Gadson v. Riverbay Corporation

Background

Gregory Austin Gadson, representing himself, filed this federal action against Riverbay Corporation. The court treated his filings as a complaint filed by Gadson in federal court, rather than as a proper attempt by a state-court defendant to remove a case to federal court. Gadson had lived in the apartment at issue for more than 28 years. He alleged that Riverbay had been his landlord, that he had succeeded to his mother’s tenancy and shareholder interest, and that Riverbay refused to renew his lease and did not provide a properly certified stock certificate.

Riverbay had previously obtained a January 13, 2025 judgment in Housing Court granting it possession of the apartment and directing that an eviction warrant issue. Gadson made several later requests in Housing Court to delay the eviction. He began this federal action on June 20, 2025 and filed what he described as a notice of removal on August 19, 2025. The court held that removal was ineffective because the Housing Court case had already reached final judgment before Gadson attempted to remove it. Later efforts to delay enforcement did not make that case pending and removable. The federal court therefore had no jurisdiction over any part of the Housing Court litigation.

Claims and Requested Relief

Gadson alleged housing discrimination based on familial status and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, a federal law prohibiting specified housing discrimination and interference with protected rights. He also asserted state-law claims. He sought declarations, an order requiring Riverbay to preserve his tenancy and renew his lease, an order requiring Riverbay to issue a certified stock certificate, damages, and other relief.

Gadson also sought a temporary restraining order and other immediate injunctive relief to prevent Riverbay and the New York City Marshal from evicting him and his minor daughter. The court construed some filings as asserting claims on behalf of the daughter. Because Gadson was not shown to be a lawyer, the court held that he could not represent his daughter in federal court without counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed without prejudice all claims Gadson asserted on behalf of his minor daughter. “Without prejudice” means those claims were not barred from being brought again in a legally permitted manner.

As to Gadson’s own claims, the court dismissed the Fair Housing Act familial-status discrimination claims for failure to state a claim. It found that Gadson did not allege facts suggesting Riverbay’s actions were motivated by his familial status; instead, his allegations indicated that Riverbay acted because of alleged unpaid rent. The court also dismissed Gadson’s Fair Housing Act retaliation claims for failure to state a claim because he did not allege that he engaged in protected activity opposing Fair Housing Act discrimination, that Riverbay knew about such activity, or that retaliation motivated Riverbay’s actions.

The court denied all of Gadson’s latest requests for immediate injunctive relief, including his temporary restraining order motion. The denial was without prejudice to seeking such relief in connection with a second amended complaint that adequately alleges discrimination or retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. The court found that Gadson had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting immediate relief.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Gadson 30 days to file a second amended complaint. The amendment may include facts supporting Fair Housing Act claims and state-law claims asserted by Gadson on his own behalf under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear related state-law claims connected to federal claims.

The order states that if Gadson does not file a second amended complaint within the allowed time, the court will direct the Clerk to enter a judgment dismissing the action. That judgment would dismiss the daughter’s claims without prejudice, dismiss Gadson’s own Fair Housing Act claims for failure to state a claim, and decline supplemental jurisdiction over Gadson’s state-law claims. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the temporary restraining order motion and to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.