Chen v. Commodore Mgmt.

1

BING CHEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMODORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. TJS-23-1838

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 10, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy J. Sullivan Chief United States Magistrate Judge

This case is assigned to me for all proceedings by the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 21. Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) filed by Defendants Commodore Management Company, Inc. (“Commodore”) and Woodmont Park, Inc. ECF No. 31. Having considered the parties' submissions (ECF Nos. 31, 34, & 35), I find that a hearing is unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Bing Chen and Jie Chen (“Plaintiffs”) are self-represented.^[1] They filed this case to recover damages for alleged racial discrimination in housing. In response to Plaintiffs' initial Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process (ECF No 22). The Court construed Defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion to quash service, and ordered Plaintiffs to effect service on Defendants in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and Md. Rule 2 124. ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint^[2] (ECF No. 28), to which Defendants responded with the pending Motion (ECF No. 31). Defendants' Motion is ripe for decision.

II. Factual Allegations

The following allegations are accepted as true for the purpose of considering the Motion. Commodore is the landlord of the Woodmont Park Apartments (“WPA”) in Rockville, Maryland. ECF No. 28 ¶ 2. Woodmont Park, Inc. owns WPA. Id. Plaintiffs immigrated to the United States from China in May 2014. Id. ¶ 5. In September 2014, Plaintiffs signed a lease with Commodore to rent Apartment Number 1819 in the WPA. Plaintiffs lived in Apartment Number 1819 from October 2014 until April 2023. Id.

Plaintiffs allege an array of purportedly discriminatory actions taken against them by Defendants. Starting from the beginning, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not give them a copy of the Landlord-Tenant Handbook, which they allege must be provided to tenants under the law of Montgomery County, Maryland. Id. ¶ 6.

In early 2016, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants repair the vanity in the bathroom of their apartment because it was rusted and contained a leaky water pipe. Id. ¶ 7. Defendants made the requested repair but then charged Plaintiffs $225.00 for it. Id. Plaintiffs allege that they “complained to Housing and Community Affairs, and they advised [Plaintiffs] to prosecute [Defendants].” Id.

In December 2017, Plaintiffs made an unspecified error on their rent check. Id. ¶ 8. Defendants then insisted that Plaintiffs pay their rent with money orders, and then sued Plaintiffs. Id. According to Plaintiffs, the substance of the lawsuit was to seek payment from Plaintiffs for the vanity repair for and “requesting to pay the rent with money order.” Id. Plaintiffs state that the court “rejected” the lawsuit. Id.

In the following years, Plaintiffs' apartment required other repairs, including a broken refrigerator, garbage disposal, and lamp. Id. ¶ 9. Sometimes, Defendants promptly made the repairs that Plaintiffs requested (as they did for the refrigerator, garbage disposal, and lamp). But at other times, Defendants came to inspect the reported problems but did not make the requested repairs. Id. Plaintiffs assume that Defendants' failure to make all requested repairs was “revenge” for Plaintiffs' having complained about Defendants in 2016. Id.

In early 2021, Plaintiffs' apartment was “broken in many places.” Id. ¶ 10. The bathroom door was broken, one of the bedroom doors wouldn't properly close, several window shutters were damaged, a cabinet would not close, and there were cracks in the kitchen wall and bathroom floor. Id. Plaintiffs asked Defendants to make repairs but Defendants declined to do so. Id. During the same time, Plaintiffs' apartment became infested with cockroaches. Id. ¶ 11. Defendants continued with their “uniform and routine extermination,” but otherwise did not specially treat Plaintiffs' apartment. Id. Plaintiffs spent their own money on pest repellants. Id.

At some point, Plaintiffs asked to move to a different apartment. Id. ¶ 12. At Defendants' request, Plaintiffs submitted an application and paid a $15.00 application fee. Id. But when Defendants inspected Plaintiffs' current apartment, a staff member “pointed out that there were pictures posted and drawn on the wall by [Plaintiffs'] children.” Id. Defendants cancelled the transfer application and refunded Plaintiffs' application fee. Id.

In protest of Defendants' conduct-including the cancellation of Plaintiffs' transfer application and the failure to properly treat the insect problem-Plaintiffs stopped paying rent. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs “chose not to pay rent between March and July 2022 in protest.” Id. After Defendants “repaired the main problems in the room” in July 2022, Plaintiffs again started paying rent (from August 2022 until April 2023). Id. Plaintiffs do not allege that they established a rent escrow account or that they paid the back-rent for March through July 2022.

Defendants filed several lawsuits against Plaintiffs for nonpayment of rent: in July 2022 (for nonpayment of rent due in March through July 2022); in September 2022 (for nonpayment of rent due in August through October 2022); in December 2022 (for nonpayment of rent due in November and December 2022); and in March 2023 (for nonpayment of rent due in January and February 2023). Id. ¶¶ 14-20. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were only partially successful in some of these suits, that the landlord-tenant court failed to follow proper procedures, and that Plaintiffs did not always receive timely notice of court hearings. Id.

In March 2023, Plaintiffs learned that a court had issued an “Eviction Order.” Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiffs allege that they were not notified of the hearing and that “no Eviction order was served.” Id. When Plaintiffs offered to provide the court with proof of their payment of rent for August through October 2022, the court notified them that they would be “subject to sanctions if representations are incorrect.” Id. ¶ 19 (text converted to title case).

Defendants served Plaintiffs with a “Notice to Quit and Vacate” on March 27, 2023. Id. ¶ 21. The notice provided that Plaintiffs could be subject to eviction by the Sheriff's Department before the termination date of May 31, 2023. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this notice was unlawful. Id.

On April 18, 2023, Defendants notified their tenants that “they wanted pest control services and required prior preparation.” Id. ¶ 22. Because Plaintiffs' apartment was not properly prepared, Defendants issued them a $50.00 fine. Id.. Plaintiffs allege that no other tenants were fined (but they do not allege that any other tenants were in violation of Defendants' pest control preparation requirements). Id.

Plaintiffs moved out of their WPA apartment at the end of April 2023. Id. ¶ 21. Soon thereafter, Defendants filed another lawsuit (this time for nonpayment of rent due in March and April 2023). Id. ¶ 23. Defendants apparently voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, but Plaintiffs did not learn of the dismissal until they appeared in court. Id.

Plaintiffs allege that “[r]acial discrimination in the United States is deeply rooted,” and that Chinese people have been the subject of discrimination in the United States from the 19th century through the present. Id. They allege that Defendants discriminated against them because Plaintiffs are “new immigrants from China” who are not fluent in English and “because of the kids.” Id. ¶ 29. They allege that they have been harmed by Defendants' discriminatory conduct and seek $16.8 million in damages. Id. ¶ 33.

Plaintiffs summarize Defendants' illegal conduct: Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with the landlord-tenant handbook; Defendants asked Plaintiffs to pay $225.00 for a vanity replacement; Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay rent through money orders; Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for filing a fair housing complaint; Defendants failed to maintain or repair Plaintiffs' apartment, even after Plaintiffs notified Defendants about broken appliances and fixtures; Defendants did not timely respond to Plaintiffs' requests for the extermination of cockroaches and rodents; Defendants cancelled Plaintiffs' transfer application because Plaintiffs' children had posted pictures and drawn on the wall of Plaintiffs' apartment; Defendants brought “[f]ive false prosecutions in one case” against Plaintiffs, which sought an amount in excess of the disputed rent; Defendants committed perjury, obstructed justice, and may have committed a criminal offense; Defendants deliberately failed to serve Plaintiffs with notice of an eviction order hearing and “us[ed] false information to deceive the court about the order”; Defendants sought to depose Plaintiffs without allowing Plaintiffs to make “psychological preparations,” resulting in the humiliation of Plaintiffs and their children; Defendants filed “false lawsuits”; Defendants dismissed a lawsuit without notice; Defendants illegally threatened Plaintiffs with eviction; Defendants filed and withdrew a lawsuit “many times”; and Defendants imposed a $50.00 fine against Plaintiffs for being unprepared for a pest clean-out. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiffs characterize Defendants' actions as “obviously intentional and illegal” racial discrimination. Id.

III. Discussion

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted and because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 31-1.

...