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.

Hootstein v. Mental Health Ass'n ("MHA"), Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 13, 2015

MICHAEL HOOSTEIN & KATHLYN STEIN, Plaintiffs,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION (" MHA" ), INC., JEROME RAY, CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MARGARET KELLER, Defendants

Michael Hootstein, Plaintiff, Pro se, Shutesbury, MA.

Kathlyn Stein, Plaintiff, Pro se, Shutesbury, MA.

For Mental Health Association (MHA) Inc, Jerome Ray, Defendants: Robert C. Sacco, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lyon & Fitzpatrick LLP, Holyoke, MA.

For City of Northampton, Margaret Keller, Defendants: Nancy Frankel Pelletier, LEAD ATTORNEY, David S. Lawless, Robinson Donovan, PC, Springfield, MA.

Page 294

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Dkt. Nos. 12, 25)

MARK G. MASTROIANNI, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

Michael Hoostein and Kathlyn Stein (" Plaintiffs" ), proceeding pro se, filed a three-count complaint alleging Mental Health Association Inc. (" MHA" ), Jerome Ray, the City of Northampton, and Margaret Keller (" Defendants" ) discriminated and retaliated against them in violation of the Fair Housing Act (" FHA" ) (Count I), engaged in unfair or deceptive acts and violations of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings in violation of MASS. GEN. LAWS § 93A (Count II), and breached their lease by nonpayment of rent (Count III). (Dkt. No. 1, Complaint (" Compl." ).) Defendants have filed two separate motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 12 and 25), asserting Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted.[1]

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' FHA claims. Additionally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims, which arise under Massachusetts law. As a result, the court dismisses those claims as well.

II. Standard

To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts that " raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Thus, the factual allegations in the complaint must " nudge[] [the] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). " Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief" is a context-specific task, requiring " the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.

Courts are not required to accept as true allegations in a complaint that are legal conclusions. Id. at 678. However, " [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679. Therefore, in assessing a claim's plausibility, the court must construe the complaint in the plaintiff's favor, accept all non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences in favor

Page 295

of the plaintiff.[2] See San Gerónimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vilá,687 F.3d ...


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.