Farr v. Daling

684 F.Supp.3d 1322

Farrah M. FARR, Phillip Brown,and Kristof & Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Kommerina DALING, John O'Sullivan, Sarah Wilson-Britt,in her individual and official capacity, Matt Tate,in her individual and official capacity,the City of Gainesville, Georgia, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE No. 2:22-CV-00133-SCJ

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Gainesville Division

Signed February 14, 2023

Brian David Stoltz, David L. Pardue, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Adam Klein, 770GoodLaw, H.Q. (Alex) Nguyen Law Firm, LLC, Norcross, GA, Kristine Murry Snyder, Downey & Cleveland, LLP, Marietta, GA, Nicolas Bohorquez, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Vera J. Starks, Fain, Major & Brennan, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Kommerina Daling.

Adam Klein, 770GoodLaw, H.Q. (Alex) Nguyen Law Firm, LLC, Norcross, GA, Nicolas Bohorquez, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Vera J. Starks, Fain, Major & Brennan, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant John O'Sullivan.

Dana Kristin Maine, Nicolas Bohorquez, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Sarah Wilson-Britt, Matt Tate, The City of Gainesville, Georgia.

ORDER

STEVE C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter appears before the Court on Defendants Sarah Wilson-Britt's, Matt Tate's, and the City of Gainesville, Georgia's ("Motion Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. No. [17].¹ And Motion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Doc. No. [26]. To which, Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. No. [34]), and the Motion Defendants replied in support (Doc. No. [36]). This Motion is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court derives the following statement of facts from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Doc. No. [21]. Plaintiff Dr. Brown owns the property located at 725 Mountain View Circle, Gainesville, Georgia 30501 (the "Property"). Doc. No. [21], ¶ 12. Dr. Brown has owned the Property since 2021. Id. ¶ 13. Dr. Brown and Plaintiff Ms. Farr are engaged. Id. ¶ 14. Ms. Farr, through Plaintiff Kristof & Co., rents the Property using third-party rental websites such as Airbnb and VRBO. Id. ¶ 15.

Ms. Daling and Mr. O'Sullivan own the house next door to the Property. Id. ¶ 19. Ms. Daling and Mr. O'Sullivan also rent their property to third parties. Id.

In May 2019, Ms. Farr spoke with Mr. Tate, the City of Gainesville's Community Economic Development Deputy, regarding whether it is legal to rent the Property. Id. ¶¶ 29; 16. Mr. Tate told Ms. Farr that it was legal to rent the Property and that there were no restrictions on the length of the rental. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiffs subsequently rented out the Property.

On July 11, 2020, Ms. Farr was near the pool at the Property. Id. ¶ 20. Unbeknownst to her, Mr. O'Sullivan was observing her. Id. Ms. Farr then went inside the Property to take a shower. Id. ¶ 21. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Farr observed a man pressed against the window while she was completely undressed. Id. ¶ 23. The Property's Ring Security Camera ("Ring Camera") recorded Mr. O'Sullivan walking to the Property's front door and then toward the side of the house. Id. Then, Mr. O'Sullivan was captured on the back deck as he peered into the window. Id. ¶ 22. Following that incident, Ms. Farr has not returned to the Property for fear for her safety. Id. ¶ 26. On July 16, 2020, Dr. Brown told Mr. O'Sullivan never to enter his property or peer into the windows again. Id. ¶ 27.

After the incident, Mr. O'Sullivan emailed Mr. Tate stating that "there was a 'very big house advertised for weddings, music venues, and parties etc.; amplified music, noise, mid-day fireworks; etc.' " Id. ¶¶ 29; 30. Mr. Tate responded, stating that he "can have code enforcement investigate the matter if you have a specific address." Id. ¶31.

Mr. Tate directed Ms. Wilson-Britt, another City of Gainesville employee, to drive through the Property's driveway multiple times while renters were staying there. Id. ¶ 36. Between July 27, 2020 and July 30, 2020, a City of Gainesville employee drove through the Property's driveway. Id. ¶ 37. As a result of Ms. Daling's behavior and the City of Gainesville employees coming to the Property, the renters left the Property early, and Kristof & Co. lost "a significant amount of money." Id. ¶ 38.

At the end of July 2020, a family rented the Property. Id. ¶ 33. On July 27, 2020 and July 28, 2020, Ms. Daling approached the children renting the Property on two separate occasions. Id. ¶ 34. The renters called to complain to Ms. Farr about the interactions. Id.

In August 2020, a family from New York rented the Property. Id. ¶ 41. Ms. Daling complained that the renters were too loud. Id. Ms. Daling also approached the children at the dock and demanded to know what they were doing there. Id. On September 3, 2021, Ms. Daling got into a verbal fight with renters. Id. ¶ 47.

In addition to the interactions with renters, in July 2020, Ms. Daling or Mr. O'Sullivan made an allegedly false fraud complaint to Expedia.com regarding the Property, and Expedia.com removed the Property from their website. Id. ¶ 40.

Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms. Daling allegedly enlisted their close friends to email Mr. Tate to "falsely represent" that Plaintiffs were using the Property as a venue for events and that fireworks were being shot from the Property. Id. ¶ 44-45.

On July 23, 2021, Dr. Brown listed Property for sale. Id. ¶ 46. On September 20, 2021, Dr. Brown received a verbal cash offer for the Property. Id. ¶¶ 48; 49. On September 23, 2021, Dr. Brown and the Buyer executed a contract to sell the Property. Id. ¶ 49. On October 15, 2021, Ms. Wilson-Britt sent a notice to Dr. Brown stating that the City of Gainesville Code Enforcement would issue a citation if the Property listings were not removed from all rental websites (the "Notice"). Id. ¶ 51. The Notice stated that Lodging Services were not allowed in R-1 zoning districts, and the Property was located in a R-1 zoning district. Id. ¶ 53. Lodging Services are defined in Table 9-6-1 of the City of Gainesville Unified Land Development Code, which is in the nonresidential zoning district section of the Code and reads: "[a] facility offering shelter accommodations, or place for such shelter, to the public for a fee for 15 days or less in one or more rooms within the same facility, with provisions for living, sanitation, and sleeping. Includes hotels and motels." City of Gainesville, Ga., Unified Land Dev. Code § 9-6-1-2, Table 9-6-1 (2022)². As a result, Plaintiffs removed the Property from rental websites. Id. ¶ 65.

After Plaintiffs received the Notice, Plaintiffs informed Buyer of the Notice. Id. ¶ 63. The Buyer decided not to close the sale because it intended to rent the Property. Id. ¶ 64.

On February 4, 2022, the Director of Community and Economic Development for the City of Gainesville provided Plaintiffs' counsel with a letter confirming the City does not prohibit Plaintiffs from listing the Property for rental for fifteen days or more. Id. ¶ 72. Since receiving the letter, Plaintiffs have not successfully sold the Property. Additionally, the City of Gainesville continues to threaten citations and fines if Plaintiffs rent the Property for fifteen days or less. Id. ¶ 160.

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this Action against Defendants. Doc. No. [1]. On August 15, 2022, Motion Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Initial Complaint. Doc. No. [17]. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. Doc. No. [21]. Thus, making the Amended Complaint the operative complaint. On September 27, 2022, Motion Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Complaint"). Doc. No. [26].

Motion Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against them. Doc. No. [26]. Plaintiffs responded in opposition. Doc. No. [34]. Motion Defendants replied in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. [36].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pled do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss"); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-62, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (retiring the prior Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) standard which provided that in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated that although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, it does demand "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. In Twombly, the Supreme Court emphasized that a complaint "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Factual allegations in a complaint need not be detailed but "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (internal citations and emphasis omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint

Motion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint (Doc. No. [17]) is denied as moot. After Motion Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. The Motion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the...