Paul Alpha Grant v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC; Conservice, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC and Conservice, LLC's motions to dismiss claims arising from alleged tenant utility overbilling. The court dismissed the federal RICO claim without leave to amend, struck the newly asserted Fair Housing Act interference claim, and dismissed the Hawaii retaliation claim without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction. The court ordered the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint did not plausibly allege an association-in-fact RICO enterprise because it offered only conclusory allegations of a common purpose and described routine business roles and interactions rather than facts showing a relationship organized for a common fraudulent purpose.
2. The second amended complaint failed to plausibly allege a pattern of racketeering activity by Greystar because it focused on invoices transmitted by Conservice and did not identify acts by Greystar or adequately identify each defendant's role in the alleged fraud.
3. The RICO claim was dismissed without leave to amend because Grant had received multiple opportunities to amend and had not cured the identified pleading deficiencies.
4. The newly asserted interference claim was properly stricken because the court's prior order granted leave to amend only the RICO and retaliation claims, not to add new claims.
5. The § 3617 interference claim failed to state a claim because challenging utility-billing practices did not implicate rights protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3605, or 3606, and the complaint did not allege discrimination based on a protected status.
6. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law retaliation claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and dismissed the retaliation claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint plausibly alleged a civil RICO enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity by the defendants.
2. Whether Grant could assert a new Fair Housing Act interference claim outside the scope of the court's prior orders granting limited leave to amend.
3. Whether the second amended complaint stated a Fair Housing Act interference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Grant's Hawaii statutory retaliation claim after dismissing all claims within the court's original jurisdiction.
5. Whether further leave to amend the RICO claim should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed