Court Opinion

ID: 9911432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:44.945382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:56.626530
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877     Doc: 55         Filed: 12/18/2023   Pg: 1 of 6

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1877

        SARA ZITO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; ALVARO
        SARMIENTO, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; MARK
        SHINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; DANIEL
        BERMUDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

                    Plaintiffs - Appellants

        v.

        STRATA EQUITY GROUP, INC., now known as Strata Equity Global, Inc.;
        STRATA AUDUBON, LLC; STRATA VERIDIAN, LLC; PINNACLE
        PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.L.C.; CONSERVICE, LLC,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-03808-BHH)

        Argued: October 25, 2023                                 Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, STEINBERG LAW FIRM, LLP, Summerville,
        South Carolina for Appellants. Jonathan Reid Reich, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
        (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Steven E.
        Goldberg, STEINBERG LAW FIRM, LLP, Summerville, South Carolina, for Appellants.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877      Doc: 55         Filed: 12/18/2023    Pg: 2 of 6

        Reid C. Adams, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina; Kevin K. Bell, ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877       Doc: 55            Filed: 12/18/2023   Pg: 3 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

           Appellants, a group of tenants at two South Carolina apartment residences, appealed

        the dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The

        complaint alleged that Defendants-Appellees—a group of entities that owned, operated, or

        managed the apartment residences and another entity that billed tenants for water and

        sewerage—were liable for unjust water and sewerage rates charged to the tenants. The

        district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under

        South Carolina’s Public Utility Law (Utility Law). After dismissal, the tenants filed an

        action with the South Carolina Public Utilities Commission (The Commission). The

        Commission issued its binding order on the matter during the pendency of this appeal. As

        a result, we decline to address the merits of the appeal and remand to the district court for

        consideration in the first instance.

                                                       I.

           Appellants Sara Zito, Alvaro Sarmiento, Jr., Mark Shinn, and Daniel Bermudez each

        signed a leasing agreement with either Defendant-Appellee Strata Veridian (Veridian) or

        Defendant-Appellee Strata Audubon (Audubon). Both agreements state that payment for

        water and sewer services are billed “by the service provider to [the landlord] and then

        allocated to [the tenant]” based on a specified formula. J.A. 100, J.A. 60. For Veridian,

        the allocation formula is “based on a combination of square footage of [the tenant’s]

        dwelling unit and the number of persons residing in [the tenant’s] dwelling unit.” J.A. 101.

        For Audubon, water and sewer bills are allocated “based on the number of persons residing

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877      Doc: 55           Filed: 12/18/2023    Pg: 4 of 6

        in [the tenant’s] dwelling unit.” J.A. 61. The Appellants sued Audubon and Veridian, their

        parent company (Strata Equity, LLC), the managing entity of both properties (Pinnacle

        Property Management, LLC), and the entity responsible for billing the water and sewer to

        the tenants (Conservice, LLC) (collectively, “the Appellees”), for what the Appellants

        allege are unfair allocation and billing methods.

                                                     i.

           The complaint brought eight causes of action and alleged that the Appellees were

        “public utilities” under the South Carolina Public Utility Law. See S.C. Code. Ann. § 58-

        5-10(4) (defining “public utility” as “every corporation and person furnishing or supplying

        in any manner … water, sewerage collection, [or] sewerage disposal … to the public, or

        any portion thereof, for compensation…”). The Utility Law vests the South Carolina

        Public Services Commission “with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate the

        rates and services of every public utility …” Id. at § 58-5-210. Public utilities must submit

        new or changed proposed billing rates to the Commission prior to charging the user. Id. at

        § 58-5-240. The Commission then rules as to the “lawfulness or reasonableness” of the

        billing rates. Id. Additionally, any individual may file a consumer complaint with the

        Commission regarding a public utility’s regulated actions. Id. at §§ 58-5-270–58-5-340.

        The Commission has the jurisdiction to decide whether any rate charged is “unjust” or

        “unreasonable.” Id. at § 58-5-290.

                                                     ii.

           The Appellees filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

        12(b)(6). They argued that all causes of actions depended on the Utility Law as a basis for

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877       Doc: 55        Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

        liability, and therefore the complaint was both procedurally and substantively improper: it

        was procedurally improper because the tenants failed to exhaust administrative remedies

        through the Commission, and substantively improper because the Appellees do not fall

        under the statutory definition of a public utility. Among the tenants’ arguments in

        opposition was that the complaint argued alternative grounds of liability for at least some

        causes of action, and therefore total dismissal based on administrative remedies is

        improper. JA 360–61. In September 2021, the district court agreed with the Appellees and

        dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The tenants filed

        a consumer complaint with the Commission in February 2022 and subsequently filed an

        appeal to this court in August 2022. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                                   iii.

           The tenants alleged substantially the same causes of action in their administrative

        complaint as the ones before the district court, but the commission action was brought only

        as to Appellees Audubon and Veridian. See Order No. 2023-736, S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm’n.

        (Oct. 2, 2023). The Commission determined that “the Defendants are not operating a

        public utility as defined in S.C. Code Ann. [§] 58-5-10(4), which would be subject to the

        jurisdictional authority of the Commission. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed

        for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and removed to a court of competent jurisdiction.”

        Id. at pp. 19–20.

                                                    5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1877      Doc: 55          Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 6 of 6

                                                     II.

           The Commission issued its order during the pendency of this appeal. At oral argument,

        the Appellants argued that although the Appellees are not public utilities, the district court

        nevertheless erred because the complaint alleges alternative grounds of liability

        independent of the Utility Law—and those claims should survive dismissal. But since the

        district court based its dismissal on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we

        decline to entertain the merits of the argument and instead remand to the district court for

        consideration of the tenants’ alternative arguments in light of the Commission’s Order. ∗

                                                     III.

           The district court did not have the benefit of the Commission’s order at dismissal;

        therefore, we REMAND for consideration of the order in the first instance.

                                                                                       REMANDED

               ∗
                 We note here that Appellants’ counsel maintains that there is no final decision as
        to whether the Appellees are a regulated utility. See oral argument at 9:28–39. At the time
        of oral argument, a motion for reconsideration was filed and pending before the
        Commission, and counsel stated his clients’ intention to appeal the decision of the motion
        should it be denied. Oral Argument at 9:50; 10:11–36.

                                                      6