Morris v. Memorial Development Partners, LP ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DEBORAH MORRIS, et al., * Plaintiffs, * v. * Civil Case No: 1:23-cv-01641-JMC MEMORIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP, et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Deborah Morris and Arnell Mason, filed the present lawsuit pro se against Memorial Development Partners, LP, Somerset Development Company, and Habitat America, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on June 20, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint on August 4, 2023, after the Court indicated that it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Local Rule 103.1(d). (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19). The Court denied Defendants’ prior motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint via Memorandum Opinion and Order on February 23, 2024, because the Court instead granted Defendants’ alternative request for a more definite statement after detailing various deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 50). In so doing, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing those deficiencies within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of that Memorandum Opinion and Order. Id. Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Complaint on March 8, 2024. (ECF No. 51). Presently before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52); and (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 56).1 The Court has additionally considered all oppositions and replies thereto. (ECF Nos. 54, 55, 57). No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied and Defendants’ motion will be granted. I. BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendants owned and/or operated a housing complex known as “Linden Park Apartments.” (ECF No. 51 at 2).2 Both Plaintiffs separately occupy two of the roughly 270 units within Linden Park Apartments. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff Mason’s occupancy began roughly twenty-two years ago when he “was placed at the building” through a “Class Action integration ‘Special Provision’ agreement,” under which he was “without any signed lease agreement or options of units – just assigned to an existing unit.” Id. at 28. Plaintiff Morris’ occupancy began in November 2021. Id. at 13–14. Plaintiffs aver that the Linden Park Apartments are condominium units and that “Defendants Condominium management is made up of a board of unit owners who oversees the daily operation of the complex, such as lawn maintenance, snow removal, and building updates.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs assert that the Linden Park Apartments are not registered or licensed as a condominium rental property within the city of Baltimore, but also that the city of Baltimore has “literally wiped out Baltimore City Rental and 1 Plaintiffs’ motion is titled: “Consent Motion for Permission/Leave of Court for Plaintiff Legal Standing, Federal Rules of Evidence and Claims Response to Defendants Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 56). The Court construes this as a motion to file a surreply in further opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will analyze it as such. Additionally, the Court notes that the motion was not filed with Defendants’ consent as represented in the title. See (ECF No. 57). 2 When the Court cites to a specific page number or range of page numbers, the Court is referring to the page numbers provided in the electronic filing stamps located at the top of every electronically filed document. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 268 (4th Cir. 2022). As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint contains many criticisms of Baltimore City local government and housing officials as well as Baltimore’s housing regulations. As Plaintiffs do not tie any of those criticisms to the Defendants and the entities presumably targeted by Plaintiffs’ concerns are not before the Court in this lawsuit, the Court declines to rely on those factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as being attributed to Defendants. See, e.g., ECF No. 51 at 9–11, 21–23. Housing Laws to accommodate Condominiums for rental purposes.” Id. at 5. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Linden Park Apartments engages in “ghost business transactions” that “intentionally denies the rights of Plaintiffs (and others) as renters within the building.” Id. at 7. The crux of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is that “Defendants do target [have targeted – Plaintiffs] for their Human Trafficking Business rental schemes, vulnerable elderly and disabled persons . . . because Defendants knows business are not regulated in the same manner as apartments not having to be accountable to oversight and enforcement business wise on any Local, State, and Federal level.” Id. at 6. Specifically, Plaintiffs take issue with several of Defendants’ alleged business practices. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly require Plaintiffs to address their monthly rent payments to “Linden Park Apartments” and treat “Plaintiffs monthly rental fees as though [Plaintiffs] were paying on a Debt Plaintiffs had incurred.” Id. at 7– 8. Related, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Habitat America, LLC unlawfully collects Linden Park Apartment’s tenants’ rent payments because it is “not Licensed as a business entity for collections of debts in the entire state of Maryland but do so collect all Rentals and other fees from Plaintiffs and all other tenants in Property.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs also take issue with Defendants’ leasing process by claiming that: Defendants general leases vaguely structured that are largely papers related to what is in the building and intentionally omits Plaintiffs housing Rights, names, addresses and contact information of Owners that name is on the lease, policies and procedures regarding security deposit, rental payments and receipts, policies procedures for complaint and resolution of complaints, building responsibilities for repairs and maintenance in unit and other areas of buildings, emergency management plans for building, policies and procedures routine maintenance/inspections, no consent forms signed by Plaintiffs for release or any personal information to be released to anyone -that should limited time period consents are to be used and specifically the person or Government agency to have access, all records of Plaintiffs (and other) not allowed by us to be looked at, reviewed or disputed information that has been put into them. Everything Plaintiffs are entitled to under Housing Laws have been intentionally omitted by Defendants. Plaintiffs (and including other vulnerable elderly/disabled renters in building) leases tantamount to no more then a debt being owed, as the price, for us to assimilate in Bolton Hill - an extremely affluent and majority White Neighborhood - deceitfully limiting our Lives safety and housing conditions by old infrastructure of building, no plans for safety or emergencies, building is not within laws of ADA -meshing deterioration daily - allowing Defendants enterprises homesteaders continuing ripping the financial benefits from shelters on their land - do laden heavily on Plaintiffs soul thus we pray for reparations and solace written in our Scroll. Id. at 11–12, 28. Plaintiffs further claim that Defendants intentionally discriminate, intentionally exploit and/or abuse elderly and disabled individuals, unlawfully evict tenants, commit theft, falsely accuse Plaintiffs of criminal wrongdoing, intentionally operate under a fake name, and operate the Linden Park Apartments in non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Id. at 12. Regarding Plaintiffs’ ADA reference, Plaintiffs allege that “several blind persons live in buildings with 2 original buildings elevators that have Braille floor knobs with no floor signals or voice Floor identification so if persons don’t recognize or read braille they have no way of identifying floors to get on or off elevators except for the assistance of another person.” Id. at 27. Plaintiffs equate these alleged business practices to “Trafficking in persons,” “human trafficking,” and “modern slavery” throughout their Second Amended Complaint. See, e.g., id. at 2. Plaintiffs also maintain that the Linden Park Apartments: [H]olds minefields of health hazard conditions, safety problems and structural defects that are left not addressed further never have been inspected, reported, recorded, monitored, certified and licensed as required so designated by the local, state, and federal regulatory under building being used for the purposes of doing Business as required {Business Occupations and Professions – regulated under Md. Code, Com. § 14-401} has been intentionally misleading in Defendants business enterprise. Id. at 28–29. More specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the living units within the Linden Park Apartments contain mold from water damage and other environmental effects which have gone unremedied by Defendants. Id. at 29–30. The Court previously directed Plaintiffs to include a clear basis for jurisdiction in their Second Amended Complaint because such information was lacking in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint now initially alleges “a continuing pattern of racially discriminatory conduct in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19 (‘FHA’), Non compliance and discrimination under Title III Of The American With Disabilities Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Racketeer Influenced Activities – enterprises that are ‘association-in-fact’ of legal entities.” Id. at 13. However, Plaintiffs detail only the following causes of action in their Second Amended Complaint: (1) “Discriminatory refusals to transact, differential terms, and false representations in violation of the class action agreement per required under {case of HUD