Rothschild v. Gildred

Background

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Stephanie Ann Gildred and Lorton Management Corporation. Rothschild alleged that he lived with Gildred for approximately ten years in an apartment at 128 Lorton Avenue and had a signed lease. He alleged that he invested more than $2 million in remodeling the property without reimbursement. He also alleged that the property had rats and vermin and was dirty and sometimes uninhabitable.

Rothschild further alleged that construction of a neighboring five-story parking garage caused dust, noise, and health-related harms. He claimed that the defendants failed to address the construction-related nuisance and neglected conditions at the apartment. His First Amended Complaint asserted claims for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, strict liability, negligence, and negligence per se, which is a negligence theory based on violating a statute, ordinance, or regulation.

Other Motions

The court granted in part and denied in part Rothschild’s administrative motion concerning late filings and a proposed fourth amended complaint. The court granted the motion to the extent Rothschild asked it to consider two late-filed reply briefs. The court denied the motion to the extent he sought permission to file a fourth amended complaint because he had not yet filed a second or third amended complaint in this case.

The court took judicial notice of the existence of filings in an Arizona state-court action and of Lorton Management’s business-entity profile on the California Secretary of State’s website.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Rothschild’s claims were based on state law, the court explained that federal jurisdiction depended on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.

The court found that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied because Rothschild alleged more than $2 million in remodeling investments and requested $5 million in damages. Rothschild alleged that he was domiciled in Florida and that Gildred was domiciled in Washington. Although the complaint did not allege Lorton Management’s state of incorporation or principal place of business, the court took judicial notice of the company’s state business profile, which showed that it was incorporated in California and had a principal address in California. The court therefore found complete diversity and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

The defendants also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plead enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. The court granted this motion as to all four claims, but allowed Rothschild to amend.

Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

The court explained that the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment protects a tenant from a landlord’s acts or omissions that substantially interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the leased premises. Rothschild alleged that the defendants breached this covenant through noise, odor, and pollution from the neighboring construction site. But he did not allege that the defendants owned or controlled that neighboring site. Their alleged indifference to the neighboring construction therefore did not establish a breach of the covenant between Rothschild and his landlords.

The court found more potential support in Rothschild’s allegations that the defendants neglected the apartment, causing it to be dirty and sometimes uninhabitable and creating a rodent problem. However, Rothschild alleged too few facts to show that this interference was substantial rather than a minor inconvenience. The court dismissed this claim.

Strict Liability

Rothschild appeared to base his strict-liability claim on the defendants’ alleged failure to address the rodent problem. The court explained that strict liability for an activity generally requires an ultrahazardous activity—one involving a serious risk of harm that cannot be eliminated through the greatest care and that is not a matter of common use. Rothschild did not allege facts showing that the defendants’ failure to address rodents met that standard. The court dismissed this claim.

Negligence

To plead negligence, Rothschild needed to allege a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and harm caused by the breach. The court noted that landlords have a duty to use ordinary care or skill in managing their property, but Rothschild did not clearly identify the duty on which he relied. Even assuming he relied on a landlord’s duty to use reasonable care, he did not explain how the defendants breached that duty or how the breach harmed him. The court dismissed the negligence claim.

Negligence Per Se

For negligence per se, Rothschild needed to identify a violated statute, ordinance, or regulation and allege that the violation caused the type of harm the law was designed to prevent to a person in the protected class. He identified no statute, ordinance, or regulation that the defendants allegedly violated. The court dismissed this claim as well.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Rothschild was given leave to file a second amended complaint by March 25, 2025. The court denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice because Rothschild was proceeding without a lawyer and the court determined that he should be allowed another opportunity to amend.