Updates
September 2, 2015
How to Claim Settlement Funds from the Equity Residential “Move-in Fee” Class Action Lawsuit
August 11, 2015
Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement signed by Judge Zobel.
July 30, 2015
September 10, 2014
Sam Zell‘s company is appealing class certification to the First Circuit.
August 26, 2014
After a two year legal battle with Equity Residential, Massachusetts tenants have achieved a significant legal victory. Federal Judge Rya Zobel has declared that move-in fees, community fees, application fees, and up-front pet fees violated the Massachusetts Security Deposit Statute.
Boston Herald, Friday, August 29, 2014
The law firms that filed the original move in fee /amenity fee class actions against Equity Residential are: Pastor Law Office, LLP, Fogelman & Fogelman, LLC, and Leonard Law Office, P.C. Have you been affected by Equity’s business practices in Massachusetts? If so, you are welcome to contact us.
Boston Herald: Judge Says Equity’s Tenant Fees Illegal (pdf).
See August 26, 2014 – Memorandum and order: pdf
Excerpts:
“Application Fee
Two Commonwealth courts have concluded that section 15B(1)(b) does not authorize landlords to charge prospective tenants an application fee…. I agree.
Amenity Fee/Move-in Fee
The amenity fee, at times called a move-in fee, is indistinguishable from the Community Fee. Defendant argues the community fee is lawful because it does not collect the fee until the second month of tenants’ occupancy…But the statute prohibits landlords from “requir[ing] a tenant or prospective tenant to pay” unlisted fees. That is just what defendant does when it charges the fee before a tenant moves in. Deferring collection does not make an unlawful fee lawful. “amenity use fee” Judge Young found unlawful in Hermida. It is not on the list of permissible charges; it is therefore prohibited.
Up-Front Pet Fee
Like the others, the up-front pet fee is not among the permissible charges. It is therefore prohibited.
Monthly Pet Fee
The monthly pet fee is not incurred up front, but rather each month during which the tenant owns a pet. Because plaintiffs became obligated to pay the fee after they were already tenants, they may not turn to section 15B(1)(b) for relief.”
* * * *
Miller v. Equity Residential Management LLC
On May 8, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT LLC, a subsidiary of Equity Residential (EQR)-NYSE, in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Equity Residential is the biggest, and perhaps the most infamous landlord in the America.
Boston Business Journal: “The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, seeks refunds for all tenants in Equity Residential properties. The Chicago-based company owns more than 6,000 apartments in the Bay State.” Read the rest of that article here. Additional media coverage here.
Perry v. Equity Residential Management LLC
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: “Residents of Equity Longview Place in Waltham are suing their property management company over similar allegations. Equity Residential Management LLC, and Illinois company, manages more than two dozen apartment complexes in Massachusetts. ” Read the rest of that article here.
What are the recent Equity Residential class actions about?
Both suits allege that up-front fees Equity Residential has charged tenants (“amenity fees,” “amenity use fees,” “move-in fees”) are in violation of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law.
Matthew J. Fogelman established a significant legal precedent on which the plaintiffs in Perry and Miller now rely in support of their claims. See Hermida v. Archstone, 826 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Mass. 2011).
Who is part of the Class?
The Class is defined as: all current and former tenants of Equity Residential apartments in Massachusetts who from May 8, 2008 through May 8, 2012 paid an Amenity Fee or a Move In fee.
Case Documents:
May 8, 2012 – CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
June 1, 2012 – MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS BRIAN PERRY, KIM PERRY AND CHERYL MILLER TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL AND FOR ENTRY OF PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1
June 6, 2012 – EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
June 19, 2012 – MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS
July 2, 2012 – UNOPPOSED MOTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(3) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
July 9, 2012 – PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
October 25, 2012 – PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (Supplemental Authority: Pumiglia v. Northland Cliffside).
November 11, 2012 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
November 31, 2012 – ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM: DENIED; The contract names defendant as the lessor. ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES: GRANTED.
February 19, 2013 – CONSOLIDATED AND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
December 12, 2013 – DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
December 12, 2013 – MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
February 10, 2014 – PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
February 10, 2014 – MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
August 6, 2014 – MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Related Post: Consumer Complaints About Equity Residential
