Doll v. Trellis Walnut Towers LLC

Background

Shannon Doll and Brittney Mandery live on the fourth floor of the nine-story Walnut Towers apartment building. Each plaintiff has a disability that limits or prevents her from using the stairs, so both depend on the building’s single elevator. The complaint alleged seven elevator outages between August 2022 and August 2023. The outages caused various consequences, including canceled medical appointments, assistance carrying Mandery and her medical equipment on the stairs, missed activities, and difficulty leaving or entering the building.

The plaintiffs asserted four claims: disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and unlawful entry into their apartments under Minnesota Statute § 504B.211. They sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Reasons for Dismissal

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court identified two possible non-merits grounds. First, the complaint generally grouped the defendants together without alleging what each one did. The court found that the complaint plausibly connected Trellis Walnut Towers LLC to the building because it alleged that entity owned the building, but it alleged no comparable role or responsibility for the other four defendants. Second, the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion filed by Trellis Walnut Towers LLC and several other defendants did not respond to the arguments supporting dismissal, which the court treated as a waiver problem.

The court nevertheless analyzed the federal claims on their merits. For the Fair Housing Amendments Act claim, the court considered three possible theories: intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. The complaint did not allege facts showing that the elevator failures resulted from intentional disability discrimination. It also did not identify a policy or practice plausibly causing a disproportionate effect on people with disabilities. The complaint identified seven outages over about thirteen months, did not allege that this was unusually frequent, and did not allege that any outage lasted an unreasonably long time.

The court also held that the complaint did not plausibly plead a failure-to-accommodate claim. The plaintiffs alleged that they asked for the elevator to “work consistently” or for the defendants to “otherwise secure access” to their apartments. The court found these requests insufficiently specific because the complaint did not explain how consistent the elevator’s operation needed to be or how alternative access should be provided.

The Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claim failed for the same reasons. The court explained that the same analysis applied to the plaintiffs’ theories of intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and failure to accommodate under that statute.

Amendment and State Claims

The plaintiffs raised the possibility of amending their complaint for the first time at the hearing, if the motions to dismiss were granted. The court denied them an opportunity to seek leave to amend because they had not filed the motion, supporting materials, or proposed amended complaint required by the applicable local rules. The court also said that, without a proposed amended complaint, it could not evaluate whether amendment would be futile.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in the case’s early stage. It dismissed the Minnesota Human Rights Act claim and the Minnesota Statute § 504B.211 claim without prejudice, leaving the plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue those claims in state court.

Order

The court granted Trellis Maintenance, LLC’s motion to dismiss. It also granted the joint motion to dismiss filed by Trellis Management Co., Trellis Walnut Towers Developer LLC, Trellis Walnut Towers GP LLC, and Trellis Walnut Towers LLC. The Fair Housing Amendments Act and Section 504 claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Minnesota Human Rights Act and Minnesota Statute § 504B.211 claims were dismissed without prejudice.