Ernesto Varela, et al. v. William Harold Hill, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri reviews Plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3617 and observes that the claim appears barred by the Act’s two-year statute of limitations. The Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause why Count III should not be dismissed as untimely and permits, but does not require, Defendant to respond. The order is limited to the timeliness issue.

Holdings

1. In the Eighth Circuit, a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) after service of process, including on statute-of-limitations grounds, despite the defendant's failure to plead the limitations defense.
2. The court did not finally determine that Count III was time-barred, but concluded that the Complaint appeared to show that the claim was untimely and ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why it should not be dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Count III under the Fair Housing Act appears barred by the Act's two-year statute of limitations when Plaintiffs filed suit nearly five years after the alleged discriminatory housing practice ended.
2. Whether the district court may sua sponte dismiss a time-barred claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and whether Plaintiffs should receive an opportunity to respond before dismissal.

Disposition

other