Livingstone v. Haddon Point Manager LLC

LIVINGSTONE, Plaintiff, v. HADDON POINT MANAGER LLC, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 19-13412 (RBK/AMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

December 7, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

KUGLER, United States District Judge:

Presently before this Court are Plaintiff Michael O. Livingstone's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 46), Motion to Refer Defendants for Criminal Prosecution (Doc. No. 50), and Cross-Motion to Impose Sanctions Against Defendants (Doc. No. 52). Also before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Impose Sanctions Against Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 11 (Doc. No. 49). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED in part, but his Motion to Refer Defendants for Criminal Prosecution and Sanctions are DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions are also DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Livingstone ("Mr. Livingstone") is a full-time graduate student at Keller Graduate School of Management of DeVry University and former tenant of the Haddon Point Apartments. (Doc. No. 46-3, Pro. Am. Compl. at ¶ 149).

Defendants are various persons and entities associated with Plaintiff's housing complex, Haddon Point Apartments. The associates are Haddon Point Manager, LLC, the landlord of Haddon Apartments, Haddon Point Urban Renewal, LLC, the owner of Haddon Point Apartments, Delco Development, LLC, a business entity owner of Haddon Point Apartments, Tom Juliano, the Chief Executive Officer of Delco Development, LLC, Weisshoff & Richards, LLC, the law firm and debt collector of Haddon Point Apartments, Nina Beacher, the Director of Residential Development of Haddon Point Apartments, Travis J. Richards, an attorney at Weisshoff & Rirchards, LLC, and Nicolas G. Rothsides, an attorney and alleged debt collect for Haddon Point Manager, LLC. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. at ¶ 2-9).

The original dispute between the parties was grounded in a failure to pay rent and a subsequent eviction action but has now devolved into protracted federal litigation. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts of this case, only those facts relevant to this discussion will be recited.

A. Factual Background

Mr. Livingstone rented a one-bedroom apartment at Haddon Point Apartments in December of 2018. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. at ¶ 3). During the application process, he informed Defendant Beacher that he would be using his federal student financial aid award refunds to pay for the rent. (Id. at ¶ 7). Beacher accepted this form of income, approved Plaintiff's application, and signed Plaintiff's lease as the lessor on behalf of Haddon Point Manager, LLC. (Id. at ¶ 11-14; Exhibit A). Mr. Livingstone paid the first month's rent on time; not the second- or third-month's rent, however. (Id. at ¶ 21). Mr. Livingstone's late rental payments were allegedly caused by DeVry University's delayed disbursement of federal student financial aid. (Id. at ¶ 22, ¶ 28). As a result of Plaintiff's failure to pay rent on time, Defendants filed an eviction action against him in state court and charged him late fees. (Id. at ¶ 39). This action was eventually dismissed infavor of Mr. Livingstone because Defendant Beacher did not appear at the hearing. (Id. at ¶ 49-52).

Following dismissal, Plaintiff noticed that the late rent fees for February and March 2019 remained on his ledger as a collectable balance. (Id. at ¶ 53). In response, Plaintiff emailed Defendant requesting the fees be removed "consistent with the Court's dismissal of the eviction action." (Id. at ¶ 54). Likewise, Plaintiff filed a motion in the Landlord-Tenant court requesting an addendum to the lease and to hold Defendants in contempt for disobeying dismissal of the first eviction by continuing to seek payment of the late fees. (Id. at ¶ 57). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion because he failed to appear. (Id. at ¶ 58).

Plaintiff paid the May 2019 rent and the April 2019 water bill on May 16, 2019 and notified Beacher of his payment. (Id. at ¶ 59). On May 27, 2019, Plaintiff received a second collection letter from Travis J. Richards, with the same language as the first, seeking to collect a debt of $2,998.02, including rent for May 2019 and attorney's fees. (Id. at ¶ 60). That same day, Plaintiff also received the second eviction complaint dated May 20, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 61). The second eviction complaint listed the total debt owed and then itemized it:

There is due, unpaid and owing from tenant(s) to landlord(s) $2998.02 for rent and additional rent . . . Prev. legal $754.00, May rent $1520.00, Feb., Mar., and May Late fees @ $152.00=$456.00, April water bill $14.02, ct costs $54, atty's fees $200.00.

(Id. at ¶ 62; Exhibit C). The second eviction proceeding was scheduled for June 6, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 64).

One day prior to the second eviction proceeding, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against Defendants alleging, inter alia, causes of action under the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defamation, fraud, and unlawful retaliation. (Id. at ¶ 75-209). During the second eviction proceeding, the Court agreed, and Defendant conceded, that the first eviction proceedingresulted in a ruling for Plaintiff. (Doc. No.46-3, Pro. Am. Compl. at ¶ 84-85). This resulted in Plaintiff only owning one late fee—for May 2019:

The Court: I think really probably Mr. Izzo carries the day here, persuades. the Court, that really what is at issue here is one late fee. The late fee would be obviated if you'd just pay it on time, okay?

(Doc. No. 46-13, Exhibit P at 15). In total, Plaintiff paid $406 (comprised of $200 attorney fee, $54 in court costs, and $152 for May's late fee) after the June 6 eviction proceeding. (Doc. No.46-3, Pro. Am. Compl. at ¶ 96).

Again, following dismissal, Plaintiff noticed that $1,000 in legal fees remained on Plaintiff's ledger as a collectable balance. (Id. at ¶ 98). In response, Plaintiff filed a motion in state court to hold Defendant in contempt for disobeying the second eviction proceeding order. (Id. at ¶ 99). During the state court proceeding, the Court advised Defendant that it could file a motion to collect the $1,000 in attorney fees from Plaintiff and it would hear the motion. (Id. at ¶ 104). A day later, Defendant filed a third eviction complaint which stated:

There is due, unpaid and owing from tenant(s) to landlord(s) $1938.77 for rent and additional rent . . . July rent $1520.00, late fee $152.00, July w/s 13.77, ct costs $53.00, atty's fee $200.

(Id. at ¶ 106; Exhibit M). Plaintiff then received the third collection letter, dated July 19, requesting payment of $1,938.77 for rent and notifying him that he had 30 days to dispute the debt. (Id. at ¶ 108). On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff paid $1,533.77 of the $1,938.77 requested; Plaintiff did not pay the $405 in additional rent [i.e., the late rent fee of $152, attorney's fees of $200, and court costs of $53]. (Id. at ¶ 107, 112, 114).

Through email, on July 31, 2019, Plaintiff disputed the debt requested—specifically the $13.77 water bill—in the third collection letter. (Id. at ¶ 109). On August 15, 2019, the state court heard arguments on the third eviction complaint and required Plaintiff to pay $405 by end of thatday. (Id. at ¶ 116). Plaintiff could not make the payment and thus requested an extension of time from Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 117-118). It was denied and the Court entered a judgment of possession against Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 118-119). Defendants then applied for a Warrant of Removal, which was posted to Plaintiff's front door apartment on August 22, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 120). Four days later, Plaintiff paid the $405 and moved for post-judgment relief requesting an order to vacate the judgment of possession and warrant of removal. (Id. at ¶ 121). It was denied. (Id. at ¶ 131).

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergent relief in the state appellate court to stay the pending eviction. (Id. at ¶ 134). This motion too was eventually denied. (Id. at ¶ 145). Plaintiff appealed this order to the New Jersey Supreme Court but it was also denied. (Id. at ¶ 147). On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff vacated his apartment at Haddon Point. (Id. at ¶ 149).

In February of 2020, this Court ruled on the Defendants' motions to dismiss and granted them in part. (Doc. No. 41). We held that save for Plaintiff's claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., against Defendants Travis J. Richards and Weisshoff & Richards, LLC, his other claims would be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). We further ordered that Plaintiff may file a motion to amend his complaint, but any proposed amended complaint must be consistent with the opinion. (Id.).

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the complaint. He alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, the Tenant Anti-Reprisal Act, N. J. S. A. § 46:8-21.1, and the New Jersey and federal Constitution. (Doc. No. 46). Defendants oppose this motion. (Doc. No. 47).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely grant leave whenjustice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Third Circuit has shown a strong liberality in allowing amendments under Rule 15 to ensure that claims will be decided on the merits rather than on mere technicalities. Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). Thus, motions for "leave to amend must generally be granted unless equitable considerations render it otherwise unjust." Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir.2006) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

"Among the factors that may justify denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, and futility." Arthur, 434 F.3d at 204; see also Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 ("In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of...