2nd RICO Law Suit Against The City Of Saint Paul

Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 1 of 66
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sandra Harrilal; Bee Vue;
Lamena Vue; Steven R. Johnson,
d/h/a Market Group and Properties,
Plaintiffs, AMENDED
COMPLAINT
vs.
’ Court File No. 05-461
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor JNE/SRN
of City of St. Paul’s Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement; Michael DEMAND FOR
Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement JURY TRIAL
officer of City of St. Paul; Dick Lippert, individually
and as a code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul;
Kelly Booker, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Jack Reardon,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Paula Seeley, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Lisa Martin,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of City
of St. Paul; Dean Koehnen, individually and as a law
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Andy Dawkins
individually and as Director of City of St. Paul’s
Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and as Mayor
of City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually
and in their official capacities as code enforcement
officers of City of St. Paul’s Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement, law enforcement
‘officers or other officials or employees of the City of St.
Paul; individually, jointly and severally; and City of St.
Paul, a municipal corporation, :
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue and Lamena Vue -and Steven R. Johnson d/b/a Market Group
and Properties (hereinafter referred to as “Harrilal, ” “Vues” and “Johnson” and collectively
referred to as “Plaintiffs”), hereby allege and state the following Amended Complaint against
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of the City of St. Paul’s Department of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 2 of 66
Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (hereinafter “NHPI” or “Housing
Department”); Michael Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Dick Lippert, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Kelly Booker, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Jack Reardon, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Paula Seeley, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
. Department; Lisa Martin, individually and as a code enforcement officer of the Housing
Department; Dean Koehnen, individually and as a law enforcement officer of the City of St
Paul; Andy Dawkins, individually and as the Director of the Housing Department; Randy Kelly,
individually and as the Mayor of the City of St. Paul; and John Doe and Jane Doe, individually
and in their official capacities as code enforcement officers of the Housing Department, law
enforcement officers, other officials or employees of the City of St. Paul; individuallv. jointly
and severally, and the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION
This civil action arises under the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota.
This Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(1) Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, as amended, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961, et seq.;
(2) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Pair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988,42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.;
(3) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,1982 and 1985; and
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 3 of 66
(4) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c), 42 U.S.C.
Section 3613,28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims herein pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367, as Plaintiffs are alleging state claims arising from a common nucleus of
. operative facts with Plaintiffs’ federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 36 13
and/or 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
VENUE
Venue herein is proper under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a), 42 U.S.C. Section 3610 (d) and
28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b).
PARTIES
1. Sandra Harrilal (“Harrilal”) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident.
2 . Bee Vue is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota resident.
3 . Lamena Vue is a legal alien and Minnesota resident.
4 . Steven R. Johnson d/b/a Market Group and Properties (“Johnson”) is a citizen of
the United States and Minnesota resident.
5 , Defendant Steve Magner (“Magner”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Magner is a supervisor for the Housing Department.
6 . Defendant Michael Kalis (“Kalis”) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Kalis is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 4 of 66
7 . Defendant Dick Lippert (“Lippert”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Lippert is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
8 . Defendant Kelly Booker (“Booker”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Booker is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
9 . Defendant Jack Reardon (“Rear-don”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Reardon is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
. 1 0 . Defendant Paula Seeley (Seeley) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Seeley is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
1 1 . Defendant Lisa Martin (“Martin”) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Martin is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
1 2 . Defendant Dean Koehnen (“Koehnen”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Koehnen is a law enforcement officer for Defendant City and assigned to the
Housing Department.
1 3 . Defendant Andy Dawkins (“Dawkins”) is a citizen of the United States and
Minnesota resident. Dawkins is the Director of the City’s “Housing Department” and Director of
the Problem Property Unit (hereinafter, “PPU”).
1 4 . Defendant Randy Kelly (“Kelly’) is a citizen of the United States and Minnesota
resident. Kelly is the Mayor of Defendant City.
1 5 . Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, are citizens of the United States and
Minnesota residents. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, whose identities are unknown at this
time, were at all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, code enforcement officers,
law enforcement officers, or other City officials or employees, working with, or within, the
Housing Department, PPU, Fire Department, and other City offices, coordinating their activities
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 5 of 66
with Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and
others.
1 6 . Defendant City of Saint Paul (“City’) is a municipal corporation existing under,
and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Minnesota.
INTRODUCTORY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .
Pronerty Owners Targeted With Discriminatory and Illegal Code
Enforcement and Racketeering Conduct
.
1 7 . At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs were property owners in
the rental business with rental properties located within the City.
1 8 . At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs’ tenants were almost exclusively low
income Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, mixed race couples,
individuals with various disabilities, individuals receiving state and federal financial assistance,
and families with children, who were and are individuals protected under anti-discrimination
laws, hereinafter referred to as “protected class.”
1 9 . Numerous other property owners in the City were similarly situated to
Plaintiffs during 2002 through 2005 as they provided rental housing services to “protected class”
members. These property owners include, but are not limited to, Frank Steinhauser, Mark
Meysembourg, Kelly Brisson, Leroy Miller, Muhannah Kakish, Steven Mark, Kenneth Krahn,
Tom Gallagher, Joe Collins, Calvin Burton, Julian Jayasuriya and Akinwale A. Akimopo.
20. Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Mark, Krahn and the others
listed above have been subject to discriminatory and illegal City code enforcement operations
similar to what Plaintiffs have experienced as set forth herein and they and other property
owners have been injured by racketeering conduct of Magner,. Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins and
Kelly, and other City officials and employees that is similar to the racketeering conduct of the
5
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 6 of 66
.
individual Defendants herein against Plaintiffs as described in this Complaint. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the factual allegations of the Corrected First Amended Complaint in the
Frank J. Steinhauser. III. et al. vs. Kellv. et al., Case No.04-2632, and in the Gallagher. et al. vs.
Magner. et al., Case No. 05-l 348, Minnesota Federal District Court.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
21. In 1992, the City created a community crime prevention (CCP) program called
“Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment” (‘FORCE”). The FORCE unit
worked with the assistance of neighborhood residents in an anti-drug effort in certain sections of
St. Paul. A housing inspector accompanied police officers on drug raids and the inspectors
conducted code inspections.
22. The coordinated activity by the City allowed the City to condemn a single rental
unit, multiple units or an entire rental building and thereby force out tenants, whether or not
drugs were found on the premises. As a result of the FORCE raids, condemnations and orders to
vacate, innocent families with children were forced onto the street, usually within 24 hours, and
without a hearing The City’s action was creating more homeless individuals and families.
23. In the Fall of 1995, the St. Paul Tenants Union (“SPTU”) prepared a court
challenge to the City’s policy of having an inspector accompany police during raids. SPTU
challenged the lack of notice to tenants of their right to appeal the condemnations. SPTU
concluded that methods of the City’s FORCE unit “show how authorities can use the term
‘community-based’ to stretch the boundaries of fairness and target ‘the dangerous classes’ -
usually lower-income renters and racial minorities.”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 7 of 66
24. As a result of SPTU’s threatened legal action, the City in December 1995, agreed
to, among other measures, discontinue the practice of having a housing inspector accompany the
police in FORCE raids.
25. On information and belief, at some point following Kelly’s election as Mayor,
and Dawkins appointment by Kelly to head the Housing Department, said Defendants, with the
approval of the City Council (“Council”), made the decision to adopt and implement the former
. City policy, custom and practice of having inspectors perform inspections in coordination with
drug raids. Inspector Dick Lippert, under the direction of Dawkins, was assigned to the FORCE
Unit.
Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
26. The Saint Paul Public Housing Agency (“PHA “) owns and manages almost 4,300
rental units of low income public rental housing in the City with funding from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). PHA’s public housing properties
includes high rise, congregate and scattered site housing. PHA has about 400 families living in
PHA owned single family and duplex style homes. PHA is governed by a Board of
Commissioners appointed by St. Paul’s Mayor and approved by the City Council. All of the
‘individuals in the 4,300 PHA owned rental units are low-income and many are members of the
“protected class.” These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other targeted
rental property owners.
27. PHA also administers the federal rent subsidy Section 8 program for low income
households renting from private property owners in the City. PHA administers over 3,700
Section 8 certificates and vouchers. Many of the Section 8 voucher recipients are members of the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 8 of 66
“protected class”. These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other targeted
rental property owners.
28. PHA’s public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair
problems similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock. PHA administers its own
maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing stock, Many of PHA’s
rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA to be in need of major capital
. improvements. Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital repairs of its aging rental
housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been deferred to later years for
additiona 1 federal fun ding.
29. Plaintiffs’ properties and those of other targeted rental property owners are not
afforded PHA’s competitive advantage of deferral of capital improvements but instead suffer
immediate and long term adverse consequences from Defendants’ discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement actions and racketeering activity against the privately owned rental properties and
rental businesses who are providing housing services to Section 8 and low income “protected
class” members.
30. PHA’s rental housing stock has similar health, safety, fire and housing code issues
as the rental properties that are owned by Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to
“protected class” members including those property owners providing critical housing under the
Section 8 program.
31. PHA’s rental housing stock is subjected to City code enforcement but to a
minimal degree compared to City code enforcement applied to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
private rental property owners.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 9 of 66
32. PHA’s rental housing stock is not subjected by Defendants to condemnations,
orders to vacate, demands for code compliance inspections, fines or rental registration
provisions, including rental revocation actions. Additionally PHA’s rental housing stock is
rarely, if ever, targeted with any other code enforcement actions by Defendants. Conversely,
Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to “protected class” members are subjected to these
adverse code enforcement actions by Defendants.
. 3 3 . PHA’s rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems that are
similar to the tenant and guest behavior problems of Plaintiffs’ properties and those rental
properties owned by other similarly situated property owners in the City. PHA rental properties
are subject to frequent police service calls.
34. PHA housing inspectors conduct inspections of Section 8 rental units. PHA
claims that as part of its inspections “vacant [rental] units are prepared to high standards for each
new resident” in order to meet local codes and HUD’s standards. PHA conducts inspections of
Section 8 rental units in the City at least annually.
35. Defendants apply adverse code enforcement actions, including condemnations, on
Section 8 approved, privately owned rental units shortly following Section 8 inspections and
certification of these rental units.
Project Hope
36. Project Hope is a St. Paul based nonprofit organization promoting permanent
housing options for homeless citizens in the City. Project Hope assists members of the
“protected class.” Project Hope is funded by contributions from HUD.
37. Project Hope caseworkers are familiar with housing standards and procedures and
work together with many rental property owners in providing housing for the City's homeless. At
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 10 of 66
all times relevant herein, Johnson, Steinhauser, Krahn and Mark, and other St. Paul landlords
have assisted Project Hope clients in finding permanent housing in the City.
Citv’s March 2002 Report on “Chronic Problem Properties” Reveals
Defendants’ Motive and Oportunitv to Target Plaintiffs
and Their “Protected Class” Tenants
38. At the direction of the City Council, a report on the City’s ‘Chronic Problem
Properties” was prepared by the Council’s Research Center and presented to the Council and the
* public in March, 2002. The Report outlined many of the problems facing private landlords,
tenants, other citizens and the City.
39. The City’s March 2002 Report detailed the prior efforts of the City to address
“problem properties” and other housing related problems. The Report quantified the number of
“Chronic Problem Properties” at “220-280”.
40. The City’s March 2002 Report outlined the City’s prior experience with “problem
properties”. In 2000, the City launched an initiative called “Problem Properties 2000”
(hereinafter “PP2000) in response to media reports questioning the efficacy of the City’s code
enforcement activities. The Council’s study acknowledged that City policy, custom and practice
applied to “some” problem properties included a knowing and intentional lack of published or
documented standards for selectively targeting a property for increased code enforcement as a
“problem property”. The Council determined that City code enforcement officials and officers,
through the PP2000 initiative, identified “some problem owners through a process Code
Enforcement officials were consistently unwilling to document or even describe” as it was feared
by officials that documenting the selection criteria might not always select the “right” property
owners and “might provide a basis for those selected for special attention to challenge their
inclusion.” The Council Report also determined that, “Since the selection criteria were unknown
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 11 of 66
and undocumented, there could be no basis for challenge” and that although “code enforcement
officials consistently denied they were targeting selected owners, the fact they were selectively
targeted seemed obvious”.
41. The City’s March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including
fire, police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of
gaining access to interiors of homes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on
. landlords who did not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
42. Through the March 2002 Report, the Council determined, “The prospect of being
forced out of their (owner’s) home or losing the income from tenants can be a very effective
enforcement tool when nothing else seems to work,” but, “It is not, however, very effective with
large apartment buildings as owners know that the City is loath to make large numbers of people
evacuate.”
Citv Adopts New Housing Code Enforcement Rules
Following March 2002 Report
43. Following City Council and City staff analysis of the March 2002 Report, new
rules went into effect on August 14, 2002, concerning rental properties in the City.
44. These new rules were announced by mail and on the City’s website, among other
ways, and these announcements reported that the “time lines for getting your property cleaned up
have been shortened considerably” and “criminal misdemeanor citations will be issued routinely
until property owners get the message that we are cleaning up this city.” The City
announcements also stated that, “the court system has agreed to back up our tags with serious
penalties. If we have to come back to a property a third time because you haven’t gotten the
message, you may very well be facing jail time.”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 12 of 66
45. The new Code rules incorporated written notice requirements and claimed
conformity with due process requirements.
46. On June 2, 2003, the City announced receipt of $12.5 million in federal grants to
provide low-income housing and economic development opportunities.
47. On December 3 1, 2003, the City announced by mail and through its web site that
the “new Year” brings tougher housing codes in St. Paul.
. 4 8 . The December 3 1, 2003, City announcement also included statements from
Dawkins and Kelly that they expected to see a four-fold increase in apartment safety inspections
in 2004, from approximately 2,000 to approximately 8,000 inspections.
49. The December 2003, City announcement also stated, according to Kelly: “These
changes target the bad apples” and “they don’t increase burdens unnecessarily for responsible
property owners and in fact they reduce burdens for law abiding property owners” and present a
plan of action to correct the problem and allow an interior inspection.
50. The December 2003, City announcement stated that if the property owners do not
comply and agree to better lease-management practices, the Council can revoke their rental
registration certificate, thereby requiring an interior inspection before being issued a new
certificate.
51. The December 2003, City announcement also stated that, “the rental registration
ordinance lays out clear guidelines and increased procedural protections.” The announcement
also stated if a landlord has a single incident of documented nuisance behavior or repeat code
visits, the landlord would receive a notice of intent to revoke the registration certificate and
would be asked to contact Dawkins.
52. Under Kelly and Dawkins’ control, the Housing Department has claimed that it
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 13 of 66
seeks to enforce minimum property maintenance standards and ordinances on one and two
family dwellings (duplexes) and exterior of properties across the City on a consistent basis. In
fact, the policy, custom and practice of the Housing Department and Defendants has been to
selectively target Plaintiffs and other similarly situated property owners while refusing to
enforce city codes against neighboring properties with egregious violations of codes and PHA
properties with code and tenant behavior issues similar to the targeted landlords.
. The Problem Property Unit
53. After Dawkins’ appointment, he created and managed a “Problem Property Unit,”
(“PPU”) which consisted of Dawkins, two City code enforcement officers, two police officers,
and an Assistant City Attorney.
54. Martin and Koehnen were, at all times relevant to the allegations contained
herein, members of the PPU and were under the direct supervision of Dawkins, Magner, and
Kelly. At all times relevant herein, Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan has been a member
of the PPU.
55. On information and belief, Dawkins meets regularly with Kelly on the activities
of the Housing Department and the PPU, and Dawkins receives direction from Kelly on
managing the daily activities of the Department and the PPU.
56. A “Problem Property” is defined by Dawkins and members of the PPU as a
building where ‘both building maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues” exist.
Problem Properties List
57. Following Dawkins appointment, he created periodic lists containing rental
buildings considered by PPU to be “problem properties.” These “problem properties” were then
subject to increased code enforcement activities by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Magner, Dolan
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 14 of 66
and other inspection officials and employees, including Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon and
Seeley, including attempts to gain access to interiors of rental properties to issue condemnations,
remove grand fathering protections, demand full code compliance through extensive
renovations, and to force sale of the properties.
58. Dawkins designated properties owned by Plaintiffs Harrilal and Vues and
Steinhauser, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Krahn and others as “Problem Properties”.
. 59. The new Rules and Procedures for conducting code enforcement activities in the
City provided that once the Defendants initially targeted one of a landlord’s properties, the
Defendants were authorized to target all of that landlord’s properties.
60. Defendants targeted landlords and “protected class” tenants whether or not they
were on the “problem property list”.
Dramatic Increase in Code Enforcement Actions After Dawkins Anpointed
61. Following Dawkins appointment, Dawkins and members of the PPU and other
inspectors managed a dramatic increase in housing inspection activity, issuance of criminal
citations, Correction Orders, Notices of Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, as well as Tenant
Remedies Actions by the City, all directed against Plaintiffs property owners and other similarly
situated property owners. These increased code enforcement actions were not directed at, and
did not affect, PI-IA rental properties or properties of certain third parties.
Discriminator-v Code Enforcement Onerations
62. Dawkins, at the direction of Kelly, directed other said individual Defendants to
increase the number of exterior inspections on housing units in the City and to gain access to
units in order to conduct interior inspections, remove grand fathering protections and demand
full code compliance inspections and certifications.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 15 of 66
63. Kelly and Dawkins, with the consent of the City Council, ordered housing
inspectors, including named Defendant code enforcement officers and others unknown to
Plaintiffs at this time, to selectively enforce the City’s codes in order to rid the City of “bottom of
the barrel, ” “undesirables,” ”down 'n outers” and ‘low income” individuals and rental property
owners providing those individuals with housing. A very large majority of tenants selectively
targeted by Defendants were members of the “protected class”. Certain unknown third parties
. pressured Defendant City and its officials and employees, including Defendants, to target these
“protected c lass” members and property owners providing them with housing.
64. Said Defendants and others carried out these discriminatory orders as part of
Defendant City’s policy, custom and practice.
65. Defendants knew and intended that their selectively aggressive code enforcement
operations against Plaintiffs, other property owners, and their tenants, would have a
discriminatory impact upon members of the “protected class” living within the City and upon the
private property owners providing housing to said “protected class”. Said Defendants also knew
and intended that such enforcement would directly contradict the purported purposes of the
federal funds received by the City and the stated due process rights and procedures incorporated
into the City Code.
66. In the fall of 2002, as part of the policy, custom and practice once again
implemented by Kelly and Dawkins with the approval of the Council, and continuing presently
in the City, Kelly and Dawkins directed certain housing inspectors to once again perform code
inspections in coordination with raids conducted by law enforcement agencies. The City’s
FORCE unit was used to implement this policy, custom and practice.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 16 of 66
.
67. The discriminatory policy, custom and practice had a discriminator-v impact on
the protected class, and the policy, custom and practice continued at all times thereafter and
continues presently in the City.
68. Plaintiffs’ rental properties have been consistently targeted by Defendants, while
adjacent rental and other properties with serious code violations, including PHA owned
properties and properties owned by certain third parties acting in concert with Defendants, were
protected by Defendants from the discriminatory code enforcement operations.
69. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice was
intentional and malicious in Defendants’ efforts to selectively target the “protected class” and
private landlords that rented to “protected class” members. Defendants actions were intended to,
and did in fact, benefit Defendant City, the individual Defendants themselves, PHA and certain
third parties acting in concert with Defendants.
70. This intentional and malicious conduct by Defendants directly caused Plaintiffs
and other landlords identified herein to be damaged in their property or business.
71. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and the
individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner,
‘Martin, Koehnen and Dawkins maliciously and fraudulently, claiming false code violations
related to the rental properties of Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, and Krahn
during the period of the fall of 2002 through October 2004.
72. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, and the
individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seely, Martin, Koehnen and Dawkins maliciously and
fraudulently claiming false code violations related to Plaintiffs’ rental properties during the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 17 of 66
.
period of March 4, 2003, through February 2005, in written Corrections Notices, Notices of
Condemnations, Summary Abatement Orders and Vehicle Abatement Orders.
73. Defendants described these false code violations in written City code
documentation including Summary Abatement Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Correction
Orders, Correction Notices and Notices of Condemnation, all mailed to Plaintiffs and others
described herein with an interest in the properties during the period commencing in the Fall of
2002 and continuing through February 2005. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice
continues in the City.
74. Defendants intentionally created false statements in City records and notices in
order to force discriminatory condemnations of Plaintiffs’ rental buildings and those of other St.
Paul landlords. Defendants’ conduct damaged the businesses and properties of Plaintiffs and
other landlords targeted and caused injury to tenants.
75. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and the
individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity included, but was not limited to,
Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Kalis and Dolan maliciously preparing and filing court papers against
Plaintiffs, and also against Steinhauser and Meysembourg and other City landlords, including
Kakish, Miller, Krahn, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, including filing court
Complaints and related pleading documents, attached exhibits and sworn verifications, in
numerous court actions during the period commencing in the fall of 2002 and continuing to
present.
76. Defendant Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Kalis and Dolan and other City officials
and employees, knew that these court filings against Plaintiffs, and Steinhauser, Meysembourg,
Kakish, Miller and Krahn, contained intentionally false and malicious statements in said
Case 0:05-cv-00461~JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 18 of 66
pleadings and inspection records prepared by said Defendants. Defendants’ court filings were
mailed to Plaintiffs, other landlords and occupants of the rental properties. Said discriminatory
policy, custom and practice and racketeering activity continues in the City.
77. The mailings of the City inspection documents, claimed notices and court filing
documents through coordinated efforts of Defendants as part of their fraudulent scheme, caused
Plaintiffs’ funds, and/or other landlords’ funds, and/or tenants’ funds, and/or City funds and/or
. contractors’ funds and/or federal funds, to be transferred in furtherance of Defendants’ scheme.
Defendants’ mailings triggered issuance, or transfers, of funds held in federal banking
institutions, including funds related to Section 8 and HUD financial assistance, or other funds for
the benefit of tenants or Plaintiffs, or other landlords, or for payments related to City permit fees,
code compliance fees, other City fees and fees for court filings and process.
78. Dawkins provided sworn Verifications of the truth of each such court Complaint
and the truth of the City inspection record attachments, when in fact such Complaints and
attachments contained false statements of fact that Dawkins and other said Defendants knew to
be false, and which were intentionally made by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Dolan, other
members of the PPU, with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, other landlords and tenants, including
‘members of the “protected class”. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice and
racketeering activity continues in the City.
79. As a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs, Steinhauser,
Meysembourg, Brisson, Kakish, Miller, Krahn, and others similarly situated, were forced to
incur significant unnecessary expenses which placed a heavy financial burden on said landlords
and forced them to close their rental units and sell their rental properties, thereby decreasing the
available rental units for “protected class” members in the City.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 19 of 66
80. As a result of Defendants malicious wrongful conduct, Defendants also obtained,
under color of law or official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and
other related City fees from Plaintiffs and other landlords, including Steinhauser, Meysembourg,
Kakish, Miller and others. Said Defendants’ malicious conduct triggered issuance or transfer of
Plaintiffs’ funds and/or other landlord funds, and/or tenant funds, and/or City funds and/or
contractor funds, and/or federal funds, held in federal banking institutions.
. 81. Defendants’ wrongful conduct included, but was not limited to, Dawkins, Martin,
Magner, Koehnen, and other members of the PPU, in coordination with third parties encouraging
tenants to file false claims in court actions against selected landlords, including Vues,
Steinhauser, Brisson, Krahn, and other property owners.
Tenants Were Iniured Bv City's Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
82. Defendants’ illegal condemnation of Vues’ and Johnson’s rental properties and the
rental properties of other St. Paul landlords, including, but not limited to, Steinhauser,
Meysembourg and Brisson, interfered with the ability of “protected class” tenants’ to locate
replacement housing and interfered with those tenants’ employment, all to the tenants detriment.
83. Plaintiffs’ tenants and their families suffered great harm as a result of the
malicious and illegal discriminatory policy, custom and practice, and illegal code enforcement
activities of Defendants.
City of St. Paul Policv and Practice of Discriminator-v Code Enforcement
84. City Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest speakers at a St.
Paul Association of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23, 2003. During this
meeting a question and answer period took place. Council member Benanav, in response to a
question from the audience, stated that when it comes to housing code enforcement, “I don’t
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 20 of 66
think any amount of aggressiveness is too aggressive.”
85. At this same meeting, a member of the audience asked Mayor Kelly, “Why are
you coming into places when the tenant doesn’t want you there and citing minor things and just
condemning the buildings. I don’t think that is fir and what happens if I don’t let you into my
house?” In a loud and threatening voice, Mayor Kelly said, “You will comply.” During this
P
statement, Kelly used very aggressive body language including pointing his finger at the
. landlord asking the question.
86. City officials have informed at least one Project Hope case worker that City
officials do not want “low income” people renting in St. Paul.
87. A City inspector has informed Kenneth Krahn that the City does not want Krahn
renting to Project Hope individuals as they are “bottom of the barrel” and not desirable.
88. This expressed policy against the poor, who are primarily “protected class”
members, is consistent with the City’s proposed legislation in the Minnesota Legislature as far
back as 1996 when Kelly, then a State Senator, and Dawkins, a State Representative, worked
together in proposing legislation to de-concentrate poverty in certain targeted sections of St. Paul
in order to relocate the poor out of the City.
Abuse of City’s Excessive Consumption Fee System
-NHPI’s Fraudulent Mailing Scheme
89. The methods of illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity conducted by
City code enforcement officials and employees against Plaintiffs and other property owners, has
also included, but has not been limited to, a fraudulent scheme to illegally acquire monies from
Plaintiffs and other property owners in the City through abuse of the City’s excessive
consumption fee system.
90. City Housing Department (NHPI) employees, including Martin, Booker, Reardon,
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 21 of 66
Magner, Dawkins, and possibly others, have participated in a fraudulent scheme against selected
property owners, including Hanilal and Vues, that has included intentionally sending NHPI
written communications, including inspection Appointment Letters, code Correction Notices,
and excessive consumption fee assessment notices, to a property owner’s wrong residential
address so the property owner remains unaware of the City's intent to inspect the owner’s rental
property, the City’s claimed inspection, the time lines for correcting any claimed code
a deficiencies and the adverse consequences to the property owner of failure to make the
corrections. Said Defendants stack the deck against the property owner in order to trigger the
assessment of fees for the benefit of Defendants.
91. Martin, Booker, Reardon, Magner, Dawkins, and possibly others, have
participated in a fraudulent scheme against selected property owners, including Harrilal and
Vues that has also included intentionally using a fraudulent scheme of “delayed mailing” notices
to property owners by holding in NHPI offices these important notices to property owners for a
period of time of up to fifteen (15) days before Defendants actually mail the notices.
92. Defendant’s fraudulent scheme used against Harrilal and Vues and others,
operated as follows:
A) The inspector claimed to have conducted an inspection of the owner’s property on
day number one. NHPI prepared a notice that was dated the day of the inspection or shortly
thereafter;
B) The NHPI notice described the claimed code deficiencies and described the action
required of the property owner by a specific date, on average seven days later;
C) Defendants held the notice to the property owner in the NHPI office for five of
the seven days allowed for the correction of claimed code violations by the property owner and
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 22 of 66
then mailed the notice to the owner. Assuming a two day postal delivery period, the owner
received the notice the day the correction period expired. Under this fraudulent scheme, it is
impossible for the owner to meet the demands of NHPI and the excessive consumption fee is
triggered;
D) In documented instances, Defendants have held the Correction Notices, letters
and City Excessive Consumption Invoices in the NHPI offices for 14-15 days before
a postmarking the notices, letters and invoices.
93. Through this fraudulent mailings scheme, Defendants intentionally seek to ensure
that NHPI re-inspections can be completed without the property owners being able to complete
the demanded repairs, thereby triggering “excessive consumption fees” and rental registration
revocation actions against the owners of the property.
Property Owners Who Have Been Victims of Fraudulent Mailings Scheme
94. Martin, Booker, Reardon and Dawkins have used the fraudulent mailings scheme
described above against the Vues on their properties located at 707 Preble Street and 735 Smith
Avenue. Martin and Dawkins have used this fraudulent scheme against Harrilal on her 704
Lawson Avenue East property. Other property owners have been victims of Defendants’ delayed
‘mailing scheme, including Johnson, who has been forced by Defendants to pay excessive
consumption fees for activities that occurred after Johnson sold properties.
95. Harrilal, Johnson, Steinhauser, Mark, and other rental property owners have
received delayed mailings with late postmarks on City rental registration notices sent to them by
Dawkins. The recent NHPI Rental Registration Renewal Notices sent to Harrilal, Johnson,
Steinhauser, Mark and others, were dated February 8, 2005. The envelopes containing these
Notices were postmarked February 15, 2005. Moreover, these property owners received the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 23 of 66
. notices four (4) to seven (7) days after the postmark date indicating delay by Dawkins in
delivering postmark envelopes to the U.S. Postal Service. Certain other City notices to these
same property owners have been received by the property owners within one or two days of the
postmark on the City envelope. In the case of the Rental Registration Renewal Notice dated
February 8, 2005, the notice stated that any appeal by the property owner to the registration
requirement had to be made within ten (10) days of the date of the letter.
? ??? Dawkins, Martin, Booker and Reardon forwarded City notices to Harrilal and
Vues’ wrong address and used the delayed mailings scheme, in order to “stack the deck” against
Harrilal and Vues as part of the City’s targeting of Harrilal and Vues and other property owners,
and as part of the City’s civil lawsuits against Harrilal and against Vues during 2004.
97. Additionally, Defendants’ fraudulent mailings scheme and abuse of the civil court
process was used by Defendants against Vues for the additional purposes of attacking the
reputation of the Vues as responsible landlords and to manufacture evidence for the City’s use in
Steinhauser. et al. vs. Kelly et al., Case No. 04-2632, filed in this Court in May 2004. Bee Vue,
Johnson, Miller, Kakish, and others, had been identified in the Steinhauser Complaint as
property owners injured by discriminatory code enforcement operations and racketeering activity
of Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly and others.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO EACH PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff Sandra Harrilal
98. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Sandra Harrilal, a Black American,
was the owner of two (2) rental properties within the City, including properties located at 704
Lawson Avenue East and 476 West Lawson. One of Harrilal’s Black American tenants was
receiving Section 8 housing assistance. Harrilal resides in a third single family home in the City.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 24 of 66
99. Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen participated in discriminatory and illegal action
directed at Harrilal at her duplex rental property located at 704 East Lawson. Defendants
selectively targeted Harrilal based upon impermissible factors of her race, color and national
origin, and the race, color and national origin of many of Harrilal’s tenants.
100. Ms. Harrilal purchased 704 Lawson in April 2003, and registered her home
address with NHPI under its rental registration program.
8 1 0 1 . In February 2004, Ms. Harrilal discovered that Community Stabilization Project
(“CSP”) was contacting her tenants with flyers informing them of the City’s interest in
condemning her 704 Lawson rental property. Ms. Han-ilal then contacted Ray Hessler, the prior
owner of the rental property, and obtained City code enforcement documentation dated
December 16, 2002, and February 13, 2003, along with a copy of Mr. Hessler’s cancelled check
for the repair work and a receipt for a new hot water heater installed in the property.
102. Harrilal contacted Martin and was informed that the City was suing Harrilal with
a Tenant’s Remedy Action claim (“TRA”) over claimed code deficiencies on her 704 Lawson
property. Martin informed Harrilal that Martin had mailed a Correction Notice to Harrilal in
September 2003. At no time prior to that call had Harrilal been provided with notice of the City’s
code enforcement actions on 704 Lawson or the City’s lawsuit against her.
103. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Magner and other City officials and employees
unknown at this time, participated in a fraudulent scheme of no notice and delayed notice to
Harrilal of City code enforcement documents and court papers in order to benefit themselves to
Harrilal’s detriment. The illegal actions against Harrilal as described herein were accomplished
to further the racketeering activity of Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Kelly and the other
individual Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 25 of 66
1 0 4 . Harrilal subsequently learned that the Correction Notice Martin had referred to
was dated September 15, 2003, and was actually addressed to 704 Lawson not Harrilal’s home
address listed in the City’s rental registration program. Harrilal also did not receive a copy of the
TRA Summons at her home rental registration address. However, in the Complaint, Dawkins
referred to Harrilal’s home rental registration address.
105. The September 15, 2003, Correction Notice prepared by Martin was attached as
. Exhibit #1 to the Verified TRA Complaint prepared and sworn to by Dawkins. The Correction
Notice listed 12 items that Martin claimed were code deficiencies. Dawkins claimed in
Paragraph No. 6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as items
numbers 10 and 12 had been remedied; the hot water heater had been replaced and the illegal
locks had been replaced before the City’s commenced the TRA.
106. Harrilal’s tenants did not join in the City’s TRA against her. Harrilal was forced
to retain attorney Douglass E. Turner to protect her interests in Ramsey County District Court
during the period of February 2004 through July 2004.
1 0 7 . During the pendency of the TRA lawsuit, Dawkins and Martin continued their
fraudulent scheme of delayed notice to Harrilal in an attempt to prejudice her and penalize her.
Following a May 27, 2004, inspection of 704 Lawson, Martin prepared an additional Correction
Notice dated June 1, 2004. In this Notice, Martin provided Harrilal until June 14, 2004, to
correct the alleged deficiencies. The envelope that enclosed the June 1, 2004, Correction Notice
is postmarked “June 15, 2004.” Martin intentionally delayed mailing this Notice to Harrilal for
two weeks after the date of the Notice in order to prejudice Harrilal in the TRA action that was
pending.
108. Dawkins directed the fraudulent notice scheme against Harrilal. Dawkins
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 26 of 66
prepared a letter notice to Harrilal dated June 1, 2004, notifying her that NHPI had conducted an
inspection of her rental property at 704 Lawson on May 27, 2004, and found that she was not
compliant with a previous order to repair her property. Dawkins stated that Harrilal was being
billed $50.00 for the cost of the inspection in accordance with St. Paul Legislative Code for
excessive consumption of City services. Dawkins stated that Harrilal’s property was scheduled
for a reinspection on June 14, 2004, and warned her that if she did not have the violations
. corrected by that date, she would be billed an additional $75.00 for additional City reinspection
costs. Dawkins fraudulently delayed mailing his June 1, 2004, excessive consumption notice to
Harrilal for over two weeks. The postmark on the envelope enclosing Dawkins’ notice is dated
June 16, 2004.
109. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegl code enforcement actions by
Magner, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins and the City, and the racketeering activity by Magner,
Martin, Koehnen and Dawkins and other individuals directed against Harrilal, she lost tenants
and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and other
expenses of the subject property, she lost her investment in the 704 Lawson rental property, and
she was forced to sell her two rental properties in the City.
Plaintiffs Bee Vue and Lamena Vue
110. Bee Vue and Lamena Vue, Asian Americans, were at all times relevant herein
owners of twenty-four (24) rental properties located in the City. Some of Vues’ tenants have
received Section 8 assistance.
111. Bee Vue and Lamena Vue’s claims against the City arise from Defendants’
actions taken against them commencing in approximately March 2003, and continuing
thereafter. The individual Defendants have selectively targeted the Vues with illegal code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 27 of 66
enforcement operations and racketeering activity related to Vues’ rental property business,
including against Vues’ properties located at 241 Front Avenue, 707 Preble Street and 735 Smith
Avenue in the City. Defendants selectively targeted the Vues based upon the impermissible
factors of their race, color and national origin, and the race, color and national origin of many of
Vues’ tenants.
112. On or about March 17, 2003, Dawkins directed the commencement of a TR4 suit
* on Vues’ rental property located at 241 Front Avenue. Dawkins was assisted by Martin and
Attorney Dolan. In the Verified Emergency Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated March 14,
2003, Dawkins verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins
and Dolan listed in Paragraph No. 3 of the Complaint Vues’ correct Woodbury residential
address that was listed in Dawkin’s rental registration registry.
113. Vues presented evidence to Dawkins that shortly prior to the Section 8 tenant
moving into Vues’ 241 Front rental property in 2002, PHA had conducted a Section 8 Housing
Quality Standards (“HQS”) inspection of the property and had approved Vues’ property for
Section 8 payments.
114. Vues also presented evidence to Dawkins that Vues’ tenant had been responsible
for many of the 25 claimed code deficiencies at the property through the tenant’s breaches of the
lease and irresponsible behavior. For example, the tenant intentionally violated the lease by
consistently housing a dog in the rental unit; the dog urinated and defecated in the unit thereby
creating unsanitary conditions.
115. Vues requested Dawkins to dismiss the TRA against them. Dawkins responded
that he could not dismiss the TRA because NHPI had quotas which required prosecution of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 28 of 66
TRAs against landlords in order to obtain foundation grant money. Dawkins referred Vues to
Attorney Dolan who was handling the TRA for the City.
116. During one of the court hearings on the 241 Front TRA, PPU Assistant City
Attorney Dolan informed Bee Vue that, “Personally, I don’t think you people deserve to be in
this county.” Dolan was referring to the Vues as Hmong and the Hmong community. At least
one other person in the court room overheard this racist statement by Dolan. Bee Vue was
. shocked by Dolan’s racist statement.
117. Shortly prior to the City’s TRA suit against Vues, PHA had sought in January
2003, to conduct an annual re-inspection of the property to maintain Section 8 payments for the
tenant. On February 4, 2003, PHA conducted an annual inspection of the 241 Front property and
issued a one page list of deficiencies to Vues for correction. Vues determined that many of the
repair items were tenant caused. Nevertheless, Bee Vue immediately commenced to correct the
deficiencies and within a few weeks he had substantially completed the necessary work.
118. PHA’s re-inspection of the 241 Front property was scheduled to take place on
March 4, 2004. Near this time, the tenant dumped trash outside the rental home and Martin
observed the trash. Martin intentionally used Vues’ old address, not their Woodbury rental
registration address listed in NHPI files to send a trash notice to Vues. Martin did not want Vues
to actually receive the notice because she knew that with notice Vues would take appropriate
action and thereby eliminate the excuse Martin needed to later condemn the property. Vues did
not receive the notice from Martin.
1 1 9 . On or about March 4, 2003, Martin made an interior inspection of Vues’ 241
Front property and immediately condemned the property based upon 25 claimed code
deficiencies.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 29 of 66
120. Dawkins prepared and mailed a written Notice of Condemnation dated March 4,
2003, to Vues at their correct residence address in Woodbury. In the Notice, Dawkins included a
statement that, “NOTE: Due to the amount of violations, Code Enforcement is requiring a Code
Compliance Certificate”. Dawkins commenced the TRA against Vues shortly thereafter. Even
though many of the claimed 25 code violations were caused by the tenant, Dawkins, Magner,
Martin, Dolan and others used the number of violations and TRA lawsuit as leverage against
I Vues to illegally remove the grand fathering protections of their older building under Minnesota
law and to force them into having a code compliance inspection and certification process on the
Property.
121. On information and belief, Magner was the official behind Dawkins’ “Code
Compliance Certificate” requirement on Vues’ 241 Front Ave. property.
122. Dawkins, Martin, Dolan, Magner and others working for the City, targeted Vues
as part of an illegal scheme to hold Citv landlords resnonsible for all adverse tenant behavior,
including tenant caused damage to rental properties in the City, all in an effort to extort property
and other rights from landlords to the benefit of the City, Dawkins, Martin, Dolan, Magner and
others personally.
123. Additionally, by illegally removing the grand fathering protections of older City
homes and buildings and demanding full “Code Compliance Inspections and Certificates” before
allowing the re-rental of the targeted properties, Defendants ensured that the targeted property
owners would not be able to afford to rent once again to the low income minority tenants in the
properties targeted.
1 2 4 . As a result of the illegal code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of
Dawkins, Magner, Martin and other city officials and employees, Vue’s older home at 241 Front
Case 0:05-cv-00461 -JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 30 of 66
Avenue lost its grand fathering protections. Vues were forced to expend tens of thousands of
dollars in bringing the home up to modem code instead of being able to make the repairs for
damage caused by the tenant.
1 2 5 . The 241 Front rental property is currently registered as a vacant building site. As
a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Vues, they have sustained
damages in excess of $50,000.00, including the labor and materials contributed to the 241 Front
home. and the loss of rent after March 2004. Vues have attempted to comply with all of the
requirements of the City’s Code Compliance Certification process but to date have not yet been
able to meet the City’s demands.
.
1 2 6 . Dawkins, Magner and Martin continued the fraudulent schemes against Vues
shortly after said Defendants learned of Vues identity in the Steinhauser case in May 2004.
Others City inspectors, including inspectors Booker and Rear-don, also participated in the
fraudulent schemes and racketeering activity in coordination with Dawkins, Magner, Martin and
Dolan.
1 2 7 . Dawkins ordered Booker to conduct an inspection of Vues’ rental property
located at 707 Preble Street. Booker prepared a Correction Notice dated June 18, 2004, to Vues
claiming minor code violations related to “window and/or door screens, windows and/or storm
windows and sanitation”.
128. Booker mailed the June 18, 2004, Notice to a Brooklyn Park, Minnesota address
no longer used by Vues. Booker and Dawkins knew the Brooklyn Park address was not the
Vues’ “rental registration” address in NHPI records as they had knowledge of the current address
for Vues, and Dawkins had used Vues’ current Woodbury address in the earlier 241 Front rental
property TRA lawsuit. Nevertheless, to further Defendants’ fraudulent mailings scheme of
Case 0:05-cv-00461 -JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 31 of 66
purposefully failing to provide notice to landlords, or at least to delay notice to them, to the
landlords’ detriment and for the benefit of Defendants, Dawkins and Booker intentionally used
the old address.
129. Dawkins forwarded a letter dated June 30, 2004, to Vues at their old Brooklyn
Park address claiming that a re-inspection of 707 Preble Street had been conducted on June 29,
2004. Dawkins stated that the claimed deficiencies had not been corrected and a $50.00
1 excessive consumption fee was being assessed against Vues.
130. Dawkins forwarded a second letter dated July 19, 2004, to Vues, again at the
Vues’ old Brooklyn Park address, claiming that a second re-inspection had been conducted on
July 15, 2004, and the claimed deficiencies had not been corrected and an additional $75.00
excessive consumption fee was being assessed against Vues.
131. Vues did not receive the June 30, 2004, or the July 19, 2004, letters from
Dawkins or the June 18, 2004, Correction Notice from Booker.
132. On August 3, 2004, Dolan with direction and assistance from Dawkins prepared
and commenced a second TRA by Defendant City against Vues on their rental property at 707
Preble. Vues were first notified of the claimed inspections by Dawkins’ department when Vues
received the TRA court documents.
133. The TRA Complaint for 707 Preble lists the Vues’ current Woodbury address as
registered under the City’s rental registration program.
134. At all times relevant, the Vues had properly followed the rental registration
procedure set up by NHPI. At all times during 2003 and 2004, Dawkins, Martin, Booker,
Reardon, Magner and other members of NHPI knew where Vues actually resided.
135. Defendant City’s TRA lawsuit Complaint on 707 Preble lists minor claimed code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 32 of 66
deficiencies and makes much of the claimed fact of the failure by Vues to remedy the claimed
violations after repeated notices to them.
1 3 6 . Vues’ 707 Preble property was a certified Section 8 unit that had passed a June 28,
2004, PHA inspection ten (10) days after Booker’s Notice.
1 3 7 . Due to the abuse of the civil suit process by said Defendants, including through
their fraudulent schemes to provide no effective notice, or at least delayed notice, Vues were
I forced to hire St. Paul attorney Patricia Whitney.
1 3 8 . On September 28, 2004, Dawkins sent another letter to Vues concerning 707
Preble, this time claiming that Vues had not paid the excessive consumption charges. Dawkins
stated in his September 28,2004, letter to Vues that the City was intent on revoking Vues’ rental
registration certificate for 707 Preble.
1 3 9 . Vues investigated the claimed non-payment and discovered that they had
simultaneously mailed two checks to Dawkins’ NHPI department for these fees. One of Vues’
checks, a check for a different property, had been presented by Dawkins to Vues’ bank and had
cleared. Vues discovered that Dawkins and NHPI had not presented Vues’ 707 Preble check for
payment to Vues’ bank. Vues made the payments to NHPI to protect their rental business even
though the basis for fthore fee was fraudulent.
1 4 0 . Dawkins maliciously intended to claim non-payment by Vues in order to carry
out his threat of rental registration revocation and thereby bully Vues into refusing to testify in
favor of plaintiffs in the Steinhauser case and to discourage Vues from asserting their own
claims against Defendants.
1 4 1 . Brooker’s June 18, 2004, Correction Notice, Dawkins’ letters to Vues dated June
30, 2004, July 19, 2004 and September 28, 2004, and Defendant City’s August 3, 2004, TRA
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 33 of 66
against Vues, constituted furtherance of fraudulent schemes against Vues, Harrilal, Johnson and
other landlords identified in the Steinhauser Corrected First Amended Complaint and the
Gallagher Complaint, and constituted furtherance of the racketeering activity of the individual
Defendants herein and other employees and officials of the City.
142. Vues were forced to retain attorney Whitney to correspond with Dawkins in order
to protect Vues’ rights. Whitney’s letter dated October 9, 2004, to Dawkins details numerous
~ false statements Dawkins had made in his September 28,2004, letter.
143. On July 28, 2004, Dawkins’ NHPI department prepared a Correction Notice dated
July 28, 2004, on Vues’ rental property located at 735 Smith Ave. Defendant Reardon inspected
the rental property on July 28, 2004, and claimed code deficiencies for sanitation, vehicles and
window and/or door screens. Reardon’s Notice stated that the re-inspection would occur on
August 4,2004, at which time the deficiencies must be corrected.
144. Reardon, working under Dawkins’ direction and control, intentionally delayed the
mailing of this Correction Notice to Vues by holding the July 28, 2004, Notice for five days
before postmarking the envelope. Vues had just two days to receive the Notice and no time to
comply with Reardon’s Order.
145. The illegal efforts by Dawkins, Magner, Martin, Booker, Rear-don and Koehnen,
and other City officials and employees against Vues, was designed by said Defendants with the
malicious intention to tarnish Vues’ reputation as responsible landlords in the City, to extort
monies from them, to intimidate Vues from testifying in the Steinhauser case, and to discourage
them from pursuing their own claims.
146. Defendants and other City officials and employees have had knowledge of the
existence of these continued fraudulent schemes being operated by NHPI officials and
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 34 of 66
employees as set forth herein and have encouraged this pattern of illegal code enforcement and
racketeering activity to continue on a continuing basis since Kelly placed Dawkins in control of
the NHPI.
147. Due to the racketeering activity and illegal and discriminatory code enforcement
operations directed against them, Vues have sustained substantial damages including loss of
rental income, profits and investments in multiple rental buildings. Additionally, Vues’ damages
3 include anticipated losses from forced sales of their rental properties, unnecessary repairs,
excessive fees and charges, expenditures to protect their interests, payment of attorney’s fees,
costs and disbursements and other damages. The damages suffered by Vues are substantial,
ongoing in nature and are increasing daily.
Plaintiff Steven Johnson
148. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Johnson has owned numerous
rental properties in the City, including many Section 8 units.
1 4 9 . Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Martin, Seeley and others, under supervision of Dawkins
and Kelly, and in coordination with other City offtcials and employees, participated in furthering
the discriminatory action and illegal code enforcement conduct by targeting Johnson who was
‘providing housing to “protected class” tenants.
1 5 0 . Commencing on or about March 12, 2003, and continuing to present, City
housing inspectors and officials, including Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Kalis, Seely and Lippert,
along with Dolan and others, have harassed Johnson on his rental properties in an effort to shut
down Johnson’s rental business, or force change in ownership of Johnson’s properties. Said
Defendants’ illegal, discriminatory and malicious actions have forced Johnson to sell off many of
his rental properties.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 35 of 66
151. Even though Johnson had no abnormal history of code violations during his
ownership of rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about March 12, 2003, most of
his rental properties have been selectively targeted by Defendants.
152. Said Defendants have repeatedly harassed Johnson by selectively enforcing the
City housing code in a very strict and petty manner against him, while at the same time looking
the other way on serious housing code violations at numerous adjacent properties not owned by
. Johnson.
153. On January 30, 2003, Defendant Kalis, supervised by Dawkins, commenced the
illegal harassment against Johnson by posting a “Vacant Building” sign on Johnson’s occupied
property located at 469 Whitall Street. This property was in fact occupied by Johnson’s son as his
home. Kalis ignored the obvious occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant thereby
forcing Johnson’s son to leave his home in the middle of winter.
154. On or about February 1, 2003, Johnson called Kalis to inquire why Kalis had
posted the home “vacant”. Johnson informed Kalis that the home was in fact occupied by
Johnson’s son and that the posting was wrong. Kalis responded, “Too bad.” Johnson asked how
Johnson could have the vacant building posting removed? Kalis told Johnson, “In order to get
the vacant building posting removed, you must do a “full code compliance”. Johnson asked him
what that meant as Johnson had no prior experience or knowledge of “full code compliance”.
Kalis answered that Johnson would need a complete upgrade of the home to current building
standards in order to reoccupy the home. Kalis refused to give Johnson any further information
or clarify what Johnson needed to do.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 36 of 66
1 5 5 . Johnson was forced to file an appeal of Kalis’ vacant building posting through the
City Council legislative hearing process. Following Johnsons’ successful appeal, on February
10, 2003, the City rescinded the “Vacant Building’ status.
1 5 6 . Martin at the direction of Magner and Dawkins, retaliated against Johnson for his
appeal by conducting an exterior inspection of 469 Whitall and thereafter issued and mailed to
Johnson and the occupant a Correction Notice dated February 10, 2003. Martin informed
*Johnson that she would reinspect the home on February 24, 2003, and that the Code
“deficiencies” must be corrected by that time or a criminal summons could be issued.
1 5 7 . On February 19, 2003, before the February 24, 2003, reinspection deadline,
Martin made a second inspection, and then prepared and mailed to Johnson and the occupant a
Revised Correction Notice dated February 21, 2003, that noted additional “deficiencies” to be
corrected by the original February24,2003, deadline.
1 5 8 . About one month later, Lippert and Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson and
the occupant a “Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For Human Habitation And Order To Vacate”
dated March 3 1, 2003, wherein Lippert and Dawkins deliberately and maliciously condemned
Johnson’s 469 Whitall home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 31,2003,
it ordered that Johnson’s home vacated by March 28, 2003, three days earlier. Lippert and
Dawkins made the same demand as Kalis two months earlier that a full code compliance be
completed.
1 5 9 . The March 3 1, 2003, Notice of Condemnation on Johnson’s home was based
solely on slight cracking in three joists on the porch. Johnson already knew of this problem as
he had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who informed him that it was a
minor repair. Based solely upon this minor problem, the condemnation and order to vacate the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 37 of 66
property prohibited Johnson’s son and his girl friend and her two children from re-occupying
their home.
160. Magner, Lippert, Kalis, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from
Defendant City, under the supervision of Dawkins, continued to selectively target Johnson by
condemning a second rental property that Johnson had purchased in December 2002. This
property was located at 941 Cypress Street. Johnson leased this home to a tenant who was
c disabled, confined to a wheel-chair and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance.
161. In February 2003, Dawkins’ NHPI commenced harassment against Johnson’s 941
Cypress tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant with Vehicle Abatement Orders and
Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal misdemeanor housing code citation to
the tenant.
162. Said Defendants were able to condemn Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13, 2003, after a questi onable warrant and police “drug raid” into the disabled tenant’s
home. On information and belief, no charges were ever filed against the disabled tenant. Lippert
and Dawkins promptly condemned Johnson’s rental home as part of the alleged “drug raid”
forcing the disabled tenant from his home.
163. The raid at Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental home for alleged drugs, the arrest of the
disabled tenant, the subsequent failure to charge the tenant and the issuance of a condemnation
of the home simultaneously with the raid, was similar to the experience of other property owners
in the City, including rental property owner Kelly Brisson on October 9, 2003. Brisson’s 297
Burgess, owner-occupied rental duplex was condemned for damage caused by law enforcement
personnel following a questionable raid, thereby forcing Brisson and his disabled tenant from
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 38 of 66
their home. No charges were ever brought against Brisson or his tenant. Brisson lost his home
due to the condemnation.
164. As part of the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress property, Lippert and
Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated
March 13, 2003. The sole basis for the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property
was listed as “excessive storage of combustible materials “throughout” the home. Lippert and
c Dawkins falsely and maliciously stated the condition of the home. The tenant was simply
repairing his snow blower in his kitchen. Instead of allowing the tenant to remove his snow
blower and gas can from his kitchen, Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in
condemning the property and prohibiting anyone from living in the home.
1 6 5 . Martin continued Defendants’ discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
activity against Johnson. Martin prepared and mailed to Johnson written Correction Orders of his
rental properties wherein she made malicious false statements about claimed code violations;
many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by Martin to Johnson were false and
calculated to make Johnson’s properties look bad and to harass Johnson.
1 6 6 . For example, Johnson received in the mail from Martin a Correction Notice dated
January 16, 2004, regarding his rental property located at 606 Edmund Avenue, St. Paul, that
listed claimed code violations following Martin and Koehnen’s inspection of the property on
January 15, 2004. Prior to conducting that inspection, and in order to gain access to the interior
of the home, Martin and Koehnen falsely informed the tenant that Johnson had sent them to
conduct the inspection. When the tenant would not invite Martin and Koehnen inside, Martin and
Keohnen forced their way into the rental unit to conduct the inspection.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 39 of 66
167. Martin’s January 16, 2004, Correction Notice (“Notice”) contained twelve (12)
claimed code violations of which five (5) were false. Martin’s claims regarding the toilet seat,
cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation (Items 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12) were deliberately false and those
claimed code violations did not in fact exist.
168. These deliberately false allegations were malicious in that Martin and Koehnen
had personally been present, witnessed and inspected the 606 Edmund property in June 2003,
D when Martin and Koehnen, with no prior notice, came to the property uninvited. At that time,
Johnson was almost completed with an extensive renovation of the home which included the
items specifically listed in the later Notice from Martin. Martin and Koehnen personally toured
the premises, including the interior, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials and
workmanship and time and effort being expended by Johnson on renovation.
169. Kalis participated further in the coordinated discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement conduct, and racketeering activity of the individual Defendants, by citing Johnson’s
469 Whitall Street rental property on May 19, 2004, with an Summary Abatement Order
ordering Johnson to cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the
Summary Abatement Order to Johnson on May 20,2004. The lawn at 469 Whital was not over
the eight inch limit for grass height under the City’s code. Kalis’ claims were false and
maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants.
170. Kalis again cited Johnson’s 469 Whitall Street property on July 9, 2004, with a
Summary Abatement Order ordering Johnson to cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant
growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement Order to Johnson on July 13,2004. Johnson’s son
had cut the grass at 469 Whitall on July 7, 2004, and once again the lawn was well under the
code limit. Kalis’ claims were false and maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 40 of 66
171. Kalis cited Johnson’s 483 Sherburne Ave. single family rental property on
October 1, 2004, with a Summary Abatement Order mailed to Johnson and ordering Johnson to
cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. The lawn at 469 Whitall was not over
the limit for grass height under the code but was in fact 3-4 inches in height on October 6,2004,
when Johnson again cut the grass. Kalis’ claims were false and maliciously made in concert with
the other Defendants.
172. Paula Seeley participated in the coordinated discriminatory and illegal code
enforcement conduct and racketeering activity of the individual Defendants by repeatedly
issuing citations on Johnson’s properties that were false.
173. On March 23, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order which she mailed to
Johnson on March 24,2004, stating that Johnson was in violation of the City Code for a tenant’s
vehicle parked on an unapproved surface. Seeley ordered the vehicle to be removed from the
grass. The Vehicle was not parked on the grass but rather was parked on a fully code compliant
gravel surface on top of an older cement garage floor.
1 7 4 . Seeley also issued a Vehicle Abatement Order for Johnson’s 483 Sherburne Ave.
property and mailed this Order to Johnson on April 2, 2004, claiming that an automobile owned
by Johnson’s tenant was parked on grass, an unapproved parking surface. Seeley’s claim was
false, as the vehicle was actually parked on a gravel surface on top of an older cement garage
floor.
1 7 5 . On April 19,2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order for Johnson’s 483 Sherburne
Ave property, which she mailed to Johnson on April 20, 2004. Seeley claimed a code violation
existed for garbage and rubbish stored on property. When Johnson received the notice and
conducted an inspection of the property, he found one garbage bag in front of the 90 gallon trash
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 41 of 66
container. At the same time, other neighboring properties had excessive garbage and trash
rubbish.
176. Dawkins mailed to Johnson an April 20, 2004, Excessive Consumption Notice
billing Johnson $50.00 for the cost Seeley’s inspection. The Notice stated that “Failure to pay
this bill will result in revocation of your registration.”
1 7 7 . Johnson filed a legislative appeal of Seeley’s Correction Order dated April 19,
I 2004. Johnson, his son and daughter and three of Johnson’s tenants attended the appeal hearing
on May 11, 2004. The City Council legislative hearing officer allowed inspector Seeley to
present her testimony of claimed trash but refused Johnson’s offer to present evidence that
Seeley’s claims of code violations were false.
1 7 8 . Johnson received a St. Paul City Council Public Hearing Notice - Ratification of
Assessment, dated August 13, 2004, notifying Johnson that a hearing would be held on
September 22, 2004, to authorize a property assessment on 483 Sherbume of the excessive
consumption fee of $50.00 that Dawkins had levied, plus a $20.00 service fee. Johnson had not
paid the Excessive Consumption fee of $50.00 levied by Dawkins on Johnson’s 483 Sherbume
property in protest over the false code violations claims.
179. Following Johnson’s receipt of the Assessment Notice, Johnson called Dawkins to
protest the assessment of fee and explained to Dawkins the false code violation citation that had
led to the assessment. Dawkins informed Johnson that if Johnson failed to make the payment,
Johnson’s rental registration would be revoked. Johnson was forced to make payment to the City
in the amount of $70.00 in order to keep his rental registration and to continue his rental business
at 483 Sherbume Ave.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 42 of 66
180. On or about February 16, 2005, Seeley issued a Correction Notice on Johnson’s
property located at 483 Sherburne Ave., and mailed the Notice to Johnson on February 17,2005,
notifying Johnson to eliminate the code violation of, “trash container is overflowing and there is
scattered trash on the ground and alley area. Remove.” When Johnson received the Correction
Notice, Johnson’s son and worker went to the property to check if trash was present and found
the trash container was not overflowing, the lid of the container was shut, there was no scattered
1 trash or any trash on the property. The tenant confirmed this fact to Johnson’s son and worker.
181. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
treatment and racketeering activity directed at Johnson by said individual Defendants, all at the
direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, Johnson was injured in his rental business
and incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and Johnson was thereafter forced to
sell his rental properties in the City of St. Paul.
182. Said Defendants’ discriminatory actions against Johnson and his tenants continues
at present. Following the filing of the Steinhauser federal court Complaint on May 5, 2004,
wherein Johnson was identified as a witness and similarly injured property owner who had
potential claims, the individual Defendants continued illegal code enforcement actions and
racketeering activity directed at Johnson and his brother, Ken Johnson, a similarly situated St.
Paul landlord with “protected class” tenants.
183. On June 24,2004, City Attorney Dolan and Kalis applied for ex-parte restraining
orders against Johnson and his brother for conduct that allegedly occurred on May 24, 2004.
When the Ramsey County District Court judge reviewed the actual evidence, the restraining
orders were dismissed as there was no basis for the relief sought by said Defendants through
Kalis. Dismissal of the restraining orders occurred only after Johnsons were forced to hire St.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 43 of 66
Paul attorney Thomas C. Plunkett, thereby incurring substantial attorney’s fees and costs in
having their attorney obtain the necessary court relief. Johnson was in the process of preparing
his federal claims against the City and the Defendants herein during the time of this retaliation
and he was an identified federal witness.
1 8 4 . The illegal actions against Johnson as described above were accomplished to
further the racketeering activity of the individual Defendants.
Citv and Its Officials and Employees Benefit From Illegal Schemes
1 8 5 . Defendant City has benefitted from these illegal schemes against Harrilal, Vues,
Johnson, Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Kakish, Miller, Krahn, and other property owners
named herein and others unknown at this time, through fees triggered by the condemnations,
including from vacant building registration fees and permit fees in the “full code compliance”
inspection and certification process, and from excessive consumption fees and other fees.
Defendant City also benefitted through receipt of grant funds for bringing TRA suits against
Harrilal, Vues, Steinhauser, Brisson, Krahn and other property owners. Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seely, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and other officials and employees
have also benefitted personally in their positions of employment with the City.
COUNT I
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, et seq.
1 8 6 . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 185 as set
forth above.
1 8 7 . At all relevant times, some or all of the following constituted a RICO enterprise
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. S 1961(4), or an association in fact: the Division of Property
Code Enforcement; the Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement Office; Citizen’s
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 44 of 66
Service Office; Problem Property Unit; Problem Properties Task Force; the Mayor’s Office; the
St. Paul Police Department; the St. Paul Fire Prevention Department; the Ramsey County
Courts; and Community Stabilization Project; within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) and
1962(c), in that it was a legal entity or an association in fact.
188. Defendants Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen,
Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe are individual “persons” within the meaning of 18
j U.S.C. 1961(3) and 1962(c), who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprise’s affairs.
189. From at least October 08,2002, and continuing at present, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacity, as persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(3), conducted and
participated, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (c). Defendants Dawkins,
Magner and Kelly operated and managed the enterprise(s).
1 9 0 . Said individual Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity consisted of:
a . Said individual Defendants’ extortion, or attempts, or conspiracy to do so, and/or
threats of physical violence, under color of official right, in interference with interstate
commerce, that was designed to extract direct or indirect personal rewards from Plaintiffs, if and
when Plaintiffs refused to turn over or succumb to Defendants’ demands for illegal Code
compliance, control of the Plaintiffs’ properties, weeding out of tenants that Defendants decided
were ‘undesirable” within the City of St. Paul, and that was designed to reach coerced
settlements that Defendants never intended to honor, to interfere with the rights of Plaintiffs and
their tenants to honest government services, to force Plaintiffs to admit the truth of statements
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 45 of 66
filed or prepared by Defendants which Defendants knew were false; said racketeering activity
interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs to honest government services, and damaged Plaintiffs in
their property or businesses; all or some of said acts were done in violation of the “Hobbs Act,”
18 U.S.C. 1951.
b . Said individual Defendants’ intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasjon, or attempts
to do so, or misleading conduct toward Plaintiffs, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent
1 testimony of any person in an official proceeding, or to coerce or induce any person to withhold
testimony, from an official proceeding, or to hinder, delay or prevent Plaintiffs from
communication with a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States relating to
Defendants’ commission of possible federal or state criminal offenses, and such acts violated 18
U.S.C. 1512.
C . Said individual Defendants’ devised, or intended to devise, schemes to defraud or
for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, beginning in or about March 2002, and continuing to the present; said Defendants
misused the code inspection procedures, intentionally failed to provide notices or intentionally
delayed notices, maliciously falsified facts which the Defendants knew were not true, made false
representations, promises, offers of settlement, and made fraudulent representations to the courts
and to the citizens of St. Paul to cover up and conceal the true duties of Defendants under the
Federal HUD grants and the City Code and state law. For purposes of executing such fraudulent
schemes, Defendants placed or caused to be placed in a post office or authorized depository for
mail, matter that furthered the scheme(s). Defendants committed mail fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1341 each time they used, or foreseeably caused, the US mails to be used to distribute the
materials described.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 46 of 66
d . Said individual Defendants beginning in or about March 2002, knowingly and
fraudulently devised, or intended to devise schemes or artifices to defraud or for obtaining
money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, and
transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in
interstate or foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds, for the purpose of
executing the schemes or artifices to defraud Plaintiffs. For purposes of executing such schemes,
’ Defendants placed or caused to be placed, or did not correct, communications transmitted by the
City web site, and other electronic communications, where such matter furthered the schemes.
Said Defendants committed wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 each time they used or
foreseeably caused such wire transmissions or other electronic communications to be made or
used to distribute the information described.
e . Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly
executed, or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain money, funds, credits, assets, or
other property under the custody or control of a financial institution by means of flse or
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344.
f. Said individual Defendants, commencing in or about March 2002, knowingly,
intentionally, directly or indirectly, corruptly gave, offered, or promised, sought or obtained, to
or from a “public official,” something of value to act or refrain from acting, with the intent to
influence or aid an official to commit or aid in the commission, collude, allow fraud or make
opportunity for commission of fraud, on the United States, or accepted something of value
personally for or because of any official act to be done or to be given as a witness in a hearing,
trial or other such proceeding, including proceedings in Ramsey County, tenant remedy
procedures, other landlord compliance proceedings, federal court proceedings, Federal Fair
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 47 of 66
Housing Act proceedings, HUD grant application and fund distribution proceedings, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 201.
I3 Said individual Defendants took, stole, tainted, alienated, transferred, concealed,
or retained without claim of right, property of Plaintiffs by artifice, swindle, trick, or other
means, including promises to settle without any intent to perform, the filing of false oaths and
statements, in violation of Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.901 et seq. (RICO), 609.05, 609.27, 609.2336,
* 609.43(2)(3)(4), 609.52, applicable to RICO under US., 393 U.S. 286 (1969).
191. These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such
acts occurred within ten years of one another.
192. Said individual Defendants are individuals or other persons within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. 1961 (3) and 1962(c) who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprises affairs.
193. From March 2002 through the present, said individual Defendants conducted,
participated in, engaged in, conspired to engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of the
affairs of the “enterprise” as alleged in paragraph no. 187 through a “pattern of racketeering
activity,” as listed in paragraph no. 190, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3), 1961(5) and
1962(c). Said Defendants pattern of racketeering activity consisted of acts as listed elsewhere in
the Complaint.
194. At all relevant times, the enterprises alleged in paragraph no. 187 were engaged
in, and their activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
195. All the predicate acts described in paragraph no. 190 above, were related so as to
establish a pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), in that their
common purpose was to misuse the Code enforcement process, fraudulently induce settlements
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 48 of 66
never intended to be honored, fraudulently increase the number of criminal rental property
penalties, and carry out such actions and other related actions under color of law or official right
so as to damage landlords’ property and businesses and the property interests of Plaintiffs’
tenants, and their common result was to extort or obtain monies or property or damage the
businesses of Plaintiffs and/or conceal the improper motives of Defendants under the guise of
protecting the exact same “protected class” tenants Defendants had decided to remove from St.
* Paul; Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and
John Doe and Jane Doe, each personally, or through their agent or agents, directly or indirectly,
participated in all of the acts and employed the same or similar methods of commission, fraud,
false oaths, extortion and retaliation. Plaintiffs Harrilal, Vues, Johnson, and property owners
Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Kakish, Miller and other landlords identified herein, and
others as yet unknown, were the victims of said Defendants racketeering and or the acts of
racketeering were otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated
events.
1 9 6 . All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form a pattern
of racketeering activity in that:
a . Said individual Defendants engaged in the predicate acts described above over a
substantial time (from at least March 2002, through February 2005, and continuing until
present); and
b . Said individual Defendants continue, or threaten to continue, to engage in the
predicate activity described above as regular way of conducting the enterprise and Defendants’
ongoing govermnental activities.
197. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of said
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 49 of 66
individual Defendants and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1%4(c), Plaintiffs,
Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Kakish, Miller, and other property owners identified
herein, or as yet unknown to Plaintiffs, have been injured in their persons, estates, business
and/or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). Each Plaintiff has sustained damages
to business or property, and such actions of said Defendants including their actions in
fraudulently conducting the code enforcement, court proceedings, and settlements, caused
- Plaintiffs to incur legal and accounting costs and the costs of investigation.
198. Said individual Defendants’ secret agreements were fraudulently concealed from
Plaintiffs, other property owners, the courts and law enforcement.
199. Said individual Defendants took specific acts and conspired to conceal their
liabilities under their false statements, fraudulent code enforcement, false court and
administrative filings, fraudulent settlements, threats of criminal prosecution, and fraudulent
compliance with other federal laws.
200. These specific acts included racketeering and conspiracy and were of an ongoing
nature continuing into the future.
201. Said individual Defendants each knowingly committed or conspired to commit, or
agreed with the commission of, at least one act described above in violation of RICO, or aided
and abetted the commission of one such act and thereby agreed with the objectives of the other
Defendants.
202. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker,
Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, individually,
jointly and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the costs of this sun,
including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 50 of 66
203. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the individual
Defendants from continuing their racketeering activity as described above.
COUNT II
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, ET SEQ.
204. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 203 as set
forth above.
205. From at least March 2002, and continuing on presently, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe, along
with unknown third parties, have conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the
conduct of the “enterprise” described in paragraph no. 187 through a “pattern of racketeering
activity,” as listed in paragraph no. 190, and elsewhere in the Complaint, in violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1962 (d).
206. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe with unknown third parties, agreed to commit one or more
predicate acts in furtherance of the scheme to defraud and/or agreed to the overall objective of
the schemes to defraud Plaintiffs and other landlords, all of whom were providing housing
services to members of the “protected class”.
207. Each individual Defendant committed, planned, conspired to commit, aided and
abetted at least one of the predicate acts and/or conspired to commit, and/or aide and abetted the
commission of one or more predicate acts, and/or agreed to commit at least one predicate act,
including threats of criminal prosecution, and thereby committed at least one act in furtherance
of the conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d).
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 51 of 66
208. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and
Jane Doe, along with unknown third patties, as defined herein, Plaintiffs have been injured in
their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 (c) and (d).
209. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker,
Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, individually,
jointly and severally, for threefold the damages sustained, together with the costs of this suit,
including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1968 AND AMENDMENTS
(FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT)
42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601 ET SEQ., 3613 AND 3617
210. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 209 as set
forth above.
211. Commencing in March 2002, and continuing thereafter, Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, John Doe and Jane Doe, and other
.
officials and employees of Defendant City, as well as inspectors from Defendant City’s Fire
Department, intentionally and maliciously commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory
policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted Plaintiffs and
other St. Paul landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and associating with individuals with
protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing Act and Amendments,
including Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, families
with children, individuals with disabilities, those receiving state and federal financial assistance,
as well as others less fortunate (“protected class”), all living within the City of St. Paul.
212. Said Defendants discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 52 of 66
conduct did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs
having aided, associated with or encouraged their “protected class” tenants in exercise of these
tenants’ rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
213. This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement conduct had,
and continues to have, the approval of the City Council.
2 14. Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice of code enforcement
conduct was intentional and malicious in Defendants’ efforts to rid the City of St. Paul of
“bottom of the barrel,” “undesirable,” ”low income” individuals, who were in very large part,
“protected class” members, and Plaintiffs and others who were assisting these individuals.
215. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and other officials and employees of Defendant City, as well as inspectors from the Fire
Department, intended that their aggressive code enforcement operations would have a
discriminatory impact upon members of the “protected class” and Plaintiffs as providers of
housing services to those “protected class” members.
216. Said Defendants’ further instituted a campaign of coercion, extortion,
intimidation, threats, interference and retaliation against Plaintiffs which impaired Plaintiffs’
abilities to provide housing for low and moderate income members of the “protected class”.
Said coercion, extortion, intimidation, threats, interference and retaliation resulted in actual
damages to Plaintiffs’ businesses and properties, including loss of income, profits and
investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, false settlements, forced
payments, forced sales of rental properties, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and
other fees.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 53 of 66
217. Defendant City has acquired, retained and expended millions of dollars in HUD
grants, as well as other federal funds, while at the same time Defendants have concretely
undermined the policy and purposes of those grants by targeting privately owned rental
properties providing low income housing to “protected class” members, thereby forcing tenants
and private landlords out of the St. Paul market for affordable, safe housing, in violation of
federal and state law, including without due process and under color of law or official right.
218. PHA is a direct competitor of Plaintiffs and many other targeted rental property
owners within the City. Defendants have abused police powers in selectively targeting privately
owned rental properties with discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering
activity, while at the same time PHA has not been subject to the same or similar code inspection
system on PHA’s rental properties or subject to the same or similar adverse threat consequences
for code violations or tenant behavior problems.
2 19. PHA’s rental housing stock in the City has similar health, safety, fire and housing
code issues as Plaintiffs ’rental properties and those of other private landlords renting to
“protective class” tenants. Many of PHA’s rental properties have similar maintenance issues and
problems as Plaintiffs’ older rental buildings, yet only privately owned rental properties are
subject to Defendants’ discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity.
220. PHA’s rental housing stock has tenant and guest behavior problems, including
those that require frequent calls for City police protection, that are similar to the tenant and guest
behavior problems of Plaintiffs’ properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly
situated property owners in the City. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties of
Plaintiffs and other property owners who are in direct competition with PHA for the same low
income, predominately minority tenants, based upon claimed tenant behavior problems that also
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 54 of 66
exist in PHA properties.
221. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its
provisions and Defendants cannot be expected to enforce the Act’s provisions against
themselves.
222. Said Defendants’ code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon
members of the “protected class” living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other
property owners providing housing services to “protected class” members.
223. Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice of interference and
retaliatory conduct continued at all times set forth herein and continues presently in the City.
224. As a direct result of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice
of interference and retaliatory conduct directed at Plaintiffs and others, Plaintiffs have sustained
loss of rental income and damage to their rental businesses, including lost profits and
investments, have been forced to sell rental properties, and incurred other damages, included
increased tax burdens, and have incurred unnecessary expenses and fees, and attorney and
accounting fees and costs.
225. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
226. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing
Act by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and
others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
227. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 permanent injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendants from continuing their wrongful conduct, as Defendants’ discriminatory code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 55 of 66
enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described above, has existed and continued and
presently continues, within the City over an extended period of time.
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
228. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 227 as set
forth above.
229. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, John Doe and lane Doe, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have intentionally
denied Plaintiffs, on account of race, the same right to make and enforce contracts, and to have
the full and equal benefit of all laws or proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
enjoyed by white citizens, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section
1981.
230. Defendants, with racially discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs’
contracts, and right to make and enforce contracts with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs’
right to enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of Plaintiffs’ contractual
relationships with their non-white tenants.
231. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs, and damages for deprivation of their civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation
and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 56 of 66
232. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
233. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in
this Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT V
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
234. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 233 as set
forth above.
235. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, have denied Plaintiffs, on account of race,
the same rights as are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real
and personal property, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
236. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as
more fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs’ property rights and those of its tenants.
237. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of their civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation
and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 57 of 66
238. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe, in
their individual capacities.
239. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in
this Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe.
240. Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from
continuing their pattern of discriminatory code enforcement as described above.
COUNT VI
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
241. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 240 as set
forth above.
242. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly and other employees of Defendant City, unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their
official capacities, did wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants of rights secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, including the right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, the right to be free from taking of their property without compensation,
the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue
an occupation, business or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference,
or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments and rights established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
243. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly and other employees of City unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their official
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 58 of 66
capacities, were following an unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice of discriminatory
code enforcement at the time of said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.
244. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury
to Plaintiffs.
245. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages as a result of the policy,
custom and practice set forth herein.
246. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin Koehnen, Kelly,
Dawkins, other employees of Defendant City of St. Paul unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, in
their individual capacities, acting under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously
subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in occupations and/or professions to deprivation of their rights
and undue interference on account of Plaintiffs’ tenants being ‘protected class” members.
247. Said Defendants intentional and malicious conduct was a violation of Plaintiffs’
rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free from taking of property without
compensation, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to
pursue an occupation, business or profession free from deprivation or undue interference, or
government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 198 1, 1982 and 1983.
248. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
249. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 59 of 66
250. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in
this Count by Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and others unknown to Plaintiffs
at this time.
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS .
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1985
251. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 250 as set
forth above.
252. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and other employees of
Defendant City unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, conspired together with certain third parties,
also unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but who were not employees or agents of said City, to
deny Plaintiffs and their tenants their federal civil rights as set forth above.
253. Said individual Defendants and their third-party conspirators conspired to
deprive, either directly or indirectly, Plaintiffs and their “protected class” tenants of their rights
under the United States Constitution, including their right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures, right to compensation for taking of their property and to due process, right to equal
protection of the laws, right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from
deprivation or undue interference or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their rights under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1982 and 1983, and Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988,42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 60 of 66
254. Said Defendants did act in furtherance of the conspiracy as more fully set out
above.
255. Said conspiracy was motivated by racial and other class based, invidious
discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.
256. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, and deprivation of their
civil and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment, as well as attorneys fees.
257. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT VIII
ABUSE OF PROCESS
258. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 257 as set
forth above.
259. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were owners of rental properties located
within the City.
260. Plaintiffs rented their properties to individuals protected under the constitution
and laws of Minnesota and the United States.
261. Defendants, in a coordinated effort to rid the City of “bottom of the barrel,”
“undesirable” and “low income” individuals, and those private owners of rental properties
providing housing services to “protected class” tenants, targeted Plaintiffs’ rental properties and
their tenants for discriminatory and selective code enforcement.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 61 of 66
262. Defendants, as part of this illegal scheme, unlawfully and maliciously created
false entries in City code enforcement documentation, including, but not limited to, in Correction
Orders, Notices of Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, and other code enforcement
documents, all as set forth above, in an effort to shut down the rental businesses of Plaintiffs,
increase their costs, force sale of rental properties, increase their tax burdens, force tenants from
their homes and reduce the available housing for those whom Defendants considered “bottom of
the barrel,” “undesirable” and “low income” individuals.
263. Defendants used the false entries in code documentation to maliciously condemn
certain of said Plaintiffs’ rental properties and to order tenants and all other occupants to vacate
their homes, all without adequate notice or opportunity for hearing.
264. Additionally, Defendants, as part of the continuation of their illegal schemes,
unlawfully and maliciously used the false code enforcement documentation in court filings
against Harrilal and Vues, and against other St. Paul landlords as set forth above.
265. Defendant City’s court filings prepared by Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and
Magner, with assistance from other city employees and the City Attorney’s office, against
Harrilal and Vues, and other landlords as set forth above, included reference to falsely stated
code violations; Defendants attached the false City code documentation as attachments to the
Court Complaints; Dawkins provided sworn Verifications as to truth of the false claims; said
Defendants’ malicious actions were made in an attempt to shut down the rental operations of
Harrilal and Vues and other St. Paul landlords, increase their costs, and thereby force out of the
City the “protected class” individuals renting from said Plaintiffs and others in the City.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 62 of 66
266. In perpetrating the above wrongful acts, said Defendants acted maliciously and
wrongfully and with the intent, design, and purpose to specifcally injure each Plaintiff and their
tenants.
267. Defendants’ malicious and wrongful conduct directly caused severe damage to
each Plaintiff and to their tenants. Defendants malicious and wrongful conduct condemned
certain of the rental properties of Plaintiffs, and/or eliminated the source of rental income to
Plaintiffs through wrongful conduct by Defendants set forth herein. Defendants’ wrongful
conduct also directly caused a loss of profits and investments to Plaintiffs, forced Plaintiffs to
sell rental properties, and forced Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary costs, fees and expenses,
including attorneys fees, in attempting to protect their rights, and to incur unnecessary expenses
and fees in needless repairs demanded by Defendants.
268. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
269. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Defendants
Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others
unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT IX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
270. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 269 as set
forth above.
271. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease of private housing in the City of Saint Paul.
272. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ leases with its tenants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 63 of 66
273. Plaintiffs’ leases on said rental properties included, but were not limited to, leases
with those individuals who were members of the “protected class”.
274. Defendants intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and
malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs’ rental properties and orders for tenants to vacate rental
properties and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
275. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contracts was without any
justification.
276. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendants’ tortuous interference with
Plaintiffs’ contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost profits,
incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs and have incurred attorney’s fees, other fees
and court costs in defending against Defendants’ malicious conduct
277. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
278. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and others unknown
to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT x
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS’
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
279. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 278 as set
forth above.
280. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had rental businesses in
the City. Plaintiffs’ primary tenants were “protected class” members.
Case 0:05-~~-00461 -JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 64 of 66
281. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from
their rental businesses and relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
282. Magner, Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins,
Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe engaged in wrongful conduct, as more fully described above,
that wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs’ reasonable business expectation and which had an
adverse effect on Plaintiffs’ rental businesses.
283. Said Defendants’ wrongful interference was without justification and was
maliciously intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs’ rental relationships and
reasonable business expectation.
284. Said Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of,
or harm to, Plaintiffs’ rental businesses and business expectancy and the damages suffered by
each Plaintiff.
285. Without Defendants’ wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
286. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs’ rental businesses; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income,
and profits, have been forced to sell rental properties, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs,
fees and expenses in needless repairs, and have incurred attorney’s fees and court costs in
defending against Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
287. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Kalis, Lippert,
Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 65 of 66
288. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner,
Kalis, Lippert, Booker, Reardon, Seeley, Martin, Koehnen, Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown
to Plaintiffs at this time.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.
2 . A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.
3 . A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.
4 . A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.
5 . A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.
6 . A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
7 . A judgment pursuant to Count VII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
8 . A judgment pursuant to Count VIII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
9 . A judgment pursuant to Count IX of this Complaint as set forth therein.
1 0 . A judgment pursuant to Count X of this Complaint as set forth therein.
1 1 . A judgment for Plaintiffs’ compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this
matter on all Counts herein.
1 2 . A judgment for Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
1 3 . A permanent injunction restraining Defendants from violating 42 U.S.C. Section
3601, et seq. and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 and/or 18 U.S.C.. Section 1961, et seq.
1 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
1 5 . For trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 12 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 66 of 66
JOHN R. SHOEMAKER & ASSOCIATES
Dated: July 20, 2005 By /S/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375 _
Attorneys for Plaintiffs