Is This a Criminal In The Back Seat Of This Car?

14 E. Jessamine Demolition photos set 1

14 E. Jessamine Interioir Photos set 1

14 E. Jessamine Exterior Photos

Court order on protective motion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 04-2632 (JNE / SRN)
ORDER
Sandra Harrilal, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 05-461 (JNE / SRN)
ORDER
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 05-1348 (JNE / SRN)
ORDER
Matthew A. Engel, 11282 86th Avenue North, Maple Grove, MN 55369, for Plaintiffs
Gallagher et al.; John R. Shoemaker, Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C., 7701 France Ave.
South, Suite 200, Edina, MN 55435, for Plaintiffs Steinhauser et al., and Harrilal et al.
Louise Toscai Seeba, Assistant City Attorney, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102, for Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 14

2
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Defendants’
Motions For a Protective Order (Doc. No. 71 (No. 04-CV-2632), Doc. No. 30 (No. 05-CV-
1348), & Doc. No. 36 (No. 05-CV-461)). The matter has been referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1(a). For the reasons stated
below, the Court grants the motions in part and denies the motions in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these three related actions, several owners of rental properties within the City of St.
Paul (Plaintiffs) generally allege that the City of St. Paul and various municipal officials
(Defendants) have engaged in discriminatory practices with respect to enforcing building codes
regarding Plaintiffs’ properties, which are allegedly occupied primarily by “protected-class”
renters.
Plaintiffs seek to depose various individuals, mostly non-parties, that are present or
former St. Paul municipal officials, including former Mayor Randy Kelly, City Council President
Kathy Landry, City Council Member David Thune, Legislative Hearing Officer Marcia
Moermond, and Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan. Defendants now move for protective
orders prohibiting the depositions.
II. DISCUSSION
Parties generally are entitled to conduct liberal discovery into any relevant non-privileged
material. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Upon a showing of good cause, however, this Court may
enter a protective order tailoring the nature and form of discovery “to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c); see also id. 26(b)(2) (permitting limitation of discovery based on various grounds). This
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 2 of 14

1 Although numerous courts have addressed this general issue, there is little controlling
law in this district apart from the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Sweeney v. Bond, 669 F.2d 542
(8th Cir. 1982). This court will cite as persuasive authority decisions from other jurisdictions that
are not inconsistent with Sweeney, particularly where they in turn rely on Sweeney. E.g.
Warzon v. Drew, 155 F.R.D. 183, 185 (W.D. Wis. 1994) (citing Sweeney).
3
Court possesses broad discretion in deciding “when a protective order is appropriate and what
degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).
Additional factors and concerns are relevant where discovery is sought from a public
official. A protective order prohibiting the deposition of certain public officials is particularly
appropriate where the party seeking such discovery cannot “show specific need for the
information.” Sweeney v. Bond, 669 F.2d 542, 546 (8th Cir. 1982). To depose government
officials, the party seeking such discovery must show that the prospective deponent “possessed
information which was essential to plaintiffs’ case and which could not be obtained from” others.
Id. Where plaintiffs who allege a civil rights violation that requires a showing of discriminatory
intent seek to depose public officials, they must “support their allegations with evidence
sufficient to permit the inference that race was a motivating factor in the council members’
decision.” Stone’s Auto Mart, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 721 F. Supp. 206, 211 (D. Minn.
1989).
Generally, such depositions–at least where the deponent lacks personal knowledge of the
facts relevant to the lawsuit–are permitted only where the party seeking them demonstrates (1)
that the deponent’s testimony will likely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (2) that it
is essential to that party’s case, and (3) that it is not available through any other source or less
burdensome means. Warzon v. Drew, 155 F.R.D. 183, 185 (W.D. Wis. 1994).1
Where the deponent possesses such personal knowledge, however, discovery might be
more appropriate. E.g. NEC Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 958 F. Supp. 624, 634-35 (Ct.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 3 of 14

2 Defendants consistently assert that the officials are entitled to a “qualified immunity.”
(E.g. Mem. at 7, 9, 10.) In actions against government officials, certain officials are entitled to
“absolute immunity” (also known as “official immunity”) and the rest are protected by “qualified
immunity.” See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 642-43 & n.4 (1987); Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 340 n.2 (1986). Both of these forms of immunity, however, are immunity from
suit, entitling the official to seek dismissal even before discovery. Here, doctrines of immunity
from suit are presently not directly at issue for the most part because all but one of the
prospective deponents are not defendants, but rather only non-party witnesses. In addition, with
respect to the prospective deponent who is a defendant, the present issue is not whether he is
immune from suit. Although the issue is thus simply whether such officials can be deposed in
light of their official functions, government officials are nonetheless generally entitled to some
protection from such intrusions on the performance of their official duties.
4
Int’l Trade 1997) (distinguishing deposition of official who lacks personal knowledge from
deposition of official alleged to have used authority for improper purpose). Moreover, where the
claims require the plaintiff to prove that a particular official acted with illegal or otherwise
improper intent as an essential element of those claims, such information is generally
discoverable. Stone’s Auto Mart, 721 F. Supp. at 211 (“The motivation of the council members
is precisely what is at issue and, therefore, is discoverable.”).
Here, Defendants claim the municipal officials are entitled to a “limited” or “qualified”
immunity generally accorded to “high-ranking government officials.” (Mem. at 7.)2 They claim
that such officials generally “are not subject to depositions” unless “the requesting party
establishes a specific need.” (Id. at 7-8 (citing Warzon v. Drew, 155 F.R.D. 183, 185 (W.D.
Wis. 1994).)
Plaintiffs generally do not dispute the requirements of the governing standard but rather
argue that they have met that standard because they have alleged that various public officials
deprived them of their civil rights and the requisite showing of intent to prove such claims
requires that they be permitted to depose certain officials to discover evidence of such intent.
(See Mem. at 6-8). They submit that the depositions (1) will likely lead to the discovery of
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 4 of 14

5
admissible evidence, (2) will reveal facts essential to their claims, and (3) will be the only means
of discovering such facts. (Id. at 4-5.) They further contend that “[o]ral depositions of the
disputed deponents is essential to further develop” and gather evidence “of direct or
circumstantial evidence of the discriminatory intent of the defendants.” (Id. at 25.) They also
argue that depositions upon written questions would not be adequate “given the complexity of
the evidence” and the “need for follow-up questions and the spontaneity that oral depositions
provides to counsel.” (Id.) Finally, they assert that with respect to Mr. Kelly, who apparently no
longer resides in the Twin Cities, they could take his deposition by telephone if attorney travel is
not warranted. (Id. at 26.)
Here, the prospective deponents fall into several categories of municipal official and,
therefore, will be addressed accordingly.
A. The Mayor And Members Of The City Council
Plaintiffs assert that they are not seeking any privileged information from the former
mayor and certain city council members related to their performance of their executive and
legislative duties, but rather seek only the officials “personal knowledge of relevant information
that is essential to Plaintiffs’ claims,” that is, knowledge that the City “intentionally targeted . . .
low-income rental properties with adverse code enforcement operations while at the same time
allow[ing] a preferential code enforcement standard to apply to the City’s Public Housing
Agency rental properties and to City officials’ properties.” (Mem. at 5-7.)
1. Former Mayor Randy Kelly
Plaintiffs seek to depose Randy Kelly, who served as the Mayor of St. Paul during the
relevant time frame. Of the prospective deponents at issue here, Mr. Kelly is the only one who is
named as a Defendant in these actions. As Defendants point out, while in office Mayor Kelly
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 5 of 14

6
created the NHPI division of Code Enforcement and appointed Andy Dawkins as its director.
(Mem. at 3-4.) Defendants claim Plaintiffs “cannot articulate a specific need for” Kelly’s
deposition and claim that Plaintiffs only seek “to put the former Mayor’s policy decisions and
discretionary acts under the spotlight” so as to “improperly prob[e] his policy decisions and
discretionary acts.” (Mem. at 9-10.)
Generally, courts often limit or even preclude depositions of government officials
because of the intrusion on such officials’ time and in order to foster official decision-making
free of concern of having to explain such decisions in legal proceedings. Where the prospective
deponent is no longer a governmental official, however, the first reason for limiting such
discovery might not apply. Here, Mr. Kelly is no longer the Mayor of St. Paul, nor does he
apparently hold any official office currently.
Nevertheless, this Court believes that an official’s concern that he would have to explain
in legal proceedings his decisions as a public official extends beyond the official’s term in office.
See Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 315, 318 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (explaining that
principle of shielding current officials has been extended to also protect former officials); United
States v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2002 WL 562301 (D. Md. 2002) (same); Arnold Agency v. West
Virginia Lottery Commission, 526 S.E.2d 814, 830 (W. Va. 1999) (“Former high-ranking
government administrators . . . have a legitimate interest in avoiding unnecessary entanglements
in civil litigation [which] obviously survives leaving office.”). Contra Sanstrom v. Rosa, 1996
WL 469589, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 1996) (“[B]ecause Mr. Cuomo is no longer governor, he
cannot claim this privilege.”); see Gibson v. Carmody, 1991 WL 161087 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14,
1991) (permitting deposition of former official).
As a general matter, the courts are reluctant to permit depositions of high-ranking
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 6 of 14

7
government officials even in Section 1983 actions such as this. Murray v. County of Suffolk,
212 F.R.D. 108, 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (prohibiting deposition of police commissioner, in action
for sexual assault by other police personnel, where plaintiff sought “the deposition of [the]
Commissioner . . . as the ultimate policymaker on Monell issues relating to the” police
department and “the plaintiff does not appear to claim [the Commissioner possessed] any
[personal] knowledge”). Accord Church of Scientology of Boston v. IRS, 138 F.R.D. 9, 12 (D.
Mass. 1990) (noting exception to general rule prohibiting deposition of officials where officials
“have direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues”); Community Federal
Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., 96 F.R.D. 619, 621-22 (D.D.C. 1983)
(granting protective order where plaintiff failed to satisfy any of three exceptions to general rule
that government officials should not be subject to deposition).
Accordingly, although “under normal circumstances [this Court] would not allow”
depositions of high-ranking government officials, an exception is warranted where “Plaintiffs
allege actions personal to the Defendant and in violation of the United States Code.” Union
Savings Bank of Patchogue, New York v. Saxon, 209 F. Supp. 319, 319-20 (D.D.C. 1962).
Accord The Atlanta Journal and Constitution v. The City of Atlanta Dept. of Aviation, 175
F.R.D. 347, 348 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (permitting deposition of mayor where he was “a named
defendant in his capacity as mayor and it is alleged that he has been involved directly with this
case”); Tye v. City of Jacksonville, 707 F. Supp. 1298, 1300 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (noting, in Section
1983 action, “that the deposition of an executive official is proper when the official possesses
particular information essential to plaintiff’s case which cannot reasonably be obtained by
another discovery mechanism”).
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Kelly has personal knowledge relevant to the
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 7 of 14

3 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaints do not support their current arguments for
needing to depose the officials at issue. (Mem. at 4-6, 9.) But as Plaintiffs point out, “[m]uch of
the information to form the basis for oral depositions of the proposed deponents was not
available at the time the Complaints were filed and has only been discovered through depositions
of City inspectors or through review of City documents in the discovery process.” (Mem. at 4.)
8
discrimination claims. (Mem. at 9-12.) Accordingly, at this juncture of the action, “fairness to
the parties requires” that Plaintiffs be able to depose Kelly regarding his personal knowledge
relevant to the claims at issue. Gibson v. Carmody, 1991 WL 161087, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14,
1991). Where, as here, the mayor “is not joined in this action because of his exercise of official
discretion,” but rather because “plaintiffs allege [he] was an active participant in illegal activity,”
then an “oral deposition is the best means of determining the extent of [the mayor’s]
participation, if any.” Alliance To End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 428, 429 (N.D. Ill.
1976).
Although much of the evidence on which Plaintiffs rely could easily be construed to
support the conclusion that the Mayor’s enforcement policy was at most exactingly harsh rather
than improperly discriminatory (see Mem. at 10 (citing evidence that the mayor was “a micro
manager” who insisted that inspectors “call everything”)), Plaintiffs have produced some
evidence that might be relevant.3 Plaintiffs claim to have discovered evidence the Mayor’s
office exerted “tremendous influence over the practices and plans of” the City’s property code
enforcement operations, an “involvement [that] was overly meddlesome and was often motivated
by something other than the public good.” (Mem. at 8-9.) They further rely on evidence they
claim shows that the mayor “gave direct orders to Andy Dawkins to have inspectors ‘write up
everything’ on a home owned by a disabled Hispanic woman” even though other properties in
that neighborhood were purportedly in worse shape. (Mem. at 9.)
While such evidence might never be sufficient to support Plaintiffs’ claims of
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 8 of 14

9
discriminatory intent, this Court cannot say that Plaintiffs are not even entitled to pursue the
discovery that would appear to be the best option for obtaining any such evidence should it exist.
Accordingly, this Court will permit Plaintiffs to depose Mr. Kelly on the limited topic of
discriminatory intent. Plaintiffs are not permitted, however, to inquire into Mr. Kelly’s
discretionary policy-making functions.
2. City Council Members Kathy Lantry and David Thune
Defendants claim that depositions of the two current city council members, neither of
whom is a defendant in these actions, would constitute an “unnecessary inquiry into the thought
processes and discretionary acts of” them, wasting their time “with improper inquiries into
policy decisions and thought processes.” (Mem. at 10.) Defendants assert Plaintiffs have failed
to establish the necessary need for such depositions. (Id.) Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs
have supplied no reason for needing such depositions other than to probe “decisions made by the
St. Paul City Council as a legislative or quasi-judicial body” in adopting “housing code
enforcement rules and procedures” or the council members “reasons for approving appointees to
the Public Housing Agency.” (Id. at 11.) Defendants claim that “inquiry into the City Council’s
decision making process in reviewing condemnation orders should also be prevented” as the city
council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when engaging in such review. (Id.)
Plaintiffs respond by asserting that they “are not seeking” to depose Ms. Lantry “to
obtain information about thought processes or discretionary acts related to [her] legislative role
with the City Council,” but rather to search for evidence of “the motivation and intent of the
officials of the City to discriminatorily target Plaintiffs.” (Mem. at 15.) Plaintiffs likewise
contend that they “are not seeking information about . . . Thune’s thought processes or
discretionary acts as it relates to his legislative role in the City Council.” (Id. at 17.)
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 9 of 14

10
Rather, Plaintiffs rely on evidence that they claim shows that the prospective deponents
discriminatorily target properties owned or occupied by racial minorities. (Mem. at 14.) Again,
while such evidence might at most reveal the aggressive enforcement of property codes, the
present issue is not whether the defendants are liable on Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims, but rather
only whether Plaintiffs should be allowed to pursue any evidence of such violations through the
normal discovery channels.
Although these members of the city council are not named as defendants, they still might
possess information relevant to the claims. McGoldrick v. Koch, 110 F.R.D. 153, 156-57
(S.D.N.Y. 1986) (permitting limited discovery with respect to non-defendant officials). This
Court reiterates, however, that although the evidence of racial animosity at this juncture might be
quite thin and speculative, the present issue is not liability on the merits or even whether
Plaintiffs can survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, this Court cannot conclude
that Plaintiffs are absolutely prohibited from deposing the two city council members. See id. at
156 (noting that plaintiffs “have met [their] burden [of establishing a prima facie case of
improper decision-making], but just barely”). In short, Plaintiffs may depose the city council
members concerning the allegations of discriminatory intent. Plaintiffs are not permitted,
however, to inquire into their discretionary policy-making functions.
B. Legislative Hearing Officer and Assistant City Attorney
Plaintiffs also seek to depose Marcia Moermond, a legislative hearing officer, and
Maureen Dolan, an assistant city attorney. Plaintiffs contend that they are not “seeking the
decision making process of [these two city officials] in denying Steinhauser’s appeal or the
decision making processes, impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of [the city
attorney] in bringing [Tenant Remedy Actions].” (Mem. at 19.) Rather, they claim they seek
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 10 of 14

11
“communications among departmental employees and decisions tainted by impropriety.” (Id. at
19-20.)
1. Legislative Hearing Officer Marcia Moermond
Defendants assert that Legislative Hearing Officer Moermond is entitled to a protective
order because she should be entitled to the same protections accorded judges as she was acting in
the capacity of an administrative judicial officer here when she denied Steinhauser’s request for
an extension to comply with a correction notice. (Mem. at 5, 12.) Moreover, Defendants point
out that Plaintiffs have not first sought a deposition by written questions. (Id. at 12-13.)
Plaintiffs claim that Moermond, who as a city council research staff member was an
investigator for the Chronic Problem Property Report, “noted elements of racism against certain
occupants of properties.” (Mem. at 21.) Although much of this evidence might support only the
conclusion that other property owners–rather than city officials–held racist views towards
minority renters, Plaintiffs generally contend that Defendants improperly responded to the racist
complaints of the property owners. They note that “as a City Council legislative hearing officer
[Moermond] hears legislative appeals from owners in the City” and that property owners “have
complained that the hearing process administered by Ms. Moermond is a ‘sham’” and that the
only purpose of such hearings is “to support the ‘already-made decision.’” (Id. at 22.)
Plaintiffs also argue that Moermond “has attempted to entice property owners to get code
compliance inspections on their property falsely claiming that such an inspection is cheaper than
an inspection under the City’s Truth in Sale of Housing” program, in an apparent attempt “to
serve the City’s interest in fee generation through the vacant building registrations and permit
fees.” (Id. (contending that resulting increased “costs for property owners” thus “reduces
affordable housing for low income tenants”).) Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Moermond “has
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 11 of 14

12
demonstrated her ill will” toward certain of the plaintiffs “by making public, defamatory
statements about [them] and their rental properties shortly after having them escorted from her
hearing room in June 2004.” (Id. at 23.)
Again, on the present record, this Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs should be denied
the opportunity to pursue these issues. Cf. McGoldrick, 110 F.R.D. at 156-57. In sum, while
Plaintiffs may depose Ms. Moermond regarding her alleged discriminatory intent, Plaintiffs are
not permitted to inquire into her legal decisions or other discretionary policy-making functions.
2. Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan
With respect to Assistant City Attorney Dolan, in contrast, Plaintiffs simply claim,
without any supporting citations to the record, that she “was a member of the Problem Property
Unit and has information related to the workings of that unit” relevant here because she attended
field inspections and “misrepresented the nature of code compliance during City initiated tenant
remedy cases against Plaintiffs.” (Mem. at 23-24.)
Defendants assert that the “decision making process” of Ms. Dolan should be immune
from discovery, noting that she worked with NHPI to bring Tenant Remedy Actions (TRAs),
civil actions brought by the City on behalf of tenants residing at the property in dispute, against
the property owners. (Mem. at 5, 13.) Defendants also note that Ms. Dolan has already
disclosed all relevant information, except for her opinion work product prepared in prosecuting
the TRA cases, which they assert is not discoverable. (Id. at 13-14.)
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite prima
facie showing to depose Ms. Dolan regarding issues of discriminatory intent.
C. Deposition Limitations
This Court recognizes that the municipal officials at issue should not be unduly hampered
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 12 of 14

13
in the performance of their official duties. Accordingly, the Court will impose, pursuant to its
authority to supervise such matters, the following restrictions on the depositions. See NEC
Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 958 F. Supp. 624, 634-35 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997) (limiting
depositions to written questions); McGoldrick, 110 F.R.D. at 156 (same). First, each deposition
shall be limited to no more than four hours. Second, insofar as Mr. Kelly no longer resides in the
local area, he shall be permitted, at his election, the option of being deposed over the telephone.
Third, the subject matter of inquiry in each deposition shall be strictly limited to the allegations
of intent relevant to the various civil rights claims at issue. Cf. Union Savings Bank of
Patchogue, New York v. Saxon, 209 F. Supp. 319, 320 (D.D.C. 1962) (permitting deposition of
the Comptroller of Currency “limited to the . . . action by the Defendant as to the subject matter
of this case, and not the workings of [his] mind”). Fourth, and somewhat conversely, Plaintiffs
may not inquire as to an official’s proper exercise of their discretion in making policy decisions.
D. Attorneys’ Fees
In light of this Court’s ruling, Defendants’ request for the fees and costs they incurred in
seeking the requested protective orders is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Although the evidence Plaintiffs have produced to date is perhaps far from sufficient to
establish liability, they have satisfied their burden of making a prima facie showing that most of
the prospective deponents could have personal knowledge relevant to the allegations regarding
municipal officials’ alleged intent to discriminate against certain landlords and tenants. This
Court cannot conclude that an otherwise normal channel of discovery should be foreclosed,
particularly in the present context of civil rights claims where the evidence of discriminatory
intent is essential but often difficult to discover. The Court reiterates, however, that it is
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 53 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 13 of 14

14
expressing no views on the merits and the ultimate disposition of Plaintiff’s claims.
IV. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motions for a protective order (Doc. No. 71 (No. 04-CV-2632), Doc.
No. 30 (No. 05-CV-1348), & Doc. No. 36 (No. 05-CV-461) are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
2. Defendants are entitled to a protective order prohibiting the deposition of
Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan.
3. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to take the depositions of the other four of the five
present and former municipal officials at issue, subject to the following conditions:
(A) each deposition shall be limited to four (4) hours;
(B) the deposition of Randy Kelly will be conducted over the telephone if Mr.
Kelly so requests;
(C) the subject matter of the depositions shall be strictly limited to issues of
discriminatory intent relevant to the underlying claims;
(D) Plaintiff shall not inquire as to the officials’ proper exercise of their
discretionary policy-making functions.
Dated: April 2, 2007
s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States Magistrate Judge

3rd RICO suit against the City of Saint Paul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Thomas J. Gallagher; Joseph J. Collins, Sr.; Dadder’s
Properties, LLC; Dadder’s Estates, LLC; Dadder’s
Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC; and Troy
Allison;
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
Court File No.:-05-cv- 1348 MJD/
vs.
DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of City of
St. Paul’s Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement; Mike Cassidy, individually and as a
code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Joel Essling,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Joe Yannarelly,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Michael
Urmann, individually and as a fire inspector of the 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.
IGL
Thomas J., Gallagher, Joseph J. Collins, Sr., Dadder’s Properties, LLC, Dadder’s Estates,
LLC, Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, and Troy Allison (hereinafter
referred to as “Gallagher,” “Collins,” ”Dadder’s” and “Allison,” and collectively referred to as
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 ‘Page 2 of 57
“Plaintiffs”), hereby allege and state the following Complaint against Steve Magner, individually
and as a supervisor of the City of St. Paul’s Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement (hereinafter “Housing Department”); Mike Cassidy, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Joel Essling, individually and as a code
. enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Joe Yannarelly, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the Housing Department; Michael Urmann, individually and as a fire
inspector 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; individually. iointlv 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 Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988,42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.;
(3) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,1982 and 1985; and
( 4 ) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 3 of 57
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. Thomas J. Gallagher (“Gallagher”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Wisconsin.
2. Joseph J. Collins, Sr. (“Collins”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota.
3 . Gallagher and Collins are equal owners/members of Dadder’s Properties, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company. Dadder’s Properties, LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability
company and is the sole owner/member of Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Dadder’s Enterprises,
LLC and Dadder’s Estates, LLC, all Minnesota limited liability companies (all hereinafter
referred to as “Dadder’s”).
4 . Troy Allison (“Allison”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of Minnesota.
5. Defendant Steve Magner (“Magner”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Magner is a supervisor for the Housing Department.
3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 4 of 57
6. Defendant Mike Cassidy (“Cassidy”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Cassidy is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
7. Defendant Joel Essling (‘.‘Essling”) is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of
Minnesota. Essling is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
8. Defendant Steve Schiller (“Schiller”) is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of
Minnesota. Schiller is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
9 . Defendant Joe Yannarelly (“Yannarelly”) is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
Minnesota. Yannarelly is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
10. Defendant Dennis Senty (“Senty”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Senty is a code enforcement officer for the Housing Department.
11. Defendant Michael Urmann (“Urmann”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Urmann is a fire inspector of the City of St. Paul.
12. Defendant Andy Dawkins (“Dawkins”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Dawkins is the Director of the City’s Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement (“Housing Department”) and Director of the Problem Property Unit
(hereinafter, “PPU”).
13. Defendant Randy Kelly (“Kelly”) is a citizen of the United States, and is a resident of
Minnesota. Kelly is the Mayor of Defendant City and was Mayor at all times relevant to the
allegations contained herein.
14. Defendant John Doe and Jane Doe, are citizens of the United States, and are residents of
Minnesota. 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
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 5 of 57
Housing Department, PPU, Fire Department, and other city offices, coordinating their
activities with Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly, and others.
15. 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
Property Owners Targeted With Discriminatorv and Illegal Code
Enforcement and Racketeering Conduct
16. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs were property owners in the rental
business with rental properties located within the City of St. Paul.
17. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs’ tenants were almost exclusively Blacks, Hispanics,
Asians, mixed race couples, individuals receiving state and federal financial assistance, and
families with children, who were and are individuals protected under anti-discrimination
laws, hereinafter defined as “protected class.”
18. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s were the
owners of forty-four (44) real estate investment properties located in the City, 29 of which
were rental properties. Approximately 10 of the 29 tenants have or did receive Section 8
assistance. Approximately 19 of the 29 tenants are members of a protected class. Five of the
Dadder’s properties were 1522/1524 Carroll, 1595 Van Buren, 643 Watson, 250 Duke and
974 James.
19. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Allison is the owner of seven (7) rental
properties within the City of St. Paul, including properties located at 1522/l 524 Carroll
Avenue, 1500 Concordia, 15 12 Concordia, 1532 Concordia Avenue, 877 Woodbridge, 367
5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 6 of 57
Blair, and 1069 Albemarle. Approximately 4 of the 7 tenants have or do receive Section 8
assistance or other assistance. Approximately 5 of the 7 tenants are members of a protected
class.
Other St. Paul Prouertv Owners Targeted With Discriminatorv and
Illeg Calode Enforcement and Racketeering Conduct
20. 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,
including, but are not limited to, Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg, Kelly Brisson,
Leroy Miller, Muhannah Kakish, Steven Mark, Kenneth Krahn, Sandra Harrilal, Bee and
Lamena Vue, Steven Johnson, Calvin Burton, Julian Jayasuriya and Akinwale A. Akinropo.
2 1. Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Mark, Krahn, Harrilal, Vue, Johnson,
Burton, Jayasuriya, Akinropo and others 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,
Dawkins and Kelly, and other City officials and employees that is similar to the racketeering
conduct of 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. Randy Kelly. et al, Case No.04-2632, Minnesota
Federal District Court, and the Sandra Harrilal et. al vs. Steve Magner, et al, Case No.05-46 1,
Minnesota Federal District Court
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
Saint Paul Public HousinP Agency
22. 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
6
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document 1-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 7 of 57
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). PHA’s public housing 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 the 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.
23. 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
“protected class”. These PHA tenants are similar to the tenants of Plaintiffs and other
targeted rental property owners.
24. 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 HUD and PHA to be in need of major
capital improvements. Historically, HUD and PHA have been under funded by for capital
repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been
deferred to later years for additional federal fimding.
25. 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
7
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 8 of 57
properties and rental businesses who are providing housing services to Section 8 and low
income “protected class” members.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
8
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 9 of 57
3 1. 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.
Citv’s March 2002 Report on “Chronic Problem Properties” Reveals
Defendants’ Motive and Opportunity to Target Plaintiffs
and Their “Protected Class” Tenants
32. 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.
33. 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”.
34. 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
9
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 10 of 57
special attention to challenge their inclusion.” The Council Report also determined that,
“Since the selection criteria were unknown 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”.
35. The City’s March 2002 Report to the Counsel 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.
36. Through the chronic problem property study and the City’s March 2002 Report, the Council
determined that, “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.”
City Adopts New Housing Code Enforcement Rules
Following March 2002 Report
37. Following City Council and City staff analysis of the March 2002 Report, new rules went
into effect on August 14, 2002, concerning rental property inspections, code compliance and
nuisance abatement. The Fire Prevention Division of the City Fire Department (“Fire
Department”) conducts inspections of buildings that contain three or more rental units within
a building. A Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0) is issued by the Fire Department to owners
if those rental units pass an inspection. Thereafter, a building must pass the C of 0
inspection every two years.
38. 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
1 0
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 11 of 57
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.”
39. The new Code rules incorporated written notice requirements and claimed conformity with
due process requirements.
40. On June 2, 2003, the City announced receipt of $12.5 million in federal grants to provide
low-income housing and economic development opportunities in the City.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. The December 2003, City announcement also stated that, “the rental registration ordinance
1 1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 12 of 57
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, they would receive a notice of intent to revoke their registration certificate; the
landlord would then be asked to contact Dawkins.
46. Under Kelly and Dawkins’ control, the Housing Department has claimed that it 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.
The Problem Pronertv Unit
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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, City Attorney Dolan and other
1 2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 13 of 57
inspection officials and employees, including attempts to gain access to interiors of rental
properties to issue condemnations, remove grandfathering protections, demand full code
compliance through extensive renovations, and to force sale of the properties.
51. Dawkins designated properties owned by Harrilal, Vues, Steinhauser, Brisson, Miller,
Kakish, Krahn and others as “Problem Properties”.
52. The new Rules and Procedures for conducting code enforcement activities in the City
provided that once the Defendants initially targeted one of a landlords properties the
Defendants were authorized to target all of that landlord’s properties.
53. Defendants targeted landlords and tenants whether or not they were on the “problem property
list”.
Dramatic Increase in Code Enforcement Actions After Dawkins Appointed
54. Following Dawkins appointment to head the Housing Department, Dawkins and members of
the PPU and other inspectors of NHPI 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, nor did they affect, the rental properties of
PHA.
Discriminatorv Code Enforcement Operations
55. 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 grandfathering protections and demand full
code compliance inspections and certifications.
1 3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 14 of 57
56. 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 St. Paul
individuals 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 class” members.
57. Said Defendants and others carried out these discriminatory orders as part of Defendant
City’s policy, custom and practice.
58. 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.
59. 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 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.
60. The discriminatory policy, custom and practice had a discriminatorv impact on the protected
1 4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 15 of 57
class, and the policy, custom and practice continued at all times thereafter and continues
presently in the City.
61. 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.
62. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice was intentional and
malicious in Defendants’ efforts selectively target the “protected class” and private landlords
that rented to “protected class” members. Defendants actions were intended and did in fact,
benefit Defendant City, Defendants themselves, PHA and certain third parties in concert with
Defendants.
63. This intentional and malicious conduct by Defendants directly caused Plaintiffs and other
landlords, including, but not limited to, Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish,
Mark, Krahn, Harrilal, Vue, Johnson, Burton, Jayasuriya, Akinropo and others to be
damaged in their property or business.
64. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and pattern of
racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner and Dawkins maliciously and
fraudulently, claiming false code violations related to the rental properties of Steinhauser,
Meysembourg, Brisson, Miller, Kakish, Mark, Krahn, Harrilal, Vue, Johnson, Burton,
Jayasuriya, Akinropo and others during the period of the fall of 2002 through October 2004.
65. Defendants discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice and pattern of
racketeering activity, included, but was not limited to, Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yamrarelly, Senty, Urmann and Dawkins maliciously and fraudulently, claiming false code
1 5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 16 of 57
violations related to Plaintiffs rental properties during the period early 2003 through July
2005, in written Corrections Notices, Notices of Condemnations, Summary Abatement
Orders, and Vehicle Abatement Orders.
66. Pefendants 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 July 2005. Said discriminatory policy, custom and practice
continues in the City.
67. Defendants intentionally created false statements in City records and notices in order to force
discriminatory condemnations on Plaintiffs’ rental buildings and those of other St. Paul
landlords. This wrongful conduct by Defendants damaged the businesses and properties of
Plaintiffs and other landlords targeted and caused injury to tenants.
68. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice included, but was
not limited to Dawkins and PPU Assistant City Attorney Dolan maliciously preparing and
filing court papers against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, 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 tenant remedies court
actions during the period commencing in the fall of 2002 and continuing to present.
69. Defendant Dawkins and Dolan and other City officials and employees, knew that these court
filings against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Kakish,
Miller and Krahn, contained intentionally false and malicious statements in said pleadings
1 6
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 17 of 57
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 continues in the City.
70. 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 tilings and
process.
7 1. Dawkins provided sworn Verifications of the truth of each such court Complaint and the
truth of the attachments of City inspection records, 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, Dolan and other members of the
PPU, and other members of the City Attorney’s office, with the intent to harm Plaintiffs,
other landlords and tenants, including members of the “protected class”. Said discriminatory
policy, custom and practice continues in the City.
72. As a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and
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,
1 7
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 18 of 57
thereby decreasing the available rental units for “protected class” members in the City.
73. As a result of Defendants malicious wrongful conduct Defendants also obtained, under color
of law or official right, an increase of 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’s funds, and/or tenant funds, and/or City funds
and/or contractor funds, and/or federal funds, held in federal banking institutions.
74. Defendants’ wrongful conduct included, but was not limited to, Dawkins, Magner, and other
members of the PPU, in coordination with third parties encouraging tenants to file false
claims in court actions against selected landlords, including Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s,
and the Vues, Steinhauser, Brisson, Krahn, and other property owners.
Tenants Were Injured By City’s Discriminatory Code Enforcement Operations
75. Defendants’ illegal code enforcement of Plaintiffs rental properties and the rental properties
of other St. Paul landlords, including, but not limited to, Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson,
Miller, Kakish, Mark, Krahn, Harrilal, Vue, Johnson, Burton, Jayasuriya, Akinropo and
others, interfered with the ability of “protected class” tenants’ to locate replacement housing
and interfered with those tenants’ employment, all to the tenants detriment.
76. 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.
Citv of St. Paul Policy and Practice of Discriminatory Code Enforcement
77. As an example of the official policy of aggressive discriminatory code enforcement, City
Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest speakers at a St. Paul Association
1 8
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 19 of 57
of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23,2003. During this meeting with many
St. Paul landlords, 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 think any amount of aggressiveness is too aggressive.”
78. At this same meeting, a member of the audience asked Defendant 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 fair and what happens if I don’t let you into my
house?” In a loud and threatening voice, Defendant Mayor Kelly said, “You will comply.”
During this statement, Defendant Kelly used very aggressive body language including
pointing his finger at the landlord asking the question.
79. City officials have informed at least one Project Hope case worker that City officials do not
want “low income” people renting in St. Paul.
80. City officials have also informed Kenneth Krahn that the City does not want him renting to
Project Hope individuals.
8 1. This expressed policy against the poor 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 deconcentrate
poverty in certain sections of the City, thereby relocating the poor out of the City.
Abuse of City’s Excessive Consumption Fee System
-NHPI’s Fraudulent Mailing Scheme
82. The methods of illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity conducted by City code
enforcement officials and employees against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and Hariilal
and the Vues and other property owners, has also included, but has not been limited to, a
fraudulent scheme to illegally acquire monies from Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s and
1 9
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 20 of 57
Harrilal, the Vues, and Johnson, and other property owners in the City through abuse of the
City’s excessive consumption fee system.
83. City employees of the Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement
(“NHPI”), including Dawkins, and possibly others, have participated in a fraudulent scheme
against selected property owners, including Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and Harrilal
and the 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 deficiencies and
the adverse consequences to the property owner of failure to make the corrections. The City,
through Defendants’ stack the deck against the property owner in order to trigger the
assessment of fees for the benefit of Defendants.
84. 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” against the owners of the
property and rental registration revocation actions by Defendants.
Property Owners Who Have Been Victims of Fraudulent Mailings Scheme
85. NHPI inspectors and Director Dawkins have used the fraudulent mailings scheme described
above against the Vues on their properties located at 707 Preble Street and 735 Smith
Avenue, and against Harrilal on her 704 Lawson Ave East property. Gallagher, Collins and
Dadder’s and other property owners have been victims of Defendants’ delayed mailing
scheme, including Gallagher, Collins Dadder’s and Johnson who have been forced by
20
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 21 of 57
Defendants to pay excessive consumption fees for activities that occurred after Gallagher,
Collins, Dadder’s and Johnson sold properties subject to continued adverse enforcement
actions.
86. Dawkins and others forwarded City notices to Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s and Harrilal
and the Vues’ wrong address in order to “stack the deck” against Gallagher, Collins and
Dadder’s and Harrilal and the Vues as part of the City’s targeting property owners, and as
part of the City’s TRA civil lawsuits against Harrilal and against the Vues during 2004.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO EACH PLAINTIFF
87. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmamr and others, under supervision
of Dawkins and Kelly, and in coordination with other City Code officials and employees,
participated in furthering the discriminatory action and illegal code enforcement conduct by
targeting Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison, who at all times relevant herein was
providing housing to “protected class” tenants.
88. Commencing on or about March 12,2003, and continuing to present, City housing inspectors
and officials, including Dawkins, Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty,
Urmann, along with Assistant City Attorney Dolan, have harassed Gallagher, Collins and
Dadder’s on their rental properties in an effort to shut down Dadder’s rental business, or
force change in ownership of Dadder’s properties. Said Defendants’ illegal, discriminatory
and malicious actions have forced Dadder’s to sell off many of their rental properties that
they were renting to members of the “protected class”.
89. Even though Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s had no abnormal history of code violations
during their ownership of rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about April of
2003, most of their rental properties in St. Paul have been selectively targeted by said
2 1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 0710612005 Page 22 of 57
Defendants.
90. Said Defendants have repeatedly harassed Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s by selectively
enforcing the City housing code in a very strict and petty manner against them, while at the
same time Defendants looked the other way on serious housing code violations by the
director Dawkins himself or at numerous adjacent properties not owned by Dadder’s. t
91. Dawkins and code enforcement officers participated in discriminatory and illegal action
directed at Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s at their rental properties located in the City.
Defendants selectively targeted Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s based upon impermissible
factors of the race, color and national origin of many of Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
tenants.
Racketeering Activitv and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
on the 643 Watson Property
92. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 643 Watson in January 2003. Dadder’s proceeded
with the rehabilitation of the property by obtaining a building permit and posting a $2,000.00
performance deposit on March 2 1, 2003. Dadder’s filed a Vacant Building Registration
Form on May 13, 2003, and informed James Seeger, Code Compliance Inspector, via letter
dated September 23, 2003, that Dadder’s had completed their repairs. Dadder’s spent
approximately !§70,000.00 rehabilitating 643 Watson, including a new roof, new cedar siding,
trash removal, new sheetrock, new paint, new electrical, new fixtures, new doors, new
cabinets, new appliances and refinished hardwood floors, thereby completing all tasks
itemized in the prior owner’s inspection report from 200 1.
93. On October 23, 2003, a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration for 643 Watson was
issued to Thomas J. Gallagher by Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement Programs Supervisor.
22
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 0710612005 Page 23 of 57
On January 2 1, 2004, Gallagher was sent and paid for a Rental Registration Renewal for 643
Watson.
94. In April 2004, Gallagher discovered that employees of the city were contacting his tenants
informing them of the City’s interest in suing Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s for housing
tenants in a condemned building. On April 9, 2004, a Correction Notice was issued by
Defendant Magner for illegal occupancy of a Registered Vacant Building (after the city
issued and collected funds for a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October
23, 2003) and for lack of proper ground cover and for the removal of all concrete ruble,
brush, wood, piles of dirt or rubble. The April 9, 2004, Correction Notice was prepared by
Magner and was attached as Exhibit #5 to the Verified Tenant Remedies Action (“TRA “)
Complaint.
95. On or about April 29,2004, Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA suit on Dadder’s
rental property located at 643 Watson. Dawkins was assisted by Magner and Attorney
Dolan. In the Verified Tenant Remedies Action Complaint dated April 29, 2004, Dawkins
verified that the allegations of the Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins claimed in
Paragraph No.6 that the code violations had not yet been remedied. Tihis was false as the
entire property had been renovated and the 2001 inspection report completed before the City
commenced the TRA action. Gallagher was informed that although the property had been
completely renovated, it would not be removed from the condemned and vacant housing list
because the prior owner did not pull permits for the work done before Dadder’s purchased
the building. Gallagher was forced to incur expenses to tear down and rebuild already new
sheetrock, and to incur expenses on city permits and city inspections for work done by the
prior owner of the building.
23
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 24 of 57
96. The tenant in the lower level of 643 Watson did not joint the TRA, and the tenant in the
upper unit repeatedly informed Mr. Gallagher, and informed counsel at the TRA hearing, that
she did not want to join the action, nor did she want to be removed from her newly
remodeled rental unit. Dadder’s was forced to retain an attorney to protect their interests in
Ramsey County District Court during the period of April 2004 through May 2004.
97. In connection with the alleged violations at 643 Watson, a prior Correction Notice dated
November 13,2003 was issued to Collins for illegal occupancy of a building (again, after the
issuance of a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, 2003), followed
by a citation dated December 17, 2003 and a warrant for his arrest. Part of the settlement of
the TRA was a fine, removal of warrant and an Agreement to Suspend Prosecution against
Collins.
98. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by Magner,
Dawkins and the City directed against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, they lost revenue and
rental income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other
expenses.
Racketeering Activitv and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison
on the 1522/1524 Carroll Property
99. Dadder’s Enterprises, LLC purchased 1522/1524 Carroll in March of 2003. Shortly after
renovating the property, including a new roof, paint, and refinished hardwood floors, PHA
conducted a Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (“HQS”) inspection of the property and
had approved the 1522/l 524 Carroll property for Section 8 payments.
1 0 0 . In March of 2005, Enforcement Officer Senty, supervised by Dawkins, commenced the
illegal harassment against Dadder’s (and therefore Allison, who purchased the unit from
24
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 25 of 57
Dadder’s) by posting a “Vacant Building” sign on the occupied property located at
1522/l 524 Carroll. This property was in fact occupied by tenants. Senty ignored the obvious
occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant. Because of the Vacant Building
posting and order prohibiting occupancy of the home, Dadder’s was forced to move the
tenant to a different rental property and Allison has been forced to leave the unit empty.
1 0 1 . Gallagher spoke with Senty and also met with Dawkins on April 1, 2005 to inquire why
Senty had posted the home. Gallagher informed Senty that the home was in fact occupied by
tenants and that the posting was wrong. Gallagher had copies of a signed lease and bank
deposit slips for paid rent. Senty responded by stating that he could get affidavits from the
neighbors that the property had been empty for six months.
1 0 2 . Gallagher was forced to tile an appeal of Senty’s vacant building posting on Allison’s
rental unit (although 1522/l 524 Carroll was sold to Allison, Gallagher continued to receive
the paperwork from the City) through the City Council legislative hearing process. After
waiting for several weeks for the decision of the legislative hearing officer (during which
time the property remained empty), the legislative hearing officer refused to overturn the
vacant posting on appeal because the Section 8 lease which Gallagher produced expired in
January. However, the tenant remained in the building until approximately February of
2005, and Gallagher moved the tenant to another rental property as the sale to Allison took
place on February 28,2005.
103. Many of the claimed code deficiencies at the 1522/l 524 Carroll rental property are due to
the tenant’s behavior. For example, the property has been cited on more than one occasion
because the tenant leaves the service door to the garage open.
1 0 4 . Magner prepared and mailed a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning Letter dated
2 5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 26 of 57
May 4, 2005 to Dadder’s (at their former address in St. Paul) requiring $250.00 for
administrative costs or the owners will be subject to a criminal Summons and Complaint.
Even though there were tenants in the unit, signed leases and bank deposit slips showing rent
payments, Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others used the vacant building procedure as
leverage against Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison to illegally remove the
grandfathering protections of their older building under Minnesota law and to force them into
having code compliance inspection and certification process on the 1522/1524 Carroll
property.
1 0 5 . Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others working for the City targeted both Dadder’s and
Allison (the prior and current owner of the 1522/1524 Carroll rental property) as part of
illegal scheme to hold Citv landlords responsible 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 and to Dawkins, Magner and others
personally.
1 0 6 . Additionally, by illegally removing the grandfathering protections of older City homes
and buildings and demanding full “Code Compliance Inspections and Certificates” before
allowing the re-rental of the targeted properties, or by declaring a property as vacant,
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 0 7 . The 1522/1524 Carroll rental property owned now my Allison is currently registered as a
vacant building site. As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against
Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison, they have sustained damages the loss of rent after
March 2005.
26
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 27 of 57
Racketeering Activitv and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher. Collins and Dadder’s
on the 1595 Van Buren Property
1 0 8 . Dadder’s purchased 1595 Van Buren in 2003 as a rental property. At the time of
purchase, 1595 Van Buren was listed and registered as a building with 4 units to be rented.
Gallagher,
building.
Collins and Dadder’s continued the registration and paying taxes on the 4 unit
1 0 9 . In June of 2004, Urmann made a “Re-Inspection of Referral” of the property located at
1595 Van Buren, and then prepared and mailed to Gallagher and Dadder’s two Deficiency
lists dated June 24, 2004, both of which noted “deficiencies” to be corrected on or after June
24,2004 and June 28,2004, respectively.
1 1 0 . The deficiency lists contained 3 1 numbered deficiencies. Urmann claimed that one of the
units was illegal and could not be rented as a separate unit. Also among the 3 1 deficiencies,
Urmann claimed that the unit must have a central fire alarm installed.
1 1 1 . The property located at 1595 Van Buren had been issued an Certificate of Occupancy, as
another fire inspector had inspected the same address just months earlier and granted the
Certificate with no deficiencies.
1 1 2 . The 1595 Van Buren property has been fined no less than 4 times for reinspection fees.
1 1 3 . As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Gallagher,
Collins, and Dadder’s, they have sustained expenses and damages in the form of loss of rent
after June 2004.
Racketeering Activitv and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed APainst Plaintiffs Gallagher. Collins and Dadder’s
on the 467 Marvland Property
114. Dadder’s purchased 467 Maryland in approximately March of 2005. The units on
27
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 28 of 57
Maryland are multi-unit apartment buildings. Upon purchase, the building had a Certificate
of Occupancy and had maintained its certificate every two years dating back to the
construction of the unit in the 1960’s.
115. On March 28, 2005, one of Urmann’s fire inspectors, James Thomas, conducted and
inspection of 467 Maryland. Inspector Thomas issued a letter dated March 28,2005, with 10
deficiencies.
116. One of the claimed deficiencies was for a smoke detector to be located outside each
sleeping area. The existing placement of the smoke detectors had passed inspection for over
thirty years. Upon speaking with Urmamr, Urmann claimed that the new code required a
smoke detector in each bedroom. When asked whether or not an older building must comply
with the new code, Urmann stated that it did.
117. The property located at 467 Maryland had been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in all
prior years.
1 1 8 . As a direct result of said Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Gallagher,
Collins, and Dadder’s, they have been forced to incur significant expense in time, labor and
materials in order to comply with the claimed deficiencies.
Racketeering Activitv and Illegal Code Enforcement
Directed Against Plaintiffs Gallagher. Collins and Dadder’s
on various other rental urouerties.
1 1 9 . Defendants’ discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity against Gallagher,
Collins and Dadder’s continues to this day. Code enforcement officers prepared and mailed
to Dadder’s written Correction Orders and Summary Abatement Orders of their rental
properties wherein they made petty, malicious and false statements about claimed code
violations; many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by the code
28
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 29 of 57
enforcement officers to Dadder’s were false and calculated to make the Dadder’s properties
look bad.
1 2 0 . Cassidy’s June 20, 2005 Summary Abatement Order cited 643 Watson for piles of dirt
and yard waste.
1 2 1 . Senty’s April 19,2005 Summary Abatement Order cited 1524 Carroll for the door on the
north side of garage.
122. Cassidy’s February 8, 2005 Correction Order cited 624 James for rubbish and household
items.
1 2 3 . Cassidy’s December 16, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 543 Michigan for
household items and house and garage numbers.
1 2 4 . Magner’s December lo,2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 250 Duke for a tool box,
tires and a couch.
1 2 5 . Essling’s September 23,2004 Correction Order cited 974 James for rubble and doors.
1 2 6 . Cassidy’s September 13,2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for carpet
and pools.
1 2 7 . Cassidy’s September 8, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 624 James for plastic and
a battery.
1 2 8 . Cassidy’s August 23, 2004 Correction Order cited 547 Michigan for pools, carpet
microwave.
1 2 9 . Yannarelly’s July 29, 2004 Correction Notice citied 1532 Concordia for lack of
service (after the tenant failed to pay the utility bill).
and a
water
1 3 0 . Essling’s July 28, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 624 James for couches, wood,
and cardboard.
29
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 30 of 57
131. Schiller’s July 21, 2004 Summary Abatement Order citied 974 James for items and tall
grass along the alley.
132. Cassidy’s June 28, 2004 Correction Order cited 250 Duke for a couch and storm door,
vehicle parked on an unimproved surface, and scrape and paint garage.
1 3 3 . Yannarelly’s June 25, 2004 Correction Order cited 1500 Concordia for expired plates on
a vehicle.
1 3 4 . Yannarelly’s June 25, 2004 Correction Notice cited 15 12 Concordia for peeling paint on
siding and expired tabs.
1 3 5 . Cassidy’s June 17, 2004 Correction Order cited 624 James for a door and railing and
birds nesting in the siding.
136. Magner’s June 14, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 643 Watson for items in the
rear and side yard area.
1 3 7 . Senty’s April 28,2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 509 Bay for north side basement
windows.
1 3 8 . Schiller’s April 19, 2004 Vehicle Abatement Order cited 551 Michigan for expired tabs
on a vehicle.
1 3 9 . Schiller’s April 19, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 551 Michigan for items
around the building.
140. Schiller’s April 19, 2004 Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for items along
the alley and under the side steps.
141. Schiller’s April 9, 2003 Correction Notice cited 543 Michigan deteriorated paint and
deteriorated soffrts/fascia.
142. Schiller’s January 23, 2003 Summary Abatement Order cited 547 Michigan for items
30
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 31 of 57
along the building, under the front steps, and under the front porch.
1 4 3 . A code enforcement officer’s November 20, 2003 Correction Notice cited 543 Michigan
for deteriorating paint and deteriorating soffits and fascia.
1 4 4 . Due to the volume of false and petty orders issued by the city, and due to the behavior
and items used by tenants which a landlord cannot control (yard furniture, kiddy pools and
birds nesting), Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s attempted but could not keep up with the
City’s requirements and therefore incurred many reinspection fees and excessive
consumption invoices.
1 4 5 . Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann and John Doe and Jane
Doe, worked together with Kelly and Dawkins against each plaintiff to run them out of town
by illegally using legitimate tools in the law and city code to interfere with the Plaintiffs
business by driving up the cost of doing business for the benefit of the city and other
competitors in the low income housing market, including PHA, whom on information and
belief, receives beneficial treatment.
1 4 6 . As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement treatment
and racketeering activity directed at Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s by said Defendants, all
at the direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
were injured in their rental business and incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits
and Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s were thereafter forced to sell more than 20 of their real
estate investment properties in the City of St. Paul.
147. The illegal actions against Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison as described above
were accomplished to further the racketeering activity of Defendants.
148. On information and belief, Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City of
3 1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 32 of 57
St. Paul. Gallagher and Collins have obtained photographs of the state of disrepair of such
properties and of the serious code violations which plague Dawkins’ properties.
Citv and Its Officials and Employees Benefit From Illegal Schemes
1 4 9 . Gallagher met with Dawkins in Dawkins’ office to discuss code enforcement issues.
Gallagher noticed a chart on Dawkins’ wall with a goal to raise $200,000.00 in fees from
excessive consumption fines. Dawkins explained his goal chart to Gallagher and Collins
upon a second visit to his office when he was questioned about the motive and validity of
such a chart. Further, when the 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 TRAs against landlords in order to obtain foundation grant money.
Dawkins referred Vues to Attorney Dolan who was handling the TRA for the City.
1 5 0 . As a result of the illegal code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of
Dawkins, Magner, and other city officials and employees, Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s
have been forced to sell many of their rental properties (some them to Allison), brought on
by the City’s attempt to circumvent the grandfathering protections due to the placement of
properties into condemnation or on the vacant housing list. Property owners will be forced to
expend tens of thousands of dollars per property in bringing the home up to modem code
instead of being able to make repairs and then immediately re-renting or selling the home.
1 5 1 . Defendant City has benefited from these illegal schemes against Gallagher, Collins,
Dadder’s, Allison, 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
32
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 33 of 57
excessive consumption fees and other fees. Defendant City also benefited through receipt of
grant tinds for bringing TRA suits against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, Harrilal, Vues,
Steinhauser, Brisson, Krahn and other property owners. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and other officials and employees have also
benefited personally in their positions of employment with the City.
152. Following the receipt of the Assessment Notices, Summary Abatement Orders,
Correction Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Excessive Consumption Invoices, and others,
Gallagher often calls the inspectors, including Dawkins, to protest the assessment of fee and
to explain the false code violations that had led to the assessment. Most of the time Gallagher
is informed that if he fails to make the payment, Gallagher’s and Dadder’s rental registration
would be revoked. In fact, Gallagher and Dadder’s hsid their rental registration’s revoked on
rental properties located at 250 Duke and 551 Michigan. Gallagher was forced to make
payment to the City in the amount of $400.00 after a meeting with Dawkins in order to keep
his rental registration and to continue his rental business at 250 Duke and 55 1 Michigan.
1 5 3 . Dawkins, Magner and others working for the City targeted Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s
and Allison as part of an illegal scheme to hold City landlords responsible 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 and to
Dawkins, Magner and others personally.
1 5 4 . Defendants and other City officials and employees have had knowledge of the existence
of these continued fraudulent schemes being operated by NHPI as set forth herein and
Defendants and certain other officials and employees encouraged this pattern of illegal code
enforcement and racketeering activity to continue within the City on a continuing basis since
3 3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 0710612005 Page 34 of 57
Kelly placed Dawkins in control of the NHPI department in late 2002.
155. Due to the racketeering activity and illegal and discriminatory code enforcement
operations directed against them, Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s and Allison have sustained
substantial damages including loss of rental income, profits, and investments in multiple
rental buildings. Additionally, Plaintiffs damages 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 the Plaintiffs are substantial, ongoing in nature and are
increasing daily.
COUNT I
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 196 1, et seq.
1 5 6 . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 155 as set forth
above.
157. 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
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.
158. Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins,
Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe are individual “persons” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
34
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 35 of 57
1961(3) and 1962(c), who associated with, and/or participated in, the conduct of said
enterprise’s affairs.
1 5 9 . From at least October 08, 2002, and continuing at present, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacity, as persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 196 l(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 6 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 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. 195 1.
b . Said individual Defendants’ intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasion, or attempts
3 5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document 1-I Filed 07/06/2005 Page 36 of 57
C .
d .
to do so, or misleading conduct toward Plaintiffs, with intent to influence, delay,
or prevent 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.
Said individual Defendants’ devised, or intended to devise, a scheme 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, made fraudulent representations to
the courts and to the citizens of St. Paul, and 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.
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,
36
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 37 of 57
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 USC. 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.
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 false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344.
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
37
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 38 of 57
procedures, other landlord compliance proceedings, federal court proceedings,
Federal Fair Housing Act proceedings, HUD grant application and fund
distribution proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.
g* 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. v. Nurdellu 393 U.S. 286 (1969).
1 6 1 . These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts
occurred within ten years of one another.
1 6 2 . 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.
1 6 3 . 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. 157 through a “pattern of racketeering
activity,” as listed in paragraph no. 160, 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.
164. At all relevant times, the enterprises alleged in paragraph no. 157 were engaged in, and
their activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
165. All the predicate acts described in paragraph no. 160 above, were related so as to
38
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 39 of 57
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 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, 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, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann,
Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe 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. Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s, Allison, 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.
166. All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form a pattern of
racketeering activity in that:
a .
b .
Said individual Defendants engaged in the predicate acts described above over a
substantial time (from at least March 2002, through July 2005, and continuing
until present); and
Said individual Defendants continue, or threaten to continue, to engage in the
3 9
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 40 of 57
predicate activity described above as regular way of conducting the enterprise and
Defendants’ ongoing governmental activities.
1 6 7 . As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of said individual
Defendants and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Gallagher, Collins, Dadder’s,
Allison, Harrilal, Vues, Johnson, 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.
1 6 8 . Said individual Defendants’ secret agreements were fraudulently concealed from
Plaintiffs, other property owners, the courts, and law enforcement.
1 6 9 . 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.
1 7 0 . These specific acts included racketeering and conspiracy and were of an ongoing nature
continuing into the future.
171. 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.
40
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 41 of 57
172. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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.
1 7 3 . Plaintiffs also seek permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing
their pattern of discriminatory and otherwise illegal code enforcement and racketeering
activity as described above.
COUNT II
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1961, ET SEQ.
174. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 173 as set forth
above.
175. From at least March 2002, and continuing on presently, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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. 157 through a “pattern of
racketeering activity,” as listed in paragraph no. 160, and elsewhere in the Complaint, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (d).
176. Magnet-, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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
scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and other landlords, all of whom were. providing housing
services to members of the “protected class”.
4 1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 42 of 57
1 7 7 . 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).
1 7 8 . As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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).
179. Plaintiffs are hereby entitled to recover from Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller,
Yannarelly, Senty, Urmamr, 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
1 8 0 . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 179 as set forth
above.
1 8 1 . Commencing in March 2002, and continuing thereafter, Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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
42
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 43 of 57
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 African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, American-Indians,
families with children, individuals with disabilities, those receiving state and federal financial
assistance, as well as others less fortunate, all (“protected class” members) living within the
City of St. Paul.
1 8 2 . Said Defendants discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement 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.
183. This discriminatory policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct had, and
continues to have, the approval of the City Council.
184. Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and pattern 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.
185. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and
other officials and employees of Defendant City, a 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.
186. Said Defendants’ further instituted a campaign of coercion, extortion, intimidation,
43
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 44 of 57
1
threats, interference and retaliation against Plaintiffs which impaired Plaintiffs’ abilities to
provide housing for low and moderate income tenants, 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.
8 7 . 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.
1 8 8 . PHA is a direct competitor of Plaintiffs and many other targeted rental property owners
within the City. Defendants have abused Defendant City’s police powers in selectively
targeting privately owned rental properties with discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
and racketeering activity, while at the same time the PHA is not and 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.
1 8 9 . PHA’s rental housing stock in the City has similar health, safety, fire and housing code
issues as Plaintiffs’ rental properties as 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
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 45 of 57
subject to Defendants’ discriminatory and illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity.
1 9 0 . 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 exist in PHA properties.
1 9 1 . 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.
1 9 2 . Said Defendants’ code enforcement operations had a discriminatorv impact upon African-
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, American-Indians, families with children, disabled
individuals, those receiving state and federal financial assistance, and others less fortunate,
all 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.
1 9 3 . Defendants’ discriminatory policy and pattern interference and retaliatory conduct
continued at all times set forth herein and continues presently in the City.
194. As a direct result of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy and pattern 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.
45
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 46 of 57
1 9 5 . Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
1 9 6 . Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by
Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yamrarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and others
unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
1 9 7 . 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
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
1 9 8 . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 197 as set forth
above.
1 9 9 . Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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
ml1 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.
200. 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
46
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 47 of 57
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of Plaintiffs’ contractual
relationships with their non-white tenants.
201. 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.
202. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
203. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly,
and others unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT V
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
204. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 203 as set forth
above.
205. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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.
206. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more fully
47
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 48 of 57
described above, impaired Plaintiffs’ property rights and those of its tenants.
207. 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.
208. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yamrarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
209. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly,
and John Doe and Jane Doe.
210. 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
211. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 2 10 as set forth
above.
212. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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
48
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 49 of 57
searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the right to be free from taking of their
property without compensation, and the right to due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment, the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the right to pursue an occupation or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue
interference under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and rights established by 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981 and 1982.
213. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and
other employees of City unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, all in their official 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.
214. The policy, custom and practice, described above, proximately caused the injury to
Plaintiffs. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages as a result of the policy,
custom and practice set forth herein.
215. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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.
216. 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, to be free from taking of property without compensation,
the right to due process, the right to pursue an occupation or profession free from deprivation
or undue interference, and the right to equal protection of the laws, under the Fourth, Fifth
49
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 50 of 57
and Fourteenth Amendments, and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and
1982.
217. 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.
218. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magnet-, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
219. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful conduct described in this
Count by Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, 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
220. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 219 as set forth
above.
221. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John
Doe and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities and other employees of Defendant City of
St. Paul, 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.
222. 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
50
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 51 of 57
United States Constitution, including their right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures, their right to compensation for taking of their property and to due process, right to
pursue an occupation or profession free from deprivation or undue interference and their
rights to equal protection of the laws under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as
well as their rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981,42 U.S.C. Section 1982, and Title VIII, the
Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 360 1, et seq.
223. Said Defendants did act in furtherance of the conspiracy as more fully set out above.
224. Said conspiracy was motivated by racial and other class based, invidious discriminatory
animus behind the conspirators’ action.
225. 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.
226. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT VIII
ABUSE OF PROCESS
227. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 226 as set forth
above.
228. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were owners of rental properties located within the
5 1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 52 of 57
City.
229. Plaintiffs rented their properties to individuals protected under the constitution and laws
of Minnesota and the United States.
230. 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.
231. Defendants, as part of this illegal scheme, unlawfully and maliciously created false
entries in City code enforcement documentation, including in Correction Orders, Notices of
Condemnations and Orders to Vacate, 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.
232. 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.
233. Additionally, Defendants, as part of the continuation of their illegal scheme, unlawfully
and maliciously used the false code enforcement documentation in court filings against
Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s, and against other St. Paul landlords as set forth above.
234. Defendant City’s court tilings prepared by Dawkins and Magner, with assistance from
other city employees and the City Attorney’s office, against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s,
and other landlords as set for above, included reference to falsely stated code violations;
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 53 of 57
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
Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s 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.
235. In perpetrating the above wrongful acts, said Defendants acted maliciously and
wrongfully and with the intent, design, and purpose to specifically injure each Plaintiff and
their tenants.
236. 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.
237. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
238. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Defendants Magner,
Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown
to Plaintiffs at this time.
5 3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 54 of 57
COUNT IX
T~RTI~US INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
239. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 238 as set forth
above.
240. 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.
241. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ leases with its tenants. Plaintiffs’ leases on said
rental properties included, but were not limited to, those individuals who were members of
the “protected class.”
242. 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.
243. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contracts was without any
justification.
244. 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.
245. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
246. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible for the wrongful acts of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and others unknown to
54
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 55 of 57
Plaintiffs at this time.
COUNT X
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS’
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
247. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 246 as set forth
above.
248. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had rental businesses located in
the City of St. Paul. Plaintiffs’ primary tenants were “protected class” members.
249. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their rental
businesses and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
250. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yarmarelly, Senty, Urmamr, 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.
251. 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.
252. 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.
253. Without Defendants’ wrongfnl acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
254. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful
5 5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 56 of 57
interference with Plaintiffs’ rental businesses; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment
income, and profits, 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.
255. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and John Doe and Jane Doe, in their
individual capacities.
256. Defendant City of Saint Paul is responsible’ for the wrongful acts of Magner, Cassidy,
Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and others unknown to
Plaintiffs at this time.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
1 0 .
1 1 .
A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count VII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count VIII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count IX of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment pursuant to Count X of this Complaint as set forth therein.
A judgment for Plaintiffs’ compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this
matter on all Counts herein.
56
Case 0:05-cv-01348-MJD-JGL Document l-l Filed 07/06/2005 Page 57 of 57
1 2 .
1 3 .
1 4 .
1 5 .
16.
A judgment for Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
A judgment for punitive damages against Defendants Magner, Cassidy, Essling,
Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly, and John Doe and
Jane Roe, in an amount as may be just and equitable, as allowed bv the Court on
motion.
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 196 1, et
seq.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in
the premises.
For trial by jury on all issues so triable.
THE LAW OFFICE OF
MATTHEW A. ENGEL, PLLC
Dated: July 6,2005 BY /S/ Matthew A. Enpel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lit. #3 15400)
7767 Elm Creek Boulevard, Suite 300
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763)416-9089
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
57