Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Sinkevich

United States District Court, D. Oregon

July 26, 2017

VICTORIA TAYLOR and OLENA KALACHOVA, Plaintiffs,
v.
ANDREY SINKEVICH and DIANA PARKER, Defendants.

          Shannon D. Sims Attorney at Law Attorney for Plaintiffs

          Andrey Sinkevich Diana Parker 11262 SE Causey Cir Happy Valley, Pro se Defendants

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs 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.

         BACKGROUND

         In 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.

         Plaintiffs 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.

         After 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.

         STANDARDS

         When a 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 citations omitted).

         In 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).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants 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.

         I. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.