late
rent, and that she had five days to either make the payment or vacate the unit.
In May 2015, ReMax obtained a court order evicting Lawrence.
On April 13, 2016, Lawrence, with counsel from Southeast Louisiana
Legal Services, “filed a petition for damages and Attorney fees in the 34th
District Court of Louisiana against Center Properties.” Lawrence avers that
her attorney did not diligently represent her and “allowed Center Properties
2
Case: 20-30534 Document: 00515861532 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-30534
to submit false evidence” regarding a signed lease. After Lawrence
terminated counsel and proceeded pro se, the case appears to have
languished for at least two years as Lawrence sought unsuccessfully to
remove the case to federal court and add several federal claims. Lawrence
then voluntarily dismissed the complaint on January 14, 2020, stating that
her prior counsel had not sued “all real parties in interest.” Lawrence then
brought this case in federal court on January 22, 2020, asserting several
claims including breach of warranty of habitability, failure to return her
security deposit, unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment, “state-created
danger,” and violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
The district court dismissed the complaint. It concluded that each of
Lawrence’s federal claims are time-barred, and that her state litigation did
not toll the statute of limitations under Louisiana law. The district court then
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lawrence’s state law
claims. Lawrence timely appealed to this court. However, Lawrence
mistakenly omitted all argument from her principal brief. The court is
therefore left without operative briefing from Lawrence. However, it is clear
that the district court did not err in concluding that Lawrence’s federal
claims are time-barred, and we therefore affirm.
II.
Lawrence alleges violations of four federal statutes: (1) the Federal
Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), (2) The Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), (3) the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
(“HCDA”), and (4) the Rehabilitation Act. The FHA contains a two-year
statute of limitations which beings to run “after the occurrence or
termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.”42 U.S.C.
§ 3613(a)(1)(A). The remaining statutes do not specify any limitations
3
Case: 20-30534 Document: 00515861532 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-30534
periods. “When a federal statute does not contain a limitations period . . . the
settled practice is to borrow an ‘appropriate’ statute of limitations from state
law.” King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754, 758 (5th Cir.
2015). Under Louisiana law, personal injury claims are subject to a one-year
limitations period. LA. CIV. CODE art 3492 (“Delictual actions are subject to
a liberative prescription of one year.”); Id. cmt. (b) (“The notion of delictual
liability includes: intentional misconduct, negligence, abuse of right, and
liability without negligence.”). The prescriptive period begins from the date
injury or damage is sustained. LA. CIV. CODE art 3492. Damage is considered
to have been sustained when the plaintiff reasonably should be aware of
enough facts to support a cause of action. See, e.g., Williams v. Sewerage &
Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So. 2d 1383, 1386 (La. 1993). A district court
may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous on statute-of-limitations
grounds if it is clear from the face of a complaint that the claims asserted are
time-barred. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994).
The events giving rise to these claims—Lawrence’s living in a home
with a dangerous defect that the defendants refused to repair—happened in
2014 and 2015. Lawrence moved into the apartment on November 10, 2014,
and she was evicted from the apartment on May 20, 2015. Because Lawrence
does not allege that any of her claims arise out of events that happened after
her eviction, the limitations period on Lawrence’s claims began to run, at the
latest, on May 20, 2015. Accordingly, the limitations period for Lawrence’s
FHA claim lapsed on May 20, 2017, and the limitations period for
Lawrence’s ADA, HCDA, and Rehabilitation Act claims lapsed and May 20,
2016. Lawrence filed this lawsuit on January 22, 2020, well after these
deadlines. Further, Lawrence’s lawsuit in Louisiana state court, which she
voluntarily dismissed, does not toll the limitations period. Under Louisiana
law, a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses a suit loses the advantage of the
interruption of prescription, and the interruption is considered never to have
4
Case: 20-30534 Document: 00515861532 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-30534
occurred. LA. CIV. CODE art 3463 (“Interruption is considered never to have
occurred if the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses the action at any time
either before the defendant has made any appearance of record or thereafter,
or fails to prosecute the suit at the trial.”). 1
AFFIRMED.
1
Although Lawrence did not timely submit her principal brief, she primarily argues
that the district court erred in considering the defendants’ untimely motions to dismiss.
However, “district courts have broad discretion under Rule 6(b) to expand filing
deadlines.” U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C., 798 F.3d 265, 275–76 (5th Cir.
2015). Further, as here, district courts may sua sponte dismiss time-barred claims. Moore v.
McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994).
5