Lawrence v. FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC

584 F.Supp.3d 1105

Justin LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.FPA VILLA DEL LAGO, LLC, and Trinity Property Consultants, LLC, Defendants.

Case No. 8:20-cv-1517-VMC-JSS

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Signed February 4, 2022

Amanda J. Allen, William Peerce Howard, The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.

Justin B. Levine, Katherine Eileen Herald, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC.

Justin B. Levine, Katherine Eileen Herald, S. Jonathan Vine, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Trinity Property Consultants, LLC.

ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZK COVINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendants FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC, and Trinity Property Consultants, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 108), filed on June 4, 2021. (Doc. # 108). Plaintiff Justin Lawrence responded on July 1, 2021, and Defendants replied on July 14, 2021. (Doc. # 114; Doc. # 115). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, filed on May 5, 2021. (Doc. # 90). Defendants responded on June 14, 2021, and Plaintiff replied on May 25, 2021. (Doc. # 101; Doc. # 110). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order on February 2, 2022. (Doc. # 142). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot, and the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is denied.

I. Background

FPA Villa Del Lago "owns and operates The Social 2700, a private student housing community in Tallahassee, Florida." (Doc. # 108 at ¶ 2; Doc. # 114 at ¶ 2). Trinity Property manages The Social 2700. (Doc. # 108-5 at ¶ 4). The Social 2700 offers two- and four-bedroom apartments. (Id. at ¶ 7). "Each apartment includes a common area consisting of a kitchen, in-unit washer-dryer and shared living and dining space." (Id. at ¶ 8). "Each individual bedroom is separated from the common areas by a locking door" and includes "a corresponding private bathroom." (Id. at ¶ 9). Although The Social 2700 is marketed entirely to students, "[t]here is no requirement to be an enrolled college or university student ... to live at The Social 2700." (Doc. # 108 at ¶ 5; Doc. # 114 at ¶ 5; Doc. # 108-6; Doc. # 108-7 at 59:6-9).

On April 27, 2019, Lawrence – a student at Tallahassee Community College – signed a lease at The Social 2700. (Doc. # 108-4 at 12; Doc. # 69 at ¶ 37). The lease agreement includes various provisions related to termination of the lease and the use of amenities. (Doc. # 108-4 at 12-20, 32-34). Of note, the lease agreement provides that Lawrence would not be released from his rental payment obligations for voluntarily or involuntarily leaving school, that Lawrence would be obligated to continue to pay all rent if he moved out early and until his apartment was re-leased, and that The Social 2700 maintains the discretion to close its amenities. (Id. at 15-16, 32). Lawrence's lease term was set to run from August 20, 2019, through July 31, 2020. (Id. at 13).

In March 2020, "Lawrence returned home to his mother's apartment in Tampa, Florida, for spring break." (Doc. # 108 at ¶ 25; Doc. # 114 at ¶ 25; Doc. # 108-2 at 70:5-7). Because of the rapid spread of COVID-19, Lawrence then decided that he would not return to The Social 2700. (Doc. # 108 at ¶ 27; Doc. # 114 at ¶ 27; Doc. # 108-2 at 70:7-14). Lawrence concedes, however, that he could have stayed at The Social 2700 if he wished to do so. (Doc. # 108-2 at 69:1-4). At the same time, The Social 2700 began closing amenities and transitioning staff to remote work in light of federal and state health recommendations. (Doc. # 108-7 at 62:13-64:25).

Thereafter, on April 26, 2020, "Lawrence vacated his apartment." (Doc. # 108 at ¶ 30; Doc. # 114 at ¶ 30; Doc. # 69 at ¶ 50). According to Lawrence, on that same date, he attempted to return his keys to The Social 2700, but was unable to do so because the office was closed. (Doc. # 69 at ¶ 50; Doc. # 114-7 at 51:20-3). At a later date, Lawrence mailed back his keys. (Doc. # 69 at ¶ 51; Doc. # 108-13). Despite his lease agreement, Lawrence "did not pay rent for the months of May, June[,] or July 2020." (Doc. # 108-8).

The Social 2700 began contacting Lawrence regarding his rental payments in early May. First, The Social 2700 sent Lawrence a "friendly reminder" e-mail on May 1, 2020, advising Lawrence that his rent was due that day. (Doc. # 108-10). Next, on May 12, 2020 – after Lawrence's debt was past due – The Social 2700 sent him an e-mail stating: "This is a reminder that you have a balance due on your account of $470.12. Please give the office a call to clear off your balance." (Doc. # 108-11). Three days later, on May 15, 2020, the Social 2700 sent Lawrence a statement listing an outstanding balance of $1,793.86. (Doc. # 108-12 at 2). The statement also notes: "We make any and all efforts to avoid sending your account to a collection agency. However, in the event you are unable to make a timely payment, your account will be forwarded to a collection provider and your credit may be adversely affected." (Id. at 3).

On May 19, 2020, The Social 2700 sent Lawrence another e-mail stating:

Hey Justin,

Just wanted to make you aware that we received your keys. Unfortunately, we had been trying to contact you in regards to your balance for the last several weeks and were unable to reach you. We walked the unit and notice that your belongings were gone and you had cleaned out your bedroom.

We went ahead and processed your early termination per the lease contract, and did charge you for not returning your keys. We have already done the close out key process on your account/unit and therefore those charges must remain. We hadn't heard from you via phone or e-mail and did not know you would be mailing the keys back.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, you should have received a Final Statement via email on Friday[.]

Thank you!

Cesar Mendez

(Doc. # 108-13). In addition to these e-mails, Lawrence received a voicemail from The Social 2700 on May 7, 2020:

Hey Justin, this [is] Seth [ ] from the Social 2700. Just wanted to give you a quick call regarding your May rent. We haven't received payment for it yet and I just wanted to find when you would make that payment. Also, wanted to let you know that we are running a renewal special right now that could [waive] your May rent. If you want to hear more about that, give us a call back at 850-296-1906. Let us know when you will be able to make that payment.

(Doc. # 114-4).

Lawrence initiated this putative class action against FPA Multifamily, LLC, on July 2, 2020. (Doc. # 1). Following several motions to dismiss and amendments to the complaint, FPA Multifamily was replaced with FPA Villa Del Lago and Trinity Property. (Doc. ## 10; 14; 28; 60; 63; 65; 69; 74; 109). The operative third amended complaint includes the following claims: rescission against FPA Villa Del Lago (Count I), unjust enrichment against all Defendants (Count II), and violation of Sections 559.72(7) and 559.72(9) of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") against all Defendants (Count III). (Doc. # 69). Lawrence also seeks to certify the following class:

All residents of The Social 2700 Student Spaces who (1) moved out after March 18, 2020, but before the expiration of their lease term, and either (a) paid the costs of rent and fees for the months of March, April, May, June and/or July 2020, or (b) did not pay for these months but were sent debt collection communications from the Defendants.

(Doc. # 90 at 7).

Now, Defendants move for summary judgment. (Doc. # 108). Lawrence has responded (Doc. # 114), and Defendants replied. (Doc. # 115). The Motion is now ripe for review.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute alone is not enough to defeat a properly pled motion for summary judgment; only the existence of a genuine issue of material fact will preclude a grant of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993) ). A fact is material if it may affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the Court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). "When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then ‘go beyond the pleadings,’ and by its own affidavits, or by ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ).

If there is a conflict between the parties’ allegations or evidence, the non-moving party's evidence is presumed to be true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor. Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2003). If a reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference introduces a genuine...