Burleson v. Security Properties Residential, LLC et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 80 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(TH)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

SHARON ELAINE BURLESON,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11
12

SECURITY PROPERTIES
RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al.,

CASE NO. C18-0513RSL
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

This lawsuit was filed in April 2018. In her Second Amended Complaint,
plaintiff alleges that she is African-American with “a left-side deficit” and that she has
been charged over the course of her tenancy at Angeline Apartments “excessively and
inordinately, higher rates for water, sewer, and trash services than other tenants that
reside/resided at the apartment complex.” Dkt. # 52 at 9. She disputed the bills, but was
stymied in her efforts to ascertain how her bills were calculated because the billing
company, American Utility Management, Inc. (“AUM”), refused to provide her with her
individual usage, which plaintiff believes is a violation of Seattle Municipal Code
(“SMC”) 7.25. Plaintiff alleges that the excessive billing and refusal to provide relevant
information were discriminatory and arose out of a civil conspiracy between the owner
of the apartment building, the billing company, and two employees of the corporate

25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND

1

defendants.

2

On January 2, 2019, the Court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims except her Title

3

VIII Fair Housing Act claim. Because some of the dismissed claims might be saved by

4

further amendment, the Court gave plaintiff until February 5, 2019, to “file a motion to

5

amend and attach a proposed third amended complaint for the Court’s consideration” if

6

she believed she could, consistent with her obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, amend

7

her complaint for a fourth time to remedy the identified pleading and legal deficiencies.

8

Dkt. # 73 at 11; Dkt. # 79 at 1.

9

On February 5th, plaintiff timely filed a “Proposed Third Amended Complaint”

10

with a footer and docket entry indicating that the document was a motion. The

11

motion/proposed pleading was noted on the Court’s calendar for consideration on the

12

third Friday after filing. Dkt. # 80. Defendants’ procedural objections to the fact that

13

plaintiff did not file a separate motion and proposed pleading are overruled.

14
15

Having reviewed plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint and the
defendants’ responses thereto, the Court finds as follows:

16
17

The proposed pleading contains claims under Section 1983 (for violations of the

18

Fourteenth Amendment), Section 1985, Title VIII Fair Housing Act, antitrust laws, and

19

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claim was

20

adequately pled in the Second Amended Complaint and need not be restated in an

21

amended pleading. Plaintiff’s proposed Section 1983 and antitrust claims are futile,

22

however, in that they would be subject to immediate dismissal for the reasons stated in

23

the Order Regarding Pending Motions (Dkt. # 73). With regards to the newly-asserted

24

Section 1985 claim, plaintiff was not invited to add any new claims when the Court

25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND

-2-

1

extended the time in which she could seek to amend her complaint. She has not shown

2

why she delayed so long in asserting a claim under Section 1985 when her previously-

3

asserted state law conspiracy claim was part of the lawsuit from the beginning. In

4

addition, her allegations of an agreement among the co-conspirators are conclusory and

5

in some ways belied by her other allegations.

6

Finally, with regards to the Title VI claim, plaintiff seeks to add allegations of

7

financial assistance in the form of the City of Seattle’s Multi-Family Tax Exemption

8

housing program and references to a Department of Justice guidance document. These

9

additions are insufficient to raise a plausible claim for relief under Title VI. The

10

financial benefits are, as plaintiff acknowledges, coming from the City of Seattle, rather

11

than the federal government. In addition, the guidance document plaintiff attached to her

12

proposed pleading clearly states that “[t]ypical tax benefits, tax exemptions, tax

13

deductions, and most tax credits are not considered federal financial assistance” for

14

purposes of Title VI. Dkt. # 80-2 at 7.

15
16

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her

17

complaint (Dkt. # 80) is DENIED. The Fair Housing Act claim set forth in the Second

18

Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 52) against defendants Security Properties Residential,

19

LLC, Amy Simpson, American Utility Management, Inc., and Jennifer Spagnola is the

20

only claim remaining in this litigation.

21
22

Dated this 26th day of March, 2019.

A

23

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND

-3-