Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al.

Summary

The court ruled on renewed motions to dismiss Fair Housing Act claims brought by a pro se plaintiff against a real estate brokerage, property owner, and landlord entity. It dismissed with prejudice the disparate-impact racial discrimination claim against Coldwell Banker, while allowing the plaintiff’s racial discrimination, disability-accommodation, and retaliation claims against the Landlord Defendants to proceed.

Holdings

1. Hobbs failed to plausibly plead a causal connection between Coldwell Banker's alleged practice and a disparate impact on a protected class. The disparate-impact claim against Coldwell Banker was dismissed with prejudice.
2. Hobbs plausibly pleaded a failure-to-accommodate claim based on his request for expedited rodent remediation, but not based on requests for new security installations or reprieve from eviction enforcement. The claim survived dismissal because the allegations permitted an inference that his disability made him unable to clean the infestation and therefore made expedited remediation necessary.
3. Hobbs plausibly pleaded retaliation by alleging that he engaged in protected activity by complaining of discrimination and filing lawsuits, suffered adverse conduct, and experienced that conduct after and because of the protected activity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hobbs plausibly pleaded a Fair Housing Act disparate-impact claim against Coldwell Banker based on an alleged practice of concealing affordable-housing requirements and charging above-cap rents.
2. Whether Hobbs plausibly pleaded a Fair Housing Act failure-to-accommodate claim against the Landlord Defendants based on requests for security installations, expedited rodent remediation, and reprieve from eviction enforcement.
3. Whether Hobbs plausibly pleaded a Fair Housing Act retaliation claim by alleging protected complaints and lawsuits followed by adverse conduct.

Disposition

other