Case: United States v. One Boyertown Properties LP

5:20-cv-06249 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: Dec. 11, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Background This is a case about accessibility for people with disabilities in senior living communities. On December 11, 2020, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit against fifteen companies who had designed, built, and/or owned fifteen buildings that housed independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DOJ sued the defendants under the F…

Background

This is a case about accessibility for people with disabilities in senior living communities. On December 11, 2020, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit against fifteen companies who had designed, built, and/or owned fifteen buildings that housed independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DOJ sued the defendants under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that these facilities contained numerous violations that made them inaccessible for people with disabilities, and that this was a pattern or practice of discrimination by the defendants. They sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The case was initially heard by Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. However, Judge John M. Gallagher took over the case on April 7, 2022.

Complaint

The DOJ relied on property plans and inspections to allege that the buildings had been constructed and designed with inaccessible multifamily units and public spaces; the former violated the Fair Housing Act, and the latter violated both the Fair Housing Act and the ADA. In the complaint, the DOJ listed numerous alleged violations at each building. In public areas, the violations included various barriers that made the areas inaccessible for people using wheelchairs, such as high slopes on walkways and around accessible parking spaces, inaccessible routes to public amenities, high shelves and mailboxes, too little space around automatic door switches, and inaccessible public bathrooms. The DOJ alleged similarly inaccessible features in the units, including narrow doorways, inaccessible paths within rooms, bathrooms and kitchens without enough floor space, high electrical controls, and shower walls on which grab bars could not be installed.

The DOJ asked the court for declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, and for injunctions requiring the defendants to retrofit their buildings to make them compliant as well as to ensure any future buildings they designed or built would be compliant. The DOJ also requested monetary damages to people who had been discriminated against by the defendants, as well as a civil penalty against the defendants.

There were three types of defendants in the case: the architectural firm that had designed the buildings, eight companies that had owned the buildings and been part of the design and construction process, and six companies that owned some of the buildings but had not been part of the design and construction process. The last were Rule 19 defendants, meaning that they had to be added to the lawsuit so that the relief the DOJ wanted, such as retrofits to the buildings, would be possible.

On March 1, 2021, the DOJ filed an amended complaint to fix the name of a defendant. A few weeks later, on March 22, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the defendants Two Douglassville Properties and Care HSL Newtown Propco. About two weeks later, on April 8, a default was entered for the defendant AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, which had failed to respond to the lawsuit. Two weeks later, on April 23, the DOJ again amended its complaint to remove the two defendants that it had voluntarily dismissed, and to add an additional defendant.

On the same day, April 23, the court granted the DOJ's unopposed motion to stay the case for 150 days so the parties could negotiate settlements. On September 14 of the same year, the court extended the stay for another two months. Two months later, on November 24, the court extended the stay until the parties had completed mediation in late February 2022. Another stay was granted on July 20, 2022, which was later extended through September 19, 2022.

1180 Ben Franklin Way

The first consent decree in this case, approved on November 2, 2021, was between the DOJ and a Rule 19 defendant, 1180 Ben Franklin Way. Ben Franklin Way agreed to let the DOJ access the building they owned and to let retrofits take place in their building if another defendant agreed to or was ordered to make retrofits. The decree would end either if either six months passed after the retrofits were done or if the case against Ben Franklin Way was dismissed.

LifeQuest Nursing Center

The second consent decree was approved on April 13, 2022, between the DOJ and the defendant LifeQuest Nursing Center. LifeQuest agreed to retrofit its properties to make them accessible in compliance with the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, and agreed to a general injunction forcing the company to comply with these laws in any future projects. It also paid $24,000 in damages to those discriminated against, and $14,000 as a civil penalty. The decree included a requirement that LifeQuest give quarterly reports, as well as reports on the compliance of any future building projects. The agreement contained other requirements, including that LifeQuest would educate its employees about Fair Housing Act and ADA compliance, inform past and present residents of the settlement, post signs about its non-discrimination policy in rental offices, and include a statement about accessibility on any advertising. The order would last until six months after the retrofits were done, or until the litigation ended, whichever came last.

J. Randolph Parry Architects

On March 6, 2022, the architectural firm, J. Randolph Parry Architects, filed a third-party complaint in which they alleged that the buildings’ violations were largely the fault of other parties rather than the firm itself. The firm sought to add thirty-nine other defendants that it alleged were at fault, including construction, engineering, and interior design firms. The firm also made three state law crossclaims against every other defendant in the case. The firm requested that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction to bring these many state law claims into the present lawsuit. Later that month, on March 28, several defendants moved to dismiss the firm’s crossclaims, and two days later the DOJ filed a motion to strike or dismiss the third-party complaint.

Two months later, on May 24, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by various parties against the architectural firm’s crossclaims and third-party complaint. The court held that including the numerous crossclaims and third-party claims would cause them to predominate over the original case, and that those claims involved many issues not relevant to the lawsuit. Therefore, the court declined to hear the architectural firm’s state law claims.

On April 29, 2022, J. Randolph Parry Architects moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the DOJ’s lawsuit was barred by the federal statute of limitations and state statutes of repose because the alleged violations had occurred too many years ago.

Two months later, on June 22, the court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings from the architectural firm. The firm had alleged that a five-year federal statute of limitations and ten- and twelve-year statutes of repose in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively, prevented the DOJ from suing over properties that had been designed and built more than five, ten, or twelve years ago, which included several of the buildings in the lawsuit. However, the court held that since at least one of the buildings had been constructed within the statutes of limitations and repose, the laws did not prevent the DOJ from alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination that included all of the buildings that were part of that pattern or practice, even if some of them were constructed outside the statutes of limitations and repose.

On September 28, 2022, DOJ and J. Randolph Parry Architects agreed to a consent decree. The architectural firm paid $350,000 towards retrofits on the buildings, $75,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against, and $25,000 as a civil penalty. It also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA, and to a program for educating its employees about these laws. The firm was also required to inform the DOJ about the compliance of future projects, and to file yearly reports. The decree is slated to last forty-two months, until March 2026. The Court retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.

	Document
1 5:20-cv-06249	Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial United States v. ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP	Dec. 11, 2020	Dec. 11, 2020 Complaint
37 5:20-cv-06249	Plaintiff United States' Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C.	April 20, 2021	April 20, 2021 Pleading / Motion / Brief
41 5:20-cv-06249	Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C.	April 23, 2021	April 23, 2021 Complaint
50 5:20-cv-06249	Consent Order Between the United States and 1180 Ben Franklin Way LLC United States of America v. J. Gandolph Parry Architects, P.C.	Nov. 2, 2021	Nov. 2, 2021 Order/Opinion
84 5:20-cv-06249	Lifequest Nursing Center Consent Order United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C.	April 13, 2022	April 13, 2022 Order/Opinion
170 5:20-cv-06249	Memorandum Opinion United States v. ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP	May 24, 2022	May 24, 2022 Order/Opinion 2022 WL 2022
183 5:20-cv-06249	Memorandum Opinion United States v. ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP	June 22, 2022	June 22, 2022 Order/Opinion 608 F.Supp.3d 608
200 5:20-cv-06249	Consent Order Between Plaintiff United States and J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C. United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C.	Sept. 28, 2022	Sept. 28, 2022 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Designation Form)(MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 12/11/2020)	Dec. 11, 2020	Dec. 11, 2020 Clearinghouse
2	INITIAL PROCEDURAL ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE: JOSEPH F. LEESON JR ON 12/11/20. 12/11/20 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (DT) (Entered: 12/11/2020)	Dec. 11, 2020	Dec. 11, 2020 PACER
	Jury Demand	Dec. 11, 2020	Dec. 11, 2020 PACER
	Summons Issued	Dec. 11, 2020	Dec. 11, 2020 PACER
3	NOTICE of Appearance by JULIE JACKSON ALLEN on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (ALLEN, JULIE) (Entered: 12/14/2020)	Dec. 14, 2020	Dec. 14, 2020 PACER
4	NOTICE TO Plaintiff that a review of the Courts records indicates that on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In order to achieve the delay reduction goals set forth in the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471-482, Plaintiffs counsel is to serve the Summons and Complaint on all Defendants promptly. The Docket does not indicate that Plaintiff has properly served Defendants as of this date. If you have already properly served Defendants, you are to promptly file proof of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l). If you have not yet made proper service, you are to promptly serve Defendants and file proof of service with the Clerk of Court. If proof of service is not filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Notice, the Court may dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (mas, ) (Entered: 02/12/2021)	Feb. 12, 2021	Feb. 12, 2021 PACER
5	NOTICE of Appearance by JOSEPH THOMAS KELLEHER on behalf of THE VIEWS AT PINE VALLEY I, LP (KELLEHER, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/24/2021)	Feb. 24, 2021	Feb. 24, 2021 PACER
6	Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by THE VIEWS AT PINE VALLEY I, LP.(KELLEHER, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/24/2021)	Feb. 24, 2021	Feb. 24, 2021 PACER
7	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE VIEWS AT PINE VALLEY I, LP waiver sent on 2/19/2021, answer due 4/20/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 02/26/2021)	Feb. 26, 2021	Feb. 26, 2021 PACER
8	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 1180 BEN FRANKLIN WAY LLC waiver sent on 2/19/2021, answer due 4/20/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 02/26/2021)	Feb. 26, 2021	Feb. 26, 2021 PACER
9	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIFEQUEST NURSING CENTER waiver sent on 2/19/2021, answer due 4/20/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/01/2021)	March 1, 2021	March 1, 2021 PACER
10	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants., filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(MARKS, LAUREN) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2021: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (sg, ). (Entered: 03/01/2021)	March 1, 2021	March 1, 2021 PACER
	Summons Issued	March 1, 2021	March 1, 2021 PACER
	Summons Issued	March 2, 2021	March 2, 2021 PACER
11	NOTICE of Appearance by SAMANTHA BETH KATS on behalf of THE VIEWS AT PINE VALLEY I, LP (KATS, SAMANTHA) (Entered: 03/04/2021)	March 4, 2021	March 4, 2021 PACER
12	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CARE HSL HARLEYSVILLE PROPCO LP waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
13	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CARE HSL NEWTOWN PROPCO, LP waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
14	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CARE HSL NEWTOWN PROPCO LLC waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
15	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. J. RANDOLPH PARRY ARCHITECTS, P.C. waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
16	AFFIDAVIT of Service by Capitol Process Services, Inc. re: served Amended Compliant upon Westrum Hanover, L.P., c/o David Lovitz, Principal and Authorized Signatory by personal on 3/4/2021 (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
17	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIFEQUEST NURSING CENTER waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
18	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HCRI PENNSYLVANIA PROPERTIES, INC. waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
19	AFFIDAVIT of Service by ABC Legal Services re: served Amended Complaint upon AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, LP by Corporate, personal service on 3/5/2021 (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 PACER
20	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. GAHC3 BOYERTOWN PA ALF, LLC waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/15/2021)	March 15, 2021	March 15, 2021 PACER
21	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. GAHC3 PALMYRA PA ALF, LLC waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/15/2021)	March 15, 2021	March 15, 2021 PACER
22	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. GAHC3 BETHLEHEM PA ILF, LLC waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/15/2021)	March 15, 2021	March 15, 2021 PACER
23	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 1180 BEN FRANKLIN WAY LLC waiver sent on 3/3/2021, answer due 5/3/2021. (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/15/2021)	March 15, 2021	March 15, 2021 PACER
24	ORDER OF 3/16/21 THAT PLAINTIFF IS ORDERD TO SERVE ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP AND TWO DOUGLASSVILLE PROPERTIES LP ON OR BEFORE MARCH 26, 2021. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO FILE PROOPF OF SERVICE ON OR BEFORE MARCH 30, 2021. IF ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP AND TWO DOUGLASSVILLE PROPERTIES LP ARE NOT SERVED BYMARCH 26, 2021, THE COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 3/16/21. 3/16/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(dt, )(COPIES NOT MAILED TO UNREP) (Entered: 03/16/2021)	March 16, 2021	March 16, 2021 PACER
	Remark	March 17, 2021	March 17, 2021 PACER
25	AFFIDAVIT of Service by Capitol Process Services, Inc. re: served Amended Complaint upon One Boyertown Properties, LP c/o David Lovitz, General Partner and Authorized Signatory by Corporate personal service on 3/18/2021 (MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 03/19/2021)	March 19, 2021	March 19, 2021 PACER
26	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA As To Two Douglassville Properties, LP and Care HSL Newtown Propco, LLC(ALLEN, JULIE) (Entered: 03/22/2021)	March 22, 2021	March 22, 2021 PACER
27	NOTICE of Appearance by MARISA RACHEL DEFEO on behalf of LIFEQUEST NURSING CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DEFEO, MARISA) (Entered: 03/24/2021)	March 24, 2021	March 24, 2021 PACER
28	NOTICE of Appearance by WILLIAM CHRISTIAN MOFFITT on behalf of CARE HSL HARLEYSVILLE PROPCO LP, CARE HSL NEWTOWN PROPCO, LP, HCRI PENNSYLVANIA PROPERTIES, INC. with Certificate of Service(MOFFITT, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/24/2021)	March 24, 2021	March 24, 2021 PACER
29	NOTICE to all Parties that a review of the Courts records indicates that Defendants, Westrum Hanover, LP and AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, LP, have failed to timely respond to the Complaint.1If Plaintiff fails to take action to have a default entered against Defendants, Westrum Hanover, LP and AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, LP, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) within ten (10) days of the date of this Notice, the Court may enter an Order dismissing said Defendants for lack of prosecution. (mas, ) (Entered: 03/29/2021)	March 29, 2021	March 29, 2021 PACER
30	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Amended Complaint filed by ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP, WESTRUM HANOVER, LP.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(WEINER, GLENN) (Entered: 04/07/2021)	April 7, 2021	April 7, 2021 PACER
31	ORDER OF 4/7/21 THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS WESTRUM HANOVER, L.P. AND ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP'S CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSIONOF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED. MOVING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHALL BE DUE ON OR BEFORE MAY 3, 2021. SIGNED BY JUDGE: JOSEPH F. LEESON JR ON 4/7/21. 4/7/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (DT) (COPIES NOT MAILED TO UNREP PARTIES) (Entered: 04/07/2021)	April 7, 2021	April 7, 2021 PACER
32	STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 4/7/21 THAT THE DEADLINE FOR THE VIEW TO FILE AN ANSWER OR MOTION UNDER RULE 12 WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED TO MAY 3, 2021. SIGNED BY JUDGE: JOSEPH F. LEESON JR ON 4/7/21. 4/7/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (DT)(COPIES NOT MAILED TO UNREP PARTIES) Modified on 4/7/2021 (dt, ). (Entered: 04/07/2021)	April 7, 2021	April 7, 2021 PACER
	COPY OF ORDERS #31, #32 MAILED TO UNREPS (jpd, )	April 8, 2021	April 8, 2021 PACER
33	Request for Default Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against AMC DELANCEY TRADITIONS OF HERSHEY PARTNERS, LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lauren M. Marks)(MARKS, LAUREN) (Entered: 04/08/2021)	April 8, 2021	April 8, 2021 PACER
	DEFAULT BY AMC DELANCEY TRADITIONS OF HERSHEY PARTNERS, LP FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR, PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND. (sg, )	April 8, 2021	April 8, 2021 PACER

Case: United States v. One Boyertown Properties LP

5:20-cv-06249 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case Summary

Background

Complaint

1180 Ben Franklin Way

LifeQuest Nursing Center

J. Randolph Parry Architects

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details