Floyd v. PEM Real Estate Group et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 77 Report and Recommendation with AMENDMENT as set forth in Order. 47 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Jude Reynolds is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 45 Motion to Dismiss filed by HW Investco Mobile is DENIED. Defendants Macy Proulx, Kristi Ridlon, and Josh Ashcraft's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 39 , 41 , 43 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 09/13/2018. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
B. RENEL FLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEM REAL ESTATE GROUP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-451-TM-N

ORDER
On August 17, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case, to which no timely objections have been filed.

(See Doc. 77).

After an

independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that:
(1)

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 77) is ADOPTED,
with an AMENDMENT to the third bullet point, found on page thirtyone (31), (Doc. 77, at 31), which is to read as follows:
Defendant Jude Reynolds’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED
as to Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) that occurred
before October 5, 2015; Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981
and 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); and Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
3604(b) that occurred on or after October 5, 2015, and are related to her
allegations in regard to extermination, a leaking roof, or notices. The

motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
3604(b) that occurred on or after October 5, 2015, and are related to
Plaintiff’s allegations that her rent payments were discriminatorily
marked as late and the terms of her lease were unfairly altered or
enforced by Defendant Reynolds.
(2)

Defendant HW Investco Mobile’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45) is
DENIED.

(3)

Defendants Macy Proulx, Kristi Ridlon, and Josh Ashcraft’s Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. 39, 41, 43) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. The motions are denied as to the request to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(5), but granted as to the request to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

(4)

Defendant Jude Reynolds’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) that occurred before
October 5, 2015; Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42
U.S.C. § 3604(a); and Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b)
that occurred on or after October 5, 2015, and are related to her
allegations in regard to extermination, a leaking roof, or notices. The
motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
3604(b) that occurred on or after October 5, 2015, and are related to
Plaintiff’s allegations that her rent payments were discriminatorily

2

marked as late and the terms of her lease were unfairly altered or
enforced by Defendant Reynolds.
Based on the above, the defendants and claims that remain are alleged
violations by Defendant HW Investco Mobile of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a),
and 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) and alleged violations by Defendant Reynolds of 42 U.S.C. §
3604(b) that occurred on or after October 5, 2015, and are related to Plaintiff’s
allegations that her rent payments were discriminatorily marked as late and the
terms of her lease were unfairly altered or enforced by Defendant Reynolds.
DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of September 2018.
/s/ TERRY F. MOORER
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3