Peterson v. HVM L.L.C., Civ. No. 14-1137 (KM) (JBC)

ANDREA PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. HVM L.L.C., EXTENDED STAY AMERICA (ESA),CENTERBRIDGE PARTNERS LP, PAULSON & COMPANY,AND BLACKSTONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS VI Defendants.

Civ. No. 14-1137 (KM) (JBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

December 27, 2018

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Andrea Peterson, pro se, brought this action against HVM L.L.C. ("HVM"), Extended Stay America ("ESA"), Centerbridge Partners LP ("Centerbridge"), Paulson & Company ("Paulson"), and Blackstone Real Estate Partners VI ("Blackstone"). On motion (DE 32), I dismissed all claims against Centerbridge, Paulson, and Blackstone (the "Investors."), as well as certain other claims against ESA and HVA. (DE 52). Now before the Court is the motion of ESA and HVA (for purposes of this Opinion, the "Defendants") for summary judgment on the remaining counts of the complaint (DE 141), as well as Ms. Peterson's cross motion for a stay. (DE 150).

For the reasons set forth below, I will grant the motion of the Defendants, ESA and HVM, for summary judgment and deny Ms. Peterson's cross motion for a stay.

I. Summary¹

a. Background

i. The Agreement

On or about February 19, 2009, Ms. Peterson entered into the Long Term Lodging Agreement (the "Agreement") with the Defendants, pursuant to which Ms. Peterson became a guest at the Extended Stay of America Secaucus Hotel (the "Hotel"). (DSF ¶ 22). Ms. Peterson and Defendants are in accord that the Agreement is a valid contract. (DSF ¶ 23). The Agreement contains a commencement date of February 18, 2009. (DSF ¶ 24). The terms and construction of the Agreement are discussed at Section III.b.2, infra.

ii. The Lodging Fee

The original Lodging Fee and the original payment period for the Lodging Fee are both unclear; Ms. Peterson redacted that information from the only copy of the Agreement that is before the Court. (DSF ¶ 31). Defendants allege that, since 2009, they have demanded in writing that the Lodging Fee be paid every 30 days. (DSF ¶ 32). Ms. Peterson alleges similarly, though not identically, that the Lodging Fee was to be paid monthly. (DE 150). By 2010, Defendants had already filed at least one lawsuit against Ms. Peterson for failing to pay the Lodging Fee. (DSF ¶ 34).

Defendants assert that they served Notices to Cease and terminated the Agreement, placing Ms. Peterson in holdover status. (See Section III.b.2.b, infra.) On April 1, 2012, pursuant to the holdover provisions of the Agreement, they began charging a Lodging Fee of $33.00 per day, due every 30 days (33 x 30 = $990). (DSF ¶ 35). Ms. Peterson admits that she never paid $33.00 per day for the Lodging Fee after April 1, 2012. (DSF ¶ 36). She asserts that theLodging Fee should have remained at the rate of $900 per month, not the holdover rate of $990 per 30-day period. (DE 150).

iii. Eviction Proceedings

By March of 2012, Ms. Peterson had stayed at the Hotel for over three years. (DSF ¶ 37). In March of 2012, in an effort to start the eviction process, Defendants allege that they sent Ms. Peterson a Notice to Cease. The Notice informed her that she was in arrears in the amount of $174.34. (DSF ¶ 40). It states that the holdover Lodging Fee of $33 per day was thereafter to be paid every 30 days, pursuant to the Agreement. (DSF ¶ 38).

Defendants allege that they sent Ms. Peterson follow-up Notices to Cease on March 29, 2012, April 30, 2012, May 29, 2012, and June 27, 2012. (DSF ¶ 39). Ms. Peterson alleges that she did not receive any of those Notices to Cease. (DE 150-5, 2, ¶1(b)).

Each Notice to Cease states that Ms. Peterson is behind on her rent, states an outstanding balance,² and warns that she may be evicted if she does not pay her rent. (DSF ¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43). Each Notice to Cease also reiterates that, pursuant to the notice sent to Ms. Peterson on February 7, 2012, her Lodging Fee increased to $33 per day as of April 1, 2012. (DSF ¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43). Also, starting March 29, 2012, each Notice to Cease stated that the Lodging Fee of $990 (i.e., $33 x 30) would be due and payable every 30 days. (DSF ¶¶ 41, 42, 43). The Notices to Cease also updated Ms. Peterson on the consecutive number of months her account was past due. (Id.).

A Notice to Cease is a typical business record kept in the ordinary course of business. It is mailed to the address listed on the notice and is delivered directly to the guest by sliding a copy under the door of the room listed on thenotice. (DSF ¶ 45). Ms. Peterson acknowledges that the address on the Notices to Cease, New York P.O. Box 582, New York, NY 10108 (the "New York P.O. Box"), was the address for notices specified in the Agreement, and that it remained her valid mailing address through 2012. (DSF ¶ 44). The room listed on the notice, which Ms. Peterson admits was her residence address, was Room 507 at the Hotel. That room, at One Plaza Drive in Secaucus, New Jersey, is listed on the Notices to Cease dated May 29, 2012 and June 27, 2012. (DSF ¶ 46).

Despite the alleged Notices to Cease, Ms. Peterson continued to pay at the prior rate of $900 per month. (DSF ¶ 47). Ms. Peterson alleges that this was "consideration in full." (DE 150). Although the first Notice to Cease was triggered by accrued arrearages in the original Lodging Fee, the Defendants focus here on the post-Notice to Cease Lodging Fees at the holdover rate. (See DSF ¶ 34-35) ("By 2010, Defendants had already filed at least one lawsuit against Plaintiff for failing to pay the Lodging Fee as required by the Agreement . . . Additionally, regardless of what the Lodging Fee was in 2009, on April 1, 2012 Defendants raised the Lodging Fee to $33 per day, due every 30 days, as they were permitted to do pursuant to the Agreement.")(internal citations omitted).

iv. Landlord-Tenant Actions

On or about June 21, 2012, Defendants initiated a landlord/tenant action against Ms. Peterson in Hudson County (the "June Action") for her "refusal to pay the $33 per day Lodging Fee, her habitually late payments, and her refusal to comply with the four Notices to Cease." (DSF ¶ 48) (citing DE 141-13). The Defendants' statement of facts cites the June 2012 complaint for a then-current arrearage of $483.34. (Id.) (citing 141-13)) The June 2012 complaint itself, however, does not contain that figure, but claims $1,164.34 in base rent through June 30, 2012. (DE 141-13, 3)] The summons attached to the complaint includes a notice stating as follows: "the purpose of the attached complaint is to permanently remove you and your belongings from the premises." (DSF ¶ 49). The affidavit of service reflects that a court officer left itat her hotel room after knocking on the door. (Id.) Ms. Peterson claims she did not receive notice of the June Action. (DSF ¶ 50).

On August 17, 2012, however, Ms. Peterson received a letter from the Hudson County Superior Court at her Hotel room. She admittedly understood that the letter had legal implications. (Id.). Instead of opening the envelope, however, she wrote on the front of the envelope that her correct mailing address was the New York P.O. Box (the same address to which Defendants had sent the notices to cease). (DSF ¶ 51).

On or about August 7, 2012, Defendants filed a second landlord/tenant action against Ms. Peterson (the "August Action"). This complaint alleged that she continued to habitually pay the Lodging Fee late and was $1,563.34 in arrears. (DSF ¶ 52; DE 141-17). The summons for the August Action included a notice stating that eviction was sought: "the purpose of the attached complaint is to permanently remove you and your belongings from the premises." (DSF ¶ 54; a copy of the August summons is not provided, however.). On or about September 4, 2012, Ms. Peterson was served with the copy of the summons and complaint in the August Action. (DSF ¶ 53).

On September 5, 2012, Ms. Peterson performed an online search of New Jersey public records. (She admits that she did so based on the June complaint, but she is not clear about the circumstances under which she received the June complaint or the August one.)³ That online search confirmed that Defendants had filed landlord/tenant actions against her and sought her removal from the Hotel. (DSF ¶ 55). The court clerk for Hudson CountySuperior Court also told Ms. Peterson that Defendants had filed two lawsuits against her because they "want you to leave" the hotel. (DSF ¶56).

Between September 4, 2012 and October 3, 2012, Ms. Peterson did not take any steps to look for alternative housing. (DSF ¶ 57). Ms. Peterson states that she felt that she had met all of her obligations to Defendants and wished to remain because she had a good rate. (DSF ¶ 57).

On October 2, 2012, the landlord-tenant court held a hearing concerning the June and August Actions (the "October Court Hearing"). (DSF ¶ 58). During the October Court Hearing, Ms. Peterson declared that she did not want to be considered a tenant and wanted to be treated as a guest of the Hotel pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. (DSF ¶ 59). In response, the landlord/tenant court vacated a default judgment against Ms. Peterson in the June Action, finding that because no landlord/tenant relationship existed between the parties, there was no jurisdiction to hear the action in landlord/tenant court. (DSF ¶ 60).⁴

When the landlord-tenant court vacated the default judgment in the June action. Defendants voluntarily withdrew the August landlord-tenant Action. (DSF ¶ 61). Ms. Peterson asserts that "when HVM/ESA and its management learned, it management and attorney was in court and heard the judgment vacated, it had no judgment, at no time did it contact me." (sic; DE 150 ¶ 75. See also DE 150 ¶ 100.).

On October 3, 2012, Defendants denied Ms. Peterson access to her room and stated that she would be denied access to the Hotel. (DSF ¶ 62). She was permitted to collect her belongings. Ms. Peterson signed a document acknowledging that she had collected all of her personal items from the Hotel and that no items were missing. (...