by Thomas Breen
New Haven’s housing court judge has allowed a tenants union to continue suing the owner of the Sunset Ridge apartment complex for allegedly retaliating against a tenant — even though that renter has vacated her apartment and no longer lives at Sunset Ridge.
State Superior Court Judge Alayna Stone issued that ruling on Wednesday in the case Cynthia Vega Vieyra et al. v. Sunset Ridge Apartments LLC et al.
Her decision marks a key legal recognition of a tenants union’s claims to represent the interests of its members — at least in the context of an ongoing court case — even when a landlord refuses to recognize that union as legitimate.
Vega Vieyra first filed that lawsuit in February when she was still living at Sunset Ridge, a 312-unit, low-income apartment complex in Quinnipiac Meadows that is owned by an affiliate of Capital Realty. The lawsuit was filed by New Haven legal aid attorney Amy Eppler-Epstein and included the Sunset Ridge Tenants Union as a co-plaintiff.
The original lawsuit claimed that Sunset Ridge’s landlord had threatened Vega Vieyra with eviction for door knocking on behalf of the complex’s tenants union. It also claimed that the landlord harassed tenants and tenants union members by calling the police on organizers and by bringing in people to heckle attendees at union rallies, all in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
As Stone explained in her five-page decision on Wednesday, Vega Vieyra no longer lives at Sunset Ridge. And yet her co-plaintiff, the Sunset Ridge chapter of the Connecticut Tenants Union (CTTU), wants to continue its anti-retaliation lawsuit against the landlord.
Stone’s five-page decision on Wednesday states that the tenants union indeed still has standing to sue, even though Viega Vieyra has left the building.
Stone wrote that the tenants union has argued that it is “entirely comprised of tenants who reside at Sunset Ridge Apartments,” and therefore “the ascertainable losses alleged as a result of the defendant’s actions give rise to an actionable claim by any of the affected tenant members.”
The landlord, meanwhile, has argued that “the plaintiff’s complaint does not make any allegations that establish standing for any tenant member other than Vega Vieyra,” and therefore the tenants union does not have standing to sue now that Vega Vieyra is gone.
“The Court is unaware of, nor does either party cite to, any caselaw to suggest that an individual member of an association must be named either as an individual party or specifically in the complaint to confer standing of the association,” Stone wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.
“Rather, as long as the complaint alleges specific acts or actions by the defendant against members of the association that satisfy the elements of the cause of action being brought, the first prong of associational standing will be satisfied.”
That “first prong” refers to a 1986 decision in the state court case Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell, in which the court found that an association has standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of its members when “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.”
Stone also cited the 1996 state Supreme Court case Gay & Lesbian Law Students Association at University of Connecticut School of Law v. Board of Trustees, University of Connecticut and the 1998 state Supreme Court case Connecticut Association of Not-For-Profit Providers for the Aging v. Department of Social Services as precedents for the legal argument that an association can have standing to sue without an individual member of that association being named.
“Here, Plaintiff CTTU does not need to name as a plaintiff or identify in the complaint a union tenant member to satisfy the first prong of associational standing,” Stone continued. “It need only allege, irrespective of whether any individual member is identified, that the defendant violated CUTPA with respect to at least one tenant member to establish aggrievement and satisfy the first prong of associational standing.”
Because the plaintiff made specific allegations that union members other than Vega Vieyra “are classically aggrieved and would have standing to bring this action,” Stone concluded, “the first prong of associational standing is satisfied,” and the lawsuit can continue.
Paul Small, the attorney representing the landlord in this case, declined to comment in a brief phone call on Thursday. “I’m not interested in talking. Thank you,” he said before hanging up.
In a separate comment Thursday, CTTU Vice President Luke Melonakos heralded Stone’s decision as a victory for the union.
”We are encouraged by Judge Stone’s decision to uphold the tenant union’s standing in this case, since the rights of tenants to organize without fear of retaliation are critical for redressing the severe power imbalance between tenants and landlords, especially mega-landlords like Capital Realty Group,” he wrote in a statement. “At the same time, we continue to find it disgraceful that Capital’s owner, Moshe Eichler, would rather fight a protracted legal battle with us rather than get to the root of the issues—namely, the poor living conditions and unfair management practices that motivated the formation of the union in the first place. The residents will continue to fight for a written agreement between Mr. Eichler and the SRTU to ensure that these issues are resolved for the long term.”