Tinsley v. KCM Brentwood, LLC

Background

Scott Tinsley, a developmentally disabled adult receiving Social Security benefits, alleged that a regional center had been receiving his Social Security check and paying his bills, including rent. Because of an administrative hold, the regional center stopped sending rent payments. Tinsley alleged that he did not know about the lapse, that regional-center staff did not notify him, and that KCM Brentwood, his landlord, did not notify him before commencing eviction proceedings.

Tinsley alleged that KCM Brentwood knew about his disability and that the regional center handled his rent because he was not capable of managing his finances. He claimed that KCM Brentwood should have given him notice and an opportunity to cure the missed payments. He sued KCM Brentwood and attorney Todd Brisco. His third amended complaint asserted claims under Section 1692e(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tinsley represented himself.

The court had previously dismissed a due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without leave to amend and allowed amendment of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. After further amendments, the defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim

Section 1692e(5) prohibits a threat to take action that cannot legally be taken or is not intended to be taken. Tinsley alleged that the defendants could not lawfully threaten eviction without first taking additional steps, such as notifying him that the third party handling his rent payments had stopped sending them.

The court held that commencing eviction proceedings did not amount to threatened action that could not legally be taken under Section 1692e(5). It cited decisions holding that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim cannot be based on filing and prosecuting an unlawful detainer action. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to this claim and dismissed it without leave to amend because Tinsley had received multiple opportunities to amend and had not cured the deficiencies identified in an earlier order. The court did not reach the defendants’ additional argument concerning whether they were debt collectors.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation. The court limited its analysis to whether Tinsley was denied a public accommodation because of his disability. The defendants did not dispute that Tinsley was disabled or that KCM Brentwood was a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. The court did not decide the defendants’ separate argument concerning Brisco.

Tinsley alleged that the defendants should have given him additional notice, including knocking on his door and verbally notifying him about the missed rent payments, and should not have proceeded with the eviction. The court concluded that the claim failed because Tinsley did not allege that he requested a reasonable accommodation, communicated his reliance on the regional center to restore the payments, or asked KCM Brentwood for an accommodation that it denied. The court also held that he had not alleged that the defendants’ conduct occurred because of his disability. The court stated that it might have been helpful for KCM Brentwood to do more given Tinsley’s limitations, but that the allegations did not state an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim without leave to amend, citing Tinsley’s multiple opportunities to amend.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The third amended complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment consistent with the order and close the case.