Currin v. Glenwood Management Corp.

Background

Charlie Currin filed this case against Glenwood Management Corp. and various Glenwood personnel. He alleges that his apartment does not adequately accommodate his disabilities and that Glenwood should move him to a two-bedroom apartment. He seeks an order requiring that move and $1 billion for pain and suffering.

The opinion states that this is Currin’s sixth lawsuit in the court against Glenwood concerning the same general issue. His first lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. Four later lawsuits were resolved through a global settlement agreement that Currin signed on March 31, 2023, and those cases were also dismissed with prejudice. At a February 22, 2024 pre-motion conference, the parties confirmed that Glenwood had performed its settlement obligations, including moving Currin to an upgraded one-bedroom apartment in another building and making a monetary settlement payment.

Currin filed the current case without a lawyer in state court on December 11, 2023. Glenwood removed it to federal court on January 10, 2024. Currin later mentioned alleged attacks and stalking by Glenwood personnel, but the court noted that the complaint did not refer to those allegations and that his later descriptions were conclusory.

Pending Motion and Briefing

Glenwood filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint adequately states a legal claim. Glenwood argued that the 2023 settlement agreement released claims against Glenwood and its personnel for conduct occurring before the release, including the two-bedroom-apartment claim and possible claims concerning alleged misconduct in 2022. Glenwood also argued that claim preclusion—meaning that a final judgment generally prevents the same parties from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised earlier—barred Currin’s current lawsuit. Glenwood additionally raised the statute of limitations and asked the court to restrict future duplicative, vexatious, and harassing lawsuits.

Currin missed the original deadline to oppose the motion. The court first extended the deadline through April 12, 2024, and warned that the motion would be treated as unopposed if he did not respond. Currin stated that he would remain without a lawyer, but he did not file opposition papers. The court then considered the motion unopposed. Currin later requested more time, and Glenwood did not oppose that request.

Ruling

Because Currin was proceeding without a lawyer and it was unclear whether his April 17 letter was intended as his substantive response, the court granted an additional two-week extension, through May 1, 2024, for him to file opposition papers. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted absent compelling circumstances and set Glenwood’s reply deadline for May 8, 2024.

The order did not grant or deny Glenwood’s motion to dismiss. It also notified the parties that the court intended to take judicial notice—formally recognize the existence and contents—of the 2023 settlement agreement, while allowing either side to address that issue in later briefing.