Pryor v. Countryside Village Apartments

Filing 7

ORDER granting 5 defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/25/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHANIE PRYOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTRYSIDE VILLAGE
APARTMENTS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-18-240-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, filed April 9,
2018. Plaintiff has filed no response. Upon review of plaintiff’s Complaint and defendant’s
motion to dismiss, the Court makes its determination.
On March 19, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant. In her Complaint,
plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of the
Model Residential Landlord-Tenant Code.1 Since plaintiff’s claim is based upon state law, and
not federal law, and since the parties are both Oklahoma citizens, the Court finds that it does not
have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Further, in the Civil Cover Sheet plaintiff submitted when she filed this action, she alleges
that she is asserting a claim for violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619. The
Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3603,
3604. Specifically, under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the
making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make

The Court would presume that plaintiff is alleging defendant violated Oklahoma’s Residential
Landlord and Tenant Act.

1

unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status,
or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Defendant, however, rented an apartment to plaintiff.
The Court, therefore, finds there can be no violation of the Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, to the
extent plaintiff is asserting a claim for violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Court finds that
plaintiff has failed to state a claim and, thus, plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Fair Housing Act
should be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [docket
no. 5] and DISMISSES the instant action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2018.