Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02003/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Suzanne Beveridge, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CRS Cambridge Court Housing Corp.,

Eugene Krizek, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2003-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On March 24, 2009 the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motions for Default

Judgment (Dkt. ## 16 and 17), to determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

and personal jurisdiction over the claim and the defendants. And, if so, to calculate the

amount of damages appropriate to award on default.

At the hearing Plaintiff indicated that she was a resident in defendants’ facilities from

April 20, 2007 through October 2007. She stated that during that period she was subject to

grossly substandard housing conditions, including roof leaks from sewage pipes in her ceiling

that caused seepage in her bathroom, kitchen, closets and hallways, and carpets soaked with

sewage. She noted that the walls were soaked with sewage, producing mold spores, etc.,

which ruined her health. She requested but received no repairs. She further indicated that

though she continuously paid her rent of $470.00 a month, CRS Cambridge Court Housing

Corp. (“CRS”) refused to accept her rent and in retaliation had her evicted from her tenancy

through a forcible detainer action filed in justice court. Plaintiff defended the forcible

detainer action on the basis that CRS breached its lease and was breaching applicable state

Case 2:08-cv-02003-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

law pertaining to the implied covenant of habitability.

The justice court apparently granted relief to CRS and removed Plaintiff from her

apartment. Plaintiff attempted to file an appeal of the FED but was not successful. She

subsequently raised complaints with either a state or local fair housing authority. She now

brings this action “in the hope of obtaining a reversal of the prior judgment.” She also asserts

claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a claim for discrimination against

a person under the Federal Disability Act. She seeks a default judgment in the amount of

$50,000.00 against CRS and Eugene L. Krizek its Chief Executive Office.

In light of the fact that a justice of the peace in a FED action only decides who has the

right to possession, Plaintiff may have a remaining breach of contract action against CRS that

survives and is independent from the FED action brought by CRS against Plaintiff. Plaintiff

apparently tried to appeal. Nevertheless, assuming that Plaintiff does have a remaining

breach of contract action against CRS, she has not established that she has a basis for federal

court jurisdiction here either in diversity against CRS, nor is there a federal question

jurisdiction in the complaint that she has brought. Plaintiff offers no evidence to suggest that

this Court has any personal jurisdiction over Mr. Krizek as she indicates that she has never

seen him and states she sued him only because he was the CEO of CRS. Even though CRS

does business in Arizona, Plaintiff has not sought to recover in the amount of at least

$75,000.00 against CRS asking for a default judgment of only $50,000.00. Thus, there

appears to be no issue for diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2006). This would be

immaterial if Plaintiff could otherwise establish a basis under federal law for her complaint.

However, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to private rental facilities and

Plaintiff makes no claim that her housing is otherwise a place of public accommodation. See

Indep. Hous. Servs. Of San Francisco v. Fillmore Ctr. Assocs., 840 F. Supp. 1328, 1344

(N.D. Cal. 1993). Of course, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to obtain the reversal of the

prior judgment of the state court, this Court has no jurisdiction with which to do so.

Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. Plaintiff will

have to pursue any remedy which she may have remaining against CRS in the state court

Case 2:08-cv-02003-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/25/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

system. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this action and directing the Clerk of the

Court to terminate this matter.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02003-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/25/09 Page 3 of 3