United States District Court, D. Oregon
Shannon D. Sims Attorney at Law Attorney for Plaintiffs
Sinkevich Diana Parker 11262 SE Causey Cir Happy Valley, Pro
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge
Victoria Taylor and Olena Kalachova bring this civil rights
action against Pro se Defendants Andrey Sinkevich and Diana
Parker. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated
against them based on their national origin and subjected
them to unfair housing and debt collection practices, as well
as emotional distress. Plaintiffs bring claims under the
Federal and Oregon Fair Housing Acts, the Oregon Unlawful
Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Oregon Landlord Tenant
Act. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are illegal,
untimely, and subject to claim preclusion. They also maintain
that Plaintiffs' claims are factually insufficient and do
not give rise to plausible entitlement to relief. Because all
of Defendants' arguments fail, the Court denies
Defendants' motion. However, because of what the Court
assumes is a scrivener's error, the Court requires
Plaintiffs to file a corrected, amended complaint.
their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
Plaintiffs were cotenants in a property owned by their
landlord, Defendant Andrey Sinkevich. Compl. ¶¶ 1,
8, ECF 1. Defendant Diana Parker is Sinkevich's agent.
Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs are from Ukraine. Compl. ¶
10. Defendants began harassing Plaintiffs directly after
Defendants noticed a flag for a Ukrainian patriotic group in
Plaintiffs' home. Compl. ¶ 12. Defendants were
openly hostile, used abusive language, threatened violence,
and refused to leave after entering Plaintiffs' home.
Compl. ¶ 14. Furthermore, Defendants claimed to lose
rent payments, unlawfully attempted to acquire additional
funds by sending Plaintiffs a letter that requested “an
amount pursuant to a non-existent statute, ” and
threatened Plaintiffs' nonpayment of those funds with
eviction. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15.
later vacated the premises and Defendants failed to provide
them a final accounting of damages. Compl. ¶¶
16-17. Defendants also tried, on multiple occasions, to
unlawfully collect late fees. Compl. ¶¶ 18-21.
Defendants' conduct caused Plaintiffs monetary damages
and severe emotional distress. Compl. ¶ 22.
Plaintiffs filed this action, Defendants filed an Answer in
which they denied all of Plaintiffs' allegations. Answer,
ECF 4. Defendants later filed this motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. Mot. Dismiss, ECF 13.
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is filed after an answer, it
is treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(2); Elvig v. Calvin
Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 2004).
However, when a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserts
the defense of failure to state a claim, it is subject to the
same standard of review as a 12(b)(6) motion. McGlinchy
v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988),
see also Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d
1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that Rule 12(c) is
"functionally identical" to Rule 12(b)(6) and
"the same standard of review" applies to motions
brought under either rule) (internal quotation marks and
considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court “must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe
them in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225
(9th Cir. 2004); Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668
F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the court need not
accept unsupported conclusory allegations as truthful.
Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir.
1992); see also Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide,
Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) ("We do
not . . . necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions
merely because they are cast in the form of factual
allegations.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
maintain that Plaintiffs' claims are illegal, untimely,
barred by claim preclusion, and without sufficient clarity to
demonstrate plausible entitlement to relief. The Court
addresses each of these arguments in turn.