FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWSUIT against the City of Saint Paul
There is copy errors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property
Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company, Plaintiffs
V.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation, Defendant.
TO: (Name and address of Defendant)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: ODlV tft0
JYLT/~
City of Saint Paul, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., 390 City Hall, St. Paul, MN 55102.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
John R. Shoemaker
Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C.
Centennial Lakes Office Park
770 I. France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, MN 55435
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day ofservice. Ifyou fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for
the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable
period oftime after service.
fIB 2 2 2008
DATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven
Property Management, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.
City of Saint Paul, a
municipal corporation,
Defendant.
Court File No. _
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following
Complaint against the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This civil action arises under the laws ofthe United States and the State of Minnesota. This
Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(I) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; and
(2) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983 (civil rights action).
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613, 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 (federal questions), 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 ofoperative facts
with Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive reliefagainst Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 .
Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Robert McCampbell ("Plaintiff') is a citizen of the United States and a Minnesota
resident residing in Dakota County.
2. Raven Property Management, L.L.C. is a Minnesota limited liability company that
owned and managed real estate in the City ofSt. Paul. PlaintiffMcCampbell was and continues to
be the sole owner of Raven Property Management, L.L.C.
3. Defendant City ofSaint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under, and
by virtue of, the laws ofthe State of Minnesota.
4. Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs were property owners in the low-income
rental business with properties located at 780 Jackson Street, 615/617 Case Avenue and 1015
York Avenue in the City ofSt. Paul.
5. Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively low income African-Americans, and
other persons ofminority status, all ofwhom were individuals protected under antidiscrimination
laws, hereinafter referred to as "protected class tenants."
6. During 2001 through 2006, Plaintiffs provided affordable housing in St. Paul that
was in short supply in the City.
7. Plaintiffs' rental property located at 1015 York Avenue was a 17 unit building. In
2005,16 ofthe rental units were occupied by African-Americans and one rental unit was
occupied by a Native-American family.
8. Plaintiffs' tenants were typically highly transient resulting in high tenant turnover
2
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' 1015 York property averaged one to two vacancies on a monthly basis.
9. It was common for Plaintiffs to have rental applications from people of color
moving into St. Paul from Chicago and Detroit and other cities. Plaintiffs' tenants were a good
source of referrals and many times they referred other family members, relatives and friends to
Plaintiffs for housing in St. Paul.
10. At times during the period of 2003 through 2005, Plaintiffs had all ofthe rental
units leased at their 1015 York property and Plaintiffs had to turn away potential tenants,
including African-Americans.
11. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tenant advocate groups, and others involved in
housing policy issues, recognized that African-Americans faced significant barriers to affordable
housing in the City.
12. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in St. Paul due to
significant racial conflicts between white neighbors and African-American tenants.
13. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in the city due to
frequent misuse of the "complaint based code enforcement system" whereby certain complainants
were illegally targeting "people of color" for code enforcement operations designed to shut down
3
those minority occupied rental properties, or force the "protected class" tenants from those rental
properties. Certain of Defendant's officials and code enforcement officials and inspectors
pursued discriminatory code enforcement operations to placate racist constituents and to further
political agendas. Defendant failed to take action to stop these discriminatory practices.
14. During 2002 through 2006, certain City officials and employees made racists
•
comments to members of the minority community and to property owners providing housing to
members of that community, to the effect that those minorities were not welcomed in St. Paul
and should not be given housing.
15. Andy Dawkins, the director of Defendant's Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement department (NHPI) from 2002 through 2005, strongly suggested in 2005 to lowincome
landlords that the bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul.
16. Mr. Dawkins also told a low-income housing advocate with Project Hope that the
City did not want low-income tenants renting in St. Paul.
17. During 2002 through 2006, certain of Defendant's code enforcement inspectors
were condescending toward minority owners of "protected class" rental properties and towards
their minority tenants.
18. African-American have historically constituted the largest segment of the "poor"
in the City and this was true during 2001 through 2006, while Plaintiffs provided low-income
housing in St. Paul.
19. For decades, African-Americans have comprised the largest percentage oflowincome
tenants in the City and the highest percentage ofthose waiting for affordable housing in
the City.
4
20. City representatives have repeatedly discussed in public the claim that there is an
over concentration ofpoverty in certain areas of St. Paul.
21. City representatives have long recognized the racist tendencies of a significant
number of city residents towards African"Americans and other minorities.
22. PHA, the largest low-income landlord in the city, has acknowledged that due to
political pressure, PHA worked with City officials and influential neighborhood groups to select
the locations of all of the 400 scattered site homes PHA owns. These homes are occupied by
federally subsidized tenants, ~any ofwhom are minorities. Many ofPHA's tenants are members
of the "protected class" and about one-third have consistently been African-Americans.
23. During at least 2002 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that private owners oflow-income rental housing in St. Paul: provided the
majority of affordable housing for the "protected class" tenants in the City; had high maintenance
and repair costs due to ownership of older housing stock and tenant conduct related causes; were
housing a significantly higher percentage of "protected class" tenants than PHA; were in need of
cooperative relationships with Defendant, its officials, employees and representatives and other
third parties in order to continue to provide critically needed affordable housing; and would be
adversely affected if Defendant raised the code enforcement standard applicable to privately
owned low-income rental properties.
24. Despite the barriers to providing affordable housing to those in need, Plaintiffs
worked hard at providing safe, decent and sanitary housing and had many thankful tenants.
25. Defendant, through its Police Department, recognized Plaintiffs for their efforts to
5
properly manage their Case Avenue rental property thereby reducing adverse tenant and guest
behavior issues.
26. Plaintiffs employed a full-time caretaker for management of the 1015 York rental
property, including handling oftenant applications, interviewing and screening tenants,
maintenance and repair matters, and other matters involved in Plaintiffs' rental business.
27. Plaintiffs consistently rented to those individuals who held Se,ction 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers. Almost all of Plaintiffs' Section 8 tenants were African-Americans. Plaintiffs
had a monthly average ofthree rental units leased to Section 8 tenants in their 1015 York
property.
28. Plaintiffs' 1015 York building was inspected by Section 8 inspectors under
direction ofPHA. Section 8 inspectors conducted inspections of Plaintiffs' building utilizing the
federal Housing Quality Standards ("HQS"). Following each such inspection, Plaintiffs took the
necessary action to obtain certification of their rental units to receive federal funding in the form
ofrent subsidies.
29. Each of the three rental properties Plaintiffs owned in the City were multi-unit
buildings subject to the City's "certificate of occupancy" ("C of 0") code enforcement inspection
system administered by the City's Fire Prevention Office ofthe Fire Department.
30. Under the "C of 0" inspection system, Plaintiffs' rental properties were inspected
by Fire Inspectors at least once every two years.
31. During the "C of 0" renewal process in 2004, the City revoked the "C of 0" of the
1015 York property. Following Plaintiffs' completion of repairs to the property, the City issued a
new "C of0" on the property.
6
32. During 2004 through 2005, each time City code officials issued orders related to the
property, Plaintiffs completed the necessary repairs to the subject units and to the building.
33. During 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs continued to experience a high degree ofwear and
tear to their rental properties and tenant and guest caused damage to their property. The high degree
ofwear and tear and intentional damage was similar to the wear and tear and damage experienced by
other providers of low-income rental units in the city, including PHA and Section 8 project based
landlords.
34. During 2004 and 2005, senior Fire Inspector Pat Fish made comments to Plaintiff
McCampbell on at least two occasions that, "I don't know why you rent to these people." Inspector
Fish was referring to Plaintiffs' African-American tenants. It was clear to PlaintiffMcCampbell that
Inspector Fish did not want him renting to low-income tenants ofhis race. Despite the racist remarks
by a senior City inspector, Plaintiff McCampbell confirmed that he would continue to provide his
tenants with affordable housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
35. During 2005, City officials placed Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a list of
alleged "problem properties" claiming certain "nuisance activity" was occurring at the property. City
officials threatened to revoke the "C of 0" for Plaintiffs' building. These same officials and
employees attempted to justify the targeting of Plaintiffs' rental property for heightened code
standards through their classification ofthe property in a derogatory manner. Inspector Fish was the
chairperson of Defendant's Problem Property Task Force during this time.
36. A "Problem Property" is defined by Defendant as a building where "both building
maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist. City officials have admitted that the actual
definition of what constitutes a "problem property" varies from one neighborhood to another
7
neighborhood in the city.
37. The City through its officials and employees, and with assistance from certain third
parties including block club and district council representatives, create periodic lists containing the
addresses ofprivately owned rental buildings considered to be "problem properties." These "problem
properties" are then subject to heightened code standards and increased code enforcement activities
by City inspection officials and employees, including repeated attempts to gain access to interiors of
rental properties, multiple inspections, "white glove" code standards, issuance of condemnations,
removal of grand fathering protections, demands for extensive and expensive renovations, all in a
concerted effort to raise the costs of low-income landlords and to force said landlords to sell their
properties.
38. After declaring Plaintiffs' property a "problem property," Plaintiffs experienced
repeated inspections oftheir 1015 York rental property designed to harass Plaintiffs and their tenants
and to encourage the tenants to leave their rental units, and to force a "change of ownership" in the
rental property to a new owner that would not rent to low-income African-Americans.
39. In December 2005 through January 2006, City code officials and employees cited
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a number of occasions with claimed code violations.
40. On January 17,2006, Plaintiffs' building was condemned for a few items claimed to
be deficient. By early February 3, 2006, City code officials acknowledged in writing that Plaintiffs
had taken the necessary action for the City to remove the condemnation and City Officials and
employees thanked Plaintiffs for their cooperation.
41. During this same period, Defendant's officials and employees continued to illegally
target Plaintiffs and their tenants with confrontational and harassing code enforcement operations
8
designed to remove Plaintiffs' rental income while at the same time dramatically increasing their
costs and expenses.
42. After the repeated inspections where city officials and employees applied a "white
glove" code enforcement standard to Plaintiffs' property, city officials once again condemned
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on February 24,2006. Plaintiffs again took corrective action to
address the code issues raised by Defendant and most of the claimed violations were corrected.
Nevertheless, Defendant continued the condemnation ofthe building.
43. However, due to the illegal targeting and code enforcement actions, Plaintiffs lost all
rental income to their 17 unit rental building. Without the rental income and facing significant costs,
Plaintiffs lost their rental business. Many ofPlaintiffs' tenants left their rental units during this time
due to Defendant's actions.
44. In the late 1990's, Defendant's officials and employees were informed by low-income
rental property owners that ifthe City raised the level ofthe code standards applicable to low-income
rental properties, the higher cost ofcomplying with the heightened standard would force the owners
from the market.
45. During approximately 1999 through 2001, Defendant created and applied a "Problem
Properties 2000" ("PP2000") initiative to address claimed code enforcement and occupant behavior
issues. PP2000's main emphasis was for City inspectors to work together with low-income landlords
to address the claimed problem properties. According to code inspectors working in the PP2000
program, the program was a success not only in reducing the complaints against problemproperties
but also in addressing the concerns of City officials, neighbors, tenants and landlords.
9
46. Sometime during 2001 or early 2002, Defendant's officials and employees eliminated
the PP2000 program and thereafter implemented a confrontational, heavy-handed approach to lowincome
landlords including claimed owners and tenants of"problem properties".
47. In March 2002 Defendant released a Chronic Problem Properties Report that detailed
the City's prior experience with "problem properties". The Report 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".
48. The City's March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including fire,
police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of gaining
access to interiors ofhomes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on landlords who did
not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
49. The March 2002 Report made much to do about the excessive costs to the City from
the privately owned low-income rental properties the City described as "problem properties," due to
tenant behavior issues and code enforcement issues related to the physical condition of those
properties. However, in conducting its study and issuing its Report, City officials and employees
purposely failed to account for the significant costs the City had incurred and was continuing to incur
from the residential rental operations of the largest landlord in the low-income rental market, its
sister government agency, PHA.
50. The City's March 2002 Report surprisingly failed to even mention the existence ofthe
PHA, with its over 440 million dollar rental portfolio and 4400 rental units. PHA's rental portfolio
10
consisted of over 400 single family home scattered across the City, clustered duplexes, 16 hi-rise
rental buildings and four family developments consisting oftown homes.
5!. PHA and the City have long standing agreements and contracts between them
concerning a wide variety of concerns to both PHA and the City, including a special policing
contractual arrangement since 1991 whereby the City has provided and continues to provide a
platoon of police officers and liaison officers to police PHA's family developments, and an
additional police officer to live in each ofPHA sixteen hi-rises.
52. The City andPHAhave a long standing agreement that PHA is exempt from interior
inspections on PHA's 400 scattered site homes in the City. The City's policy, practice and custom is
to avoid demanding and performing any interior inspections in PHA single family homes spread
across the city. This cozy relationship between Defendant and PHA is also demonstrated by the
lower standard ofcode enforcement applied by Defendant to PHA's "C of0" rental properties than to
Plaintiffs' rental property and the rental properties ofother private owners oflow-income housing.
53. PHA and the City admit that all ofPHA properties must conform to all the same fire,
safety, minimum housing codes, and all other applicable codes that have applied to Plaintiffs'
property and the properties of all other private providers oflow-income rental housing.
54. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems
similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock including Plaintiffs' 1015 York property.
PHA administers its own maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing
stock.
55. Many of PHA's rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA
to be in need of major capital improvements. Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital
11
repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been
deferred to later years for additional federal funding.
56. Plaintiffs' property and those ofother targeted rental property owners have not been
afforded PHA's competitive advantage ofdeferral ofcapital improvements but instead private lowincome
rental property owners and their "protected class" tenants have suffered immediate and long
term adverse consequences from Defendant's discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
operations.
57. 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.
58. PHAmanages the housing inspections ofSection 8 rental units. PHA claims that as
part ofits 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 ofSection 8 rental units
in the City at least armually. Even though Section 8 rental units pass federal standards, Defendant
frequently interferes with the tenant's housing and the landlord's property by conducting additional
harassing inspections and many times condemning these same units that had passed federal
inspections.
59. PHA's rental housing stock has historically been 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.
60. Due to federal budget cuts, PHA has sold and is continuing to sell single family
12
homes from its scattered site portfolio. PHA claims that all of its rental properties conform to all
applicable codes. However, the Truth in Sale of Housing ("TISH") reports prepared by licensed
evaluators/inspectors using the City's code guidelines reveal that PHA's single family homes have
many "below minimum code" conditions and "hazardous" conditions in their rental homes.
61. City records show that PHA single family homes have experienced water intrusion
into basements ofits rental homes resulting in serious mold conditions. Other records demonstrate
that serious mold conditions have been created and allowed to continue inside PHA homes due to
tenant conduct.
62. Despite Defendant's knowledge of these conditions, Defendant has not taken any
action to require inspections ofthose particular homes, or to see if the serious code violations and
health concerns have been immediately addressed and corrected by PHA. Additionally, from the
1990s through 2006, Defendant did not demand interior inspections of PHA's 400 rental homes.
Defendant has not used these serious code violations in PHA homes to justify adverse actions against
PHA. Where similar circumstances are presented in privately owned rental units, Defendant have
immediately sought to punish the private landlords by condemnation ofthe properties in question,
requiring the tenants to leave the properties and requiring expensive renovations through full code
compliance certifications.
63. PHA properties are subject to the permit requirements of City codes. Whenever
repair, replacement and or renovation work is needed on a property, PHA is responsible for applying
for a City permit, paying the permit fees, and ensuring that the required interim and final permit safety
inspections are requested. Certified city building officials are designated to conduct the permit
- safety inspections on items such as furnace replacements, roofrepair and replacements, electrical
13
work and other work on properties in the city. The permit inspections are intended to ensure that the
particular repair, replacement or improvement was performed according to all the applicable
building, safety, fire, electrical, and other codes so that the occupants safety and the safety of
neighbors are ensured.
64. Defendant's permit records at the City's Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection ("LIEP") demonstrate that when it comes to permits issued by the City to
PHA for furnace replacements and roof replacements, City inspection officials have consistently
failed to conduct the mandatory permit inspection, either because PHA officials informed the
inspectors that PHA did not think the inspection was necessary, or because PHA's contractors
repeatedly failed to request said inspections from LIEP officials. City inspectors merely note the
request byPHAto forego the inspection, or note that no request was made for the inspection, and the
City inspectors fail to inspect said properties.
65. The result ofDefendant's failure to ensure that code required permit inspections are
completed and work approved, is that PHA tenants and PHA neighbors, are not afforded the
protections ofthe codes for their safety. City and PHA officials have known for many years ofthis
practice offailing to have permit inspections performed on PHA properties. This "blind eye" by the
City to PHA rental properties, seriously jeopardizes PHA tenants and neighbors while at the same
time the Defendant's targeting of Plaintiffs and other landlords jeopardizes their rental businesses
and disrupts the lives of their tenants.
66. Defendant City does not subject PHA's rental housing stock to harassing inspections
on the exteriors and interiors ofits rental properties, to condemnations ofits buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement ofPHA's rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
14
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, or to many of the other
actions the City takes against the privately owned low-income rental owners.
67. Conversely, Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected class"
members are subjected by Defendant's officials and employees to harassing inspections on the
exteriors and interiors of their rental properties, to condemnations of their buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement oftheir rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, to many other actions that
create an environment in the city where these private landlords cannot operate low-income rental
businesses and leads to abandonment oflow-income rental properties in the city.
68. 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 Plaintiff's properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly situated
property owners in the City.
69. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties ofPlaintiffs 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.
70. Defendant's officials and employees knew and intended that their selectively
aggressive code enforcement operations against the targeted low-income landlords, and their tenants,
would have a discriminatory impact upon members ofthe "protected class" living within the City and
upon the private property owners providing housing to said "protected class".
15
71. Said officials and employees also knew and intended that such enforcement would
directly contradict the affirmations by Defendant to HUD, the purported purposes of the federal
housing funds received by the City and the affordable housing policies of the federal government.
72. Defendant's discriminatory housing policy, custom and practice as set forth herein
had a discriminatory impact on the protected class, and those providing housing to same, including
Plaintiffs, and the policy, custom and practice has continued since at least 2002 in the City.
73. Defendant's discriminatory housing practices as set forth herein, including but not
limited to, illegal condenmation of Plaintiffs' rental property and those of other low-income
landlords, interfered with the ability of"protected class" tenants' to maintain housing, locate housing,
locate replacement housing and interfered with those tenants' employment, all to the tenants
detriment.
74. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials and employees,
Plaintiffs and other low-income landlords were forced to incur significant unnecessary expenses
which placed a heavy fmancial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units,
sell their rental properties or lose their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units
for "protected class" members in the City.
75. As a result ofthis wrongful conduct, Defendant also obtained, under color oflaw or
official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and other related City fees
from Plaintiffs and other low~income landlords.
76. As a direct result ofthe discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions directed
against Plaintiffs, they lost tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities,
mortgage payments and other expenses of the subject property, lost their investment in the rental
16
property, incurred significant other expenses, and were forced to surrender the property to the
banking institution that held the mortgage on the property. Plaintiffs incurred other damages as a
result ofthe discriminatory actions of Defendant.
77. Other private owners of low-income rental properties providing critically needed
affordable housing to "protected class" members during the period of 2002 through 2006 were
subjected to similar discriminatory code enforcement and other illegal conduct as Plaintiffs were
subjected to by Defendant and its officials and employees, and these private owners were not offered
the same benefits and preferences that Defendant provided to PHA. Many ofthese private landlords
like Plaintiffs suffered great damage including loss oftheir rental properties as a direct result ofthe
discriminatory policies and illegal conduct ofDefendant and its officials and employees. The tenants
ofthese landlords also suffered a great deal due to the discriminatory policies of Defendant.
COUNT I
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
78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 as set forth
above.
79. Commencing in about 2002, Defendant, through its officials and employees including
inspectors from Defendant's Fire Department, commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory
policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted the low-income
rental properties owned by 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, other Black Americans, Hispanic Americans,
17
Asian Americans, American Indians, individuals with disabilities ("protected class"), all living
within the City of St. Paul.
80. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with these low-income landlords including Plaintiffs, on
account of their having aided, associated with or encouraged their "protected class" tenants in
exercise ofthese tenants' rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
81. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice had, and continues to have,
the approval of the City Council, the Mayor, and many ofthe City's other officials and employees.
This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement conduct has
been and continues to be encouraged and aided by certain influential members of district councils
and block clubs and other individuals with political power in the City.
82. Defendant's officials, employees, representatives and agents instituted a campaign to
interfere with and impair the ability oflow-income landlords including Plaintiffs to provide housing
for low and moderate income members of the African-American community and other "protected
class" members in the city.
83. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
was intentional and malicious in Defendant's efforts to rid the City of "protected class" members,
and Plaintiffs and other owners who were assisting these individuals by providing them with lowincome
housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
84. Officials and employees of Defendant City, including certain inspectors from the
City's Fire Prevention Office, intended that Defendant's policy would have a discriminatory impact
18
upon members of the African-American community and other "protected class" citizens and on
Plaintiffs and others providing housing services to those "protected class" members.
85. Said Defendant's code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon
members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other
property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.
86. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice included providing special
treatment for Defendant's sister government agency, PHA, that was not provided to the owners of
privately owned low-income housing and their tenants, including Plaintiffs and their tenants.
87. Said illegal conduct resulted in actual damages to low-income landlords including to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result ofsaid discriminatory policies, customs and
practices, including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests, including loss ofincome,
profits and investments, physical disruption ofrental and repair activities, forced payments, forced
sale ofrental property, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees. Plaintiffs seeks
all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
88. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions
and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
89. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
90. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofinterference and retaliatory
conduct continues presently in the City.
19
91. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 pennanent injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendant, and its officials, employees and representatives from continuing its wrongful
conduct, as Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described
above, has existed for an extended period of time and presently continues within the City.
COUNT II
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 91 as set forth
above.
93. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, has denied Plaintiffs on account ofrace, the same right to make and enforce
contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit ofall laws or proceedings for the security ofpersons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, ajl in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
U.S.C. Section 1981.
94. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and right to make and enforce contracts
with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to enjoyment ofall benefits, privileges, tenns, and
conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with their non-white tenants.
95. As a direct result ofsaid the wrongful conduct ofDefendant's officials, employees,
representatives and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the fonn ofeconomic 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. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks
20
damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir
costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from Defendant.
96. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT III
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 96 as set forth
above.
98. Defendant City official, employees, representatives and agents, have denied Plaintiffs,
an their African-American and other protected class tenants, on account ofrace, the same rights as
are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property,
all in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
99. Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more
fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those oftheir tenants.
100. As a direct result of said Defendant's 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 civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from
Defendant.
101. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
21
102. Plaintiffs also seeks a permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant through its
officials, employee, representatives and agents from continuing Defendant's pattern ofdiscriminatory
code enforcement as described above.
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 102 as set forth
above.
104. Certain officials and employees ofDefendant City, all in their official capacities, did
wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants ofrights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe
United States, including the right to be free from taking oftheir property without compensation, the
right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue an
occupation, business or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference, or
government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments
and rights established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
105. Certain ofDefendant City's officials were all in their official capacities following an
unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice ofdiscriminatory code enforcement at the time of
said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.
106. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury
to Plaintiffs.
107. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result ofthe policy, custom
and practice set forth herein.
22
108. Certain officials, employees, representatives and agents of Defendant City acted
under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in their
occupation, business and/or profession to deprivation of their rights and undue interference on
account of Plaintiffs' tenants being African-American and other "protected class" members.
109. The intentional and malicious conduct ofDefendant's officials and employees was a
violation ofPlaintiffs' rights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, including the
right to be free from taking ofproperty without compensation, the right to due process, the right to
equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from
deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1982 and 1983.
110. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form ofeconomic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
111. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT V
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 111 as set
forth above.
113. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease ofprivate housing in the City of Saint Paul.
114. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' leases with its tenants.
115. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
23
116. Defendant intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and
malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs' rental property and orders for tenants to vacate said rental
property and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
117. Defendant intentional interference with Plaintiffs' contracts was without any
justification.
118. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendant's 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 due to the malicious conduct of Defendants'
officials and employees.
119. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
120. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 119 as set forth
above.
121. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had a rental business in the
City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
122. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their
rental business and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
123. Defendant, through its officials and employees, 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 business.
24
124. Defendant's wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
125. Said Defendant's wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or
harm to, Plaintiffs' rental business and business expectancy and the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
126. Without Defendant's wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
127. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendant's wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs' rental business; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and
profits, have been forced to sell their rental property, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs, fees
and expenses in needless repairs all due to Defendants' wrongful conduct.
128. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. Ajudgment pursuant to Count I ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
2. Ajudgment pursuant to Count II ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
4. Ajudgment pursuant to Count IV ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
5. Ajudgment pursuant to Count V ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
6. Ajudgment pursuant to Count VI ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
7. Ajudgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this matter
on all Counts herein.
8. A judgment for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
25
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
9. A pennanent injunction restraining Defendant and its officials, employees,
representatives and agents, from further violations as set forth herein.
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
11. For trial byjury on .all issues so triable.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: p...-()..'J...~
ey
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property
Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company, Plaintiffs
V.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation, Defendant.
TO: (Name and address of Defendant)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: ODlV tft0
JYLT/~
City of Saint Paul, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., 390 City Hall, St. Paul, MN 55102.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
John R. Shoemaker
Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C.
Centennial Lakes Office Park
770 I. France Avenue South
Suite 200
Edina, MN 55435
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day ofservice. Ifyou fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for
the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable
period oftime after service.
fIB 2 2 2008
DATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Robert McCampbell and Raven
Property Management, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
vs.
City of Saint Paul, a
municipal corporation,
Defendant.
Court File No. _
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Robert McCampbell and Raven Property Management, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability company(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), hereby allege and state the following
Complaint against the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This civil action arises under the laws ofthe United States and the State of Minnesota. This
Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiffs herein are alleging standing under:
(I) Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; and
(2) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983 (civil rights action).
The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613, 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 (federal questions), 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 ofoperative facts
with Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive reliefagainst Defendants as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 .
Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Robert McCampbell ("Plaintiff') is a citizen of the United States and a Minnesota
resident residing in Dakota County.
2. Raven Property Management, L.L.C. is a Minnesota limited liability company that
owned and managed real estate in the City ofSt. Paul. PlaintiffMcCampbell was and continues to
be the sole owner of Raven Property Management, L.L.C.
3. Defendant City ofSaint Paul ("City") is a municipal corporation existing under, and
by virtue of, the laws ofthe State of Minnesota.
4. Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs were property owners in the low-income
rental business with properties located at 780 Jackson Street, 615/617 Case Avenue and 1015
York Avenue in the City ofSt. Paul.
5. Plaintiffs' tenants were almost exclusively low income African-Americans, and
other persons ofminority status, all ofwhom were individuals protected under antidiscrimination
laws, hereinafter referred to as "protected class tenants."
6. During 2001 through 2006, Plaintiffs provided affordable housing in St. Paul that
was in short supply in the City.
7. Plaintiffs' rental property located at 1015 York Avenue was a 17 unit building. In
2005,16 ofthe rental units were occupied by African-Americans and one rental unit was
occupied by a Native-American family.
8. Plaintiffs' tenants were typically highly transient resulting in high tenant turnover
2
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' 1015 York property averaged one to two vacancies on a monthly basis.
9. It was common for Plaintiffs to have rental applications from people of color
moving into St. Paul from Chicago and Detroit and other cities. Plaintiffs' tenants were a good
source of referrals and many times they referred other family members, relatives and friends to
Plaintiffs for housing in St. Paul.
10. At times during the period of 2003 through 2005, Plaintiffs had all ofthe rental
units leased at their 1015 York property and Plaintiffs had to turn away potential tenants,
including African-Americans.
11. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tenant advocate groups, and others involved in
housing policy issues, recognized that African-Americans faced significant barriers to affordable
housing in the City.
12. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in St. Paul due to
significant racial conflicts between white neighbors and African-American tenants.
13. During 2001 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that African-Americans faced affordable housing barriers in the city due to
frequent misuse of the "complaint based code enforcement system" whereby certain complainants
were illegally targeting "people of color" for code enforcement operations designed to shut down
3
those minority occupied rental properties, or force the "protected class" tenants from those rental
properties. Certain of Defendant's officials and code enforcement officials and inspectors
pursued discriminatory code enforcement operations to placate racist constituents and to further
political agendas. Defendant failed to take action to stop these discriminatory practices.
14. During 2002 through 2006, certain City officials and employees made racists
•
comments to members of the minority community and to property owners providing housing to
members of that community, to the effect that those minorities were not welcomed in St. Paul
and should not be given housing.
15. Andy Dawkins, the director of Defendant's Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement department (NHPI) from 2002 through 2005, strongly suggested in 2005 to lowincome
landlords that the bottom tier of tenants should be eliminated from St. Paul.
16. Mr. Dawkins also told a low-income housing advocate with Project Hope that the
City did not want low-income tenants renting in St. Paul.
17. During 2002 through 2006, certain of Defendant's code enforcement inspectors
were condescending toward minority owners of "protected class" rental properties and towards
their minority tenants.
18. African-American have historically constituted the largest segment of the "poor"
in the City and this was true during 2001 through 2006, while Plaintiffs provided low-income
housing in St. Paul.
19. For decades, African-Americans have comprised the largest percentage oflowincome
tenants in the City and the highest percentage ofthose waiting for affordable housing in
the City.
4
20. City representatives have repeatedly discussed in public the claim that there is an
over concentration ofpoverty in certain areas of St. Paul.
21. City representatives have long recognized the racist tendencies of a significant
number of city residents towards African"Americans and other minorities.
22. PHA, the largest low-income landlord in the city, has acknowledged that due to
political pressure, PHA worked with City officials and influential neighborhood groups to select
the locations of all of the 400 scattered site homes PHA owns. These homes are occupied by
federally subsidized tenants, ~any ofwhom are minorities. Many ofPHA's tenants are members
of the "protected class" and about one-third have consistently been African-Americans.
23. During at least 2002 through 2006, Defendant, its officials, employees and
representatives, PHA, HUD, tenant advocate groups, and others involved in housing policy
issues, recognized that private owners oflow-income rental housing in St. Paul: provided the
majority of affordable housing for the "protected class" tenants in the City; had high maintenance
and repair costs due to ownership of older housing stock and tenant conduct related causes; were
housing a significantly higher percentage of "protected class" tenants than PHA; were in need of
cooperative relationships with Defendant, its officials, employees and representatives and other
third parties in order to continue to provide critically needed affordable housing; and would be
adversely affected if Defendant raised the code enforcement standard applicable to privately
owned low-income rental properties.
24. Despite the barriers to providing affordable housing to those in need, Plaintiffs
worked hard at providing safe, decent and sanitary housing and had many thankful tenants.
25. Defendant, through its Police Department, recognized Plaintiffs for their efforts to
5
properly manage their Case Avenue rental property thereby reducing adverse tenant and guest
behavior issues.
26. Plaintiffs employed a full-time caretaker for management of the 1015 York rental
property, including handling oftenant applications, interviewing and screening tenants,
maintenance and repair matters, and other matters involved in Plaintiffs' rental business.
27. Plaintiffs consistently rented to those individuals who held Se,ction 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers. Almost all of Plaintiffs' Section 8 tenants were African-Americans. Plaintiffs
had a monthly average ofthree rental units leased to Section 8 tenants in their 1015 York
property.
28. Plaintiffs' 1015 York building was inspected by Section 8 inspectors under
direction ofPHA. Section 8 inspectors conducted inspections of Plaintiffs' building utilizing the
federal Housing Quality Standards ("HQS"). Following each such inspection, Plaintiffs took the
necessary action to obtain certification of their rental units to receive federal funding in the form
ofrent subsidies.
29. Each of the three rental properties Plaintiffs owned in the City were multi-unit
buildings subject to the City's "certificate of occupancy" ("C of 0") code enforcement inspection
system administered by the City's Fire Prevention Office ofthe Fire Department.
30. Under the "C of 0" inspection system, Plaintiffs' rental properties were inspected
by Fire Inspectors at least once every two years.
31. During the "C of 0" renewal process in 2004, the City revoked the "C of 0" of the
1015 York property. Following Plaintiffs' completion of repairs to the property, the City issued a
new "C of0" on the property.
6
32. During 2004 through 2005, each time City code officials issued orders related to the
property, Plaintiffs completed the necessary repairs to the subject units and to the building.
33. During 2001 and 2006, Plaintiffs continued to experience a high degree ofwear and
tear to their rental properties and tenant and guest caused damage to their property. The high degree
ofwear and tear and intentional damage was similar to the wear and tear and damage experienced by
other providers of low-income rental units in the city, including PHA and Section 8 project based
landlords.
34. During 2004 and 2005, senior Fire Inspector Pat Fish made comments to Plaintiff
McCampbell on at least two occasions that, "I don't know why you rent to these people." Inspector
Fish was referring to Plaintiffs' African-American tenants. It was clear to PlaintiffMcCampbell that
Inspector Fish did not want him renting to low-income tenants ofhis race. Despite the racist remarks
by a senior City inspector, Plaintiff McCampbell confirmed that he would continue to provide his
tenants with affordable housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
35. During 2005, City officials placed Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a list of
alleged "problem properties" claiming certain "nuisance activity" was occurring at the property. City
officials threatened to revoke the "C of 0" for Plaintiffs' building. These same officials and
employees attempted to justify the targeting of Plaintiffs' rental property for heightened code
standards through their classification ofthe property in a derogatory manner. Inspector Fish was the
chairperson of Defendant's Problem Property Task Force during this time.
36. A "Problem Property" is defined by Defendant as a building where "both building
maintenance issues and nuisance behavior issues" exist. City officials have admitted that the actual
definition of what constitutes a "problem property" varies from one neighborhood to another
7
neighborhood in the city.
37. The City through its officials and employees, and with assistance from certain third
parties including block club and district council representatives, create periodic lists containing the
addresses ofprivately owned rental buildings considered to be "problem properties." These "problem
properties" are then subject to heightened code standards and increased code enforcement activities
by City inspection officials and employees, including repeated attempts to gain access to interiors of
rental properties, multiple inspections, "white glove" code standards, issuance of condemnations,
removal of grand fathering protections, demands for extensive and expensive renovations, all in a
concerted effort to raise the costs of low-income landlords and to force said landlords to sell their
properties.
38. After declaring Plaintiffs' property a "problem property," Plaintiffs experienced
repeated inspections oftheir 1015 York rental property designed to harass Plaintiffs and their tenants
and to encourage the tenants to leave their rental units, and to force a "change of ownership" in the
rental property to a new owner that would not rent to low-income African-Americans.
39. In December 2005 through January 2006, City code officials and employees cited
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on a number of occasions with claimed code violations.
40. On January 17,2006, Plaintiffs' building was condemned for a few items claimed to
be deficient. By early February 3, 2006, City code officials acknowledged in writing that Plaintiffs
had taken the necessary action for the City to remove the condemnation and City Officials and
employees thanked Plaintiffs for their cooperation.
41. During this same period, Defendant's officials and employees continued to illegally
target Plaintiffs and their tenants with confrontational and harassing code enforcement operations
8
designed to remove Plaintiffs' rental income while at the same time dramatically increasing their
costs and expenses.
42. After the repeated inspections where city officials and employees applied a "white
glove" code enforcement standard to Plaintiffs' property, city officials once again condemned
Plaintiffs' 1015 York rental property on February 24,2006. Plaintiffs again took corrective action to
address the code issues raised by Defendant and most of the claimed violations were corrected.
Nevertheless, Defendant continued the condemnation ofthe building.
43. However, due to the illegal targeting and code enforcement actions, Plaintiffs lost all
rental income to their 17 unit rental building. Without the rental income and facing significant costs,
Plaintiffs lost their rental business. Many ofPlaintiffs' tenants left their rental units during this time
due to Defendant's actions.
44. In the late 1990's, Defendant's officials and employees were informed by low-income
rental property owners that ifthe City raised the level ofthe code standards applicable to low-income
rental properties, the higher cost ofcomplying with the heightened standard would force the owners
from the market.
45. During approximately 1999 through 2001, Defendant created and applied a "Problem
Properties 2000" ("PP2000") initiative to address claimed code enforcement and occupant behavior
issues. PP2000's main emphasis was for City inspectors to work together with low-income landlords
to address the claimed problem properties. According to code inspectors working in the PP2000
program, the program was a success not only in reducing the complaints against problemproperties
but also in addressing the concerns of City officials, neighbors, tenants and landlords.
9
46. Sometime during 2001 or early 2002, Defendant's officials and employees eliminated
the PP2000 program and thereafter implemented a confrontational, heavy-handed approach to lowincome
landlords including claimed owners and tenants of"problem properties".
47. In March 2002 Defendant released a Chronic Problem Properties Report that detailed
the City's prior experience with "problem properties". The Report 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".
48. The City's March 2002 Report reviewed how multiple city agencies, including fire,
police, housing, and animal control, could target enforcement to accomplish the goals of gaining
access to interiors ofhomes for inspections, so as to force ownership changes on landlords who did
not meet the admittedly undocumented standards.
49. The March 2002 Report made much to do about the excessive costs to the City from
the privately owned low-income rental properties the City described as "problem properties," due to
tenant behavior issues and code enforcement issues related to the physical condition of those
properties. However, in conducting its study and issuing its Report, City officials and employees
purposely failed to account for the significant costs the City had incurred and was continuing to incur
from the residential rental operations of the largest landlord in the low-income rental market, its
sister government agency, PHA.
50. The City's March 2002 Report surprisingly failed to even mention the existence ofthe
PHA, with its over 440 million dollar rental portfolio and 4400 rental units. PHA's rental portfolio
10
consisted of over 400 single family home scattered across the City, clustered duplexes, 16 hi-rise
rental buildings and four family developments consisting oftown homes.
5!. PHA and the City have long standing agreements and contracts between them
concerning a wide variety of concerns to both PHA and the City, including a special policing
contractual arrangement since 1991 whereby the City has provided and continues to provide a
platoon of police officers and liaison officers to police PHA's family developments, and an
additional police officer to live in each ofPHA sixteen hi-rises.
52. The City andPHAhave a long standing agreement that PHA is exempt from interior
inspections on PHA's 400 scattered site homes in the City. The City's policy, practice and custom is
to avoid demanding and performing any interior inspections in PHA single family homes spread
across the city. This cozy relationship between Defendant and PHA is also demonstrated by the
lower standard ofcode enforcement applied by Defendant to PHA's "C of0" rental properties than to
Plaintiffs' rental property and the rental properties ofother private owners oflow-income housing.
53. PHA and the City admit that all ofPHA properties must conform to all the same fire,
safety, minimum housing codes, and all other applicable codes that have applied to Plaintiffs'
property and the properties of all other private providers oflow-income rental housing.
54. PHA's public rental housing stock in the City has maintenance and repair problems
similar in nature to privately owned rental housing stock including Plaintiffs' 1015 York property.
PHA administers its own maintenance, inspection, repair and auditing system on its rental housing
stock.
55. Many of PHA's rental properties are older properties and are considered by PHA
to be in need of major capital improvements. Historically, PHA has been under-funded for capital
11
repairs of its aging rental housing stock. Many of the needed capital improvements have been
deferred to later years for additional federal funding.
56. Plaintiffs' property and those ofother targeted rental property owners have not been
afforded PHA's competitive advantage ofdeferral ofcapital improvements but instead private lowincome
rental property owners and their "protected class" tenants have suffered immediate and long
term adverse consequences from Defendant's discriminatory and illegal code enforcement
operations.
57. 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.
58. PHAmanages the housing inspections ofSection 8 rental units. PHA claims that as
part ofits 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 ofSection 8 rental units
in the City at least armually. Even though Section 8 rental units pass federal standards, Defendant
frequently interferes with the tenant's housing and the landlord's property by conducting additional
harassing inspections and many times condemning these same units that had passed federal
inspections.
59. PHA's rental housing stock has historically been 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.
60. Due to federal budget cuts, PHA has sold and is continuing to sell single family
12
homes from its scattered site portfolio. PHA claims that all of its rental properties conform to all
applicable codes. However, the Truth in Sale of Housing ("TISH") reports prepared by licensed
evaluators/inspectors using the City's code guidelines reveal that PHA's single family homes have
many "below minimum code" conditions and "hazardous" conditions in their rental homes.
61. City records show that PHA single family homes have experienced water intrusion
into basements ofits rental homes resulting in serious mold conditions. Other records demonstrate
that serious mold conditions have been created and allowed to continue inside PHA homes due to
tenant conduct.
62. Despite Defendant's knowledge of these conditions, Defendant has not taken any
action to require inspections ofthose particular homes, or to see if the serious code violations and
health concerns have been immediately addressed and corrected by PHA. Additionally, from the
1990s through 2006, Defendant did not demand interior inspections of PHA's 400 rental homes.
Defendant has not used these serious code violations in PHA homes to justify adverse actions against
PHA. Where similar circumstances are presented in privately owned rental units, Defendant have
immediately sought to punish the private landlords by condemnation ofthe properties in question,
requiring the tenants to leave the properties and requiring expensive renovations through full code
compliance certifications.
63. PHA properties are subject to the permit requirements of City codes. Whenever
repair, replacement and or renovation work is needed on a property, PHA is responsible for applying
for a City permit, paying the permit fees, and ensuring that the required interim and final permit safety
inspections are requested. Certified city building officials are designated to conduct the permit
- safety inspections on items such as furnace replacements, roofrepair and replacements, electrical
13
work and other work on properties in the city. The permit inspections are intended to ensure that the
particular repair, replacement or improvement was performed according to all the applicable
building, safety, fire, electrical, and other codes so that the occupants safety and the safety of
neighbors are ensured.
64. Defendant's permit records at the City's Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection ("LIEP") demonstrate that when it comes to permits issued by the City to
PHA for furnace replacements and roof replacements, City inspection officials have consistently
failed to conduct the mandatory permit inspection, either because PHA officials informed the
inspectors that PHA did not think the inspection was necessary, or because PHA's contractors
repeatedly failed to request said inspections from LIEP officials. City inspectors merely note the
request byPHAto forego the inspection, or note that no request was made for the inspection, and the
City inspectors fail to inspect said properties.
65. The result ofDefendant's failure to ensure that code required permit inspections are
completed and work approved, is that PHA tenants and PHA neighbors, are not afforded the
protections ofthe codes for their safety. City and PHA officials have known for many years ofthis
practice offailing to have permit inspections performed on PHA properties. This "blind eye" by the
City to PHA rental properties, seriously jeopardizes PHA tenants and neighbors while at the same
time the Defendant's targeting of Plaintiffs and other landlords jeopardizes their rental businesses
and disrupts the lives of their tenants.
66. Defendant City does not subject PHA's rental housing stock to harassing inspections
on the exteriors and interiors ofits rental properties, to condemnations ofits buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement ofPHA's rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
14
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, or to many of the other
actions the City takes against the privately owned low-income rental owners.
67. Conversely, Plaintiffs and other private landlords renting to "protected class"
members are subjected by Defendant's officials and employees to harassing inspections on the
exteriors and interiors of their rental properties, to condemnations of their buildings that forcibly
evict its tenants from their homes, to placement oftheir rental properties on the "Vacant Building"
lists requiring payment of registration and inspection fees, to demands for expensive renovations
under the City's "code compliance inspection and certification" program, to many other actions that
create an environment in the city where these private landlords cannot operate low-income rental
businesses and leads to abandonment oflow-income rental properties in the city.
68. 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 Plaintiff's properties and those rental properties owned by other similarly situated
property owners in the City.
69. Nevertheless, Defendants have targeted the properties ofPlaintiffs 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.
70. Defendant's officials and employees knew and intended that their selectively
aggressive code enforcement operations against the targeted low-income landlords, and their tenants,
would have a discriminatory impact upon members ofthe "protected class" living within the City and
upon the private property owners providing housing to said "protected class".
15
71. Said officials and employees also knew and intended that such enforcement would
directly contradict the affirmations by Defendant to HUD, the purported purposes of the federal
housing funds received by the City and the affordable housing policies of the federal government.
72. Defendant's discriminatory housing policy, custom and practice as set forth herein
had a discriminatory impact on the protected class, and those providing housing to same, including
Plaintiffs, and the policy, custom and practice has continued since at least 2002 in the City.
73. Defendant's discriminatory housing practices as set forth herein, including but not
limited to, illegal condenmation of Plaintiffs' rental property and those of other low-income
landlords, interfered with the ability of"protected class" tenants' to maintain housing, locate housing,
locate replacement housing and interfered with those tenants' employment, all to the tenants
detriment.
74. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials and employees,
Plaintiffs and other low-income landlords were forced to incur significant unnecessary expenses
which placed a heavy fmancial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units,
sell their rental properties or lose their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units
for "protected class" members in the City.
75. As a result ofthis wrongful conduct, Defendant also obtained, under color oflaw or
official right, an increase in inspection, permit, excessive consumption, and other related City fees
from Plaintiffs and other low~income landlords.
76. As a direct result ofthe discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions directed
against Plaintiffs, they lost tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities,
mortgage payments and other expenses of the subject property, lost their investment in the rental
16
property, incurred significant other expenses, and were forced to surrender the property to the
banking institution that held the mortgage on the property. Plaintiffs incurred other damages as a
result ofthe discriminatory actions of Defendant.
77. Other private owners of low-income rental properties providing critically needed
affordable housing to "protected class" members during the period of 2002 through 2006 were
subjected to similar discriminatory code enforcement and other illegal conduct as Plaintiffs were
subjected to by Defendant and its officials and employees, and these private owners were not offered
the same benefits and preferences that Defendant provided to PHA. Many ofthese private landlords
like Plaintiffs suffered great damage including loss oftheir rental properties as a direct result ofthe
discriminatory policies and illegal conduct ofDefendant and its officials and employees. The tenants
ofthese landlords also suffered a great deal due to the discriminatory policies of Defendant.
COUNT I
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
78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 as set forth
above.
79. Commencing in about 2002, Defendant, through its officials and employees including
inspectors from Defendant's Fire Department, commenced and thereafter continued a discriminatory
policy, custom and pattern of code enforcement conduct that selectively targeted the low-income
rental properties owned by 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, other Black Americans, Hispanic Americans,
17
Asian Americans, American Indians, individuals with disabilities ("protected class"), all living
within the City of St. Paul.
80. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with these low-income landlords including Plaintiffs, on
account of their having aided, associated with or encouraged their "protected class" tenants in
exercise ofthese tenants' rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.
81. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice had, and continues to have,
the approval of the City Council, the Mayor, and many ofthe City's other officials and employees.
This discriminatory policy, custom and practice of discriminatory code enforcement conduct has
been and continues to be encouraged and aided by certain influential members of district councils
and block clubs and other individuals with political power in the City.
82. Defendant's officials, employees, representatives and agents instituted a campaign to
interfere with and impair the ability oflow-income landlords including Plaintiffs to provide housing
for low and moderate income members of the African-American community and other "protected
class" members in the city.
83. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofcode enforcement conduct
was intentional and malicious in Defendant's efforts to rid the City of "protected class" members,
and Plaintiffs and other owners who were assisting these individuals by providing them with lowincome
housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
84. Officials and employees of Defendant City, including certain inspectors from the
City's Fire Prevention Office, intended that Defendant's policy would have a discriminatory impact
18
upon members of the African-American community and other "protected class" citizens and on
Plaintiffs and others providing housing services to those "protected class" members.
85. Said Defendant's code enforcement operations had a discriminatory impact upon
members of the "protected class" living within the City of St. Paul, and upon Plaintiffs and other
property owners providing housing services to "protected class" members.
86. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice included providing special
treatment for Defendant's sister government agency, PHA, that was not provided to the owners of
privately owned low-income housing and their tenants, including Plaintiffs and their tenants.
87. Said illegal conduct resulted in actual damages to low-income landlords including to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result ofsaid discriminatory policies, customs and
practices, including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests, including loss ofincome,
profits and investments, physical disruption ofrental and repair activities, forced payments, forced
sale ofrental property, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees. Plaintiffs seeks
all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
88. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its provisions
and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
89. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
90. Defendant's discriminatory policy, custom and practice ofinterference and retaliatory
conduct continues presently in the City.
19
91. Plaintiffs seek pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 3613 pennanent injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendant, and its officials, employees and representatives from continuing its wrongful
conduct, as Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as described
above, has existed for an extended period of time and presently continues within the City.
COUNT II
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 91 as set forth
above.
93. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, has denied Plaintiffs on account ofrace, the same right to make and enforce
contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit ofall laws or proceedings for the security ofpersons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, ajl in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
U.S.C. Section 1981.
94. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with racially
discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and right to make and enforce contracts
with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to enjoyment ofall benefits, privileges, tenns, and
conditions of Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with their non-white tenants.
95. As a direct result ofsaid the wrongful conduct ofDefendant's officials, employees,
representatives and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the fonn ofeconomic 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. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks
20
damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir
costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from Defendant.
96. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT III
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1982
97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 96 as set forth
above.
98. Defendant City official, employees, representatives and agents, have denied Plaintiffs,
an their African-American and other protected class tenants, on account ofrace, the same rights as
are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property,
all in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. Section 1982.
99. Defendant's discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and practice, as more
fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights and those oftheir tenants.
100. As a direct result of said Defendant's 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 civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiff McCampbell also seeks damages for anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all oftheir costs, expenses, and attomeys fees from
Defendant.
101. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
21
102. Plaintiffs also seeks a permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant through its
officials, employee, representatives and agents from continuing Defendant's pattern ofdiscriminatory
code enforcement as described above.
COUNT IV
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 102 as set forth
above.
104. Certain officials and employees ofDefendant City, all in their official capacities, did
wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs and their tenants ofrights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe
United States, including the right to be free from taking oftheir property without compensation, the
right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to pursue an
occupation, business or profession free from governmental deprivation or undue interference, or
government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments
and rights established by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983.
105. Certain ofDefendant City's officials were all in their official capacities following an
unconstitutional City policy, custom and practice ofdiscriminatory code enforcement at the time of
said deprivation of rights, all as fully described above.
106. The policy, custom and practice described above proximately caused the injury
to Plaintiffs.
107. Defendant City is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as a result ofthe policy, custom
and practice set forth herein.
22
108. Certain officials, employees, representatives and agents of Defendant City acted
under color of state law, intentionally and maliciously subjected to harm the Plaintiffs in their
occupation, business and/or profession to deprivation of their rights and undue interference on
account of Plaintiffs' tenants being African-American and other "protected class" members.
109. The intentional and malicious conduct ofDefendant's officials and employees was a
violation ofPlaintiffs' rights secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, including the
right to be free from taking ofproperty without compensation, the right to due process, the right to
equal protection of the laws, the right to pursue an occupation, business or profession free from
deprivation or undue interference, or government imposed monopoly, guaranteed by the Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and rights established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1982 and 1983.
110. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form ofeconomic loss and deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights.
111. Plaintiffs seek all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT V
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 111 as set
forth above.
113. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease ofprivate housing in the City of Saint Paul.
114. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' leases with its tenants.
115. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
23
116. Defendant intentionally procured breach of the contracts through illegal and
malicious condemnations of Plaintiffs' rental property and orders for tenants to vacate said rental
property and through other intentional wrongful conduct, all as more fully described above.
117. Defendant intentional interference with Plaintiffs' contracts was without any
justification.
118. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendant's 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 due to the malicious conduct of Defendants'
officials and employees.
119. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
120. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 119 as set forth
above.
121. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had a rental business in the
City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
122. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from their
rental business and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
123. Defendant, through its officials and employees, 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 business.
24
124. Defendant's wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
125. Said Defendant's wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of, or
harm to, Plaintiffs' rental business and business expectancy and the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
126. Without Defendant's wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit as set forth herein.
127. Plaintiffs suffered damage and losses as a direct result of Defendant's wrongful
interference with Plaintiffs' rental business; Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and
profits, have been forced to sell their rental property, had increased tax burdens, incurred costs, fees
and expenses in needless repairs all due to Defendants' wrongful conduct.
128. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. Ajudgment pursuant to Count I ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
2. Ajudgment pursuant to Count II ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
4. Ajudgment pursuant to Count IV ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
5. Ajudgment pursuant to Count V ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
6. Ajudgment pursuant to Count VI ofthis Complaint as set forth therein.
7. Ajudgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this matter
on all Counts herein.
8. A judgment for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
25
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
9. A pennanent injunction restraining Defendant and its officials, employees,
representatives and agents, from further violations as set forth herein.
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
11. For trial byjury on .all issues so triable.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: p...-()..'J...~
ey
posted by Bob at 8:53 AM
.jpg)
.jpg)
