Town of Holly Ridge Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NEW BERN DIVISION
Civil Action No: 23-cv-196
BRIANA PAULL, individually;

BRIANA PAULL, as guardian of
A.P, A.P., R.K. Jr.,
and A.F., her minor children;
and BRIANA PAULL, as class
representative on behalf of the class defined
herein,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE;

HOLLY RIDGE HOUSING
AUTHORITY; THE PENDERGRAPH
COMPANIES, LLC; PENDERGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; FRANKIE W.
PENDERGRAPH; and
JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS 1 through
10,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
This is a class action brought by Briana Paull on behalf herself, her children, and the other
former residents of Holly Plaza Apartments who face the holiday season living in hotel rooms in
another town with the knowledge that on January 1, 2024, they will have no home. For an
unknown period of time, these residents have been exposed to mold that Defendants allowed to
invade their homes to the point that their apartments are unrepairable. In addition to the disruption
of their lives, the residents are suffering from personal injuries caused by exposure to mold. This
is their complaint.
Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 25

PARTIES
1. Briana Paull is a citizen of the State of North Carolina and a resident of Onslow
County. She is the single mother and legal guardian of her four children: A.P., age 10; A.P, age
12; R.K., age 14; and A.F., age 16. Briana brings claims in this complaint on her own behalf and
on behalf of her children. She and her children are former tenants of the Holly Plaza Apartments.
Briana also brings claims as the class representative of the class defined in this complaint.
2. The Town of Holly Ridge is a North Carolina political subdivision located in
Onslow County, North Carolina. The Town created the Holly Ridge Housing Authority. The
Town Council currently acts as the Board of the Housing Authority. Together, the Town and the
Authority own and/or are responsible for the management of the Holly Plaza Apartment complex
(“Holly Plaza”). The Town and the Authority are collectively referred to as Holly Ridge.
3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the employees or agents of Holly Ridge
were acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency with Holly Ridge.
4. Upon information and belief, Holly Ridge does not have governmental immunity
for any of the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint because it was acting in a proprietary
capacity (among other reasons).
5. Alternatively, if it is determined that Holly Ridge has governmental immunity for
any of the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint, upon information and belief, Holly Ridge
has waived governmental immunity for itself, its agents, employees, and officials by the purchase
of liability purchase, the functional equivalent of liability insurance, or participation in a
government risk pool.
6. The Pendergraph Companies, LLC, and Pendergraph Development, LLC are North
Carolina limited liability corporations. Frankie W. Pendergraph is a resident of the State of North

Carolina and the Managing Member of Pendergraph Companies and Pendergraph Development.
The Pendergraph Companies, LLC, Pendergraph Development, LLC, and Frankie W. Pendergraph
are collectively referred to as Pendergraph.
7. John Doe Contractors 1 through 10 are the unknown persons or entities who
negligently performed repairs at Holly Plaza Apartments. Plaintiffs are seeking the identity of
these persons or entities and will promptly seek to amend this complaint upon discovery.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d), as there are more than 100 members of the class, minimal diversity exists as at
least one member of the class is a citizen of a State other than North Carolina, and the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
9. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the
breach of contract claims in Count I arise under the laws of the United States.
10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over this action as least some of the Defendants
are citizens of the State of North Carolina, the subject property is in the State of North Carolina,
and acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the
State of North Carolina.
11. This Court has venue over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district.
FACTS UNDERLYING PLAINITFFS’ CLAIMS
12. Holly Ridge caused Holly Plaza to be constructed in 1980.
13. Some tenants at Holly Plaza receive rental assistance from the Unites States

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).
14. In 2019, HUD became concerned over the management of Holly Plaza by Holly
Ridge. HUD recommended and assisted Holly Ridge in finding a private company to manage
Holly Plaza.
15. Thereafter Holly Ridge, with the approval of HUD, entered into a contract with
Pendergraph to manage Holly Plaza.
16. In 2020, the Town of Holly Ridge took over the board of the Holly Ridge Housing
Authority with the members of the Town Council becoming the Board of the Housing Authority.
The Authority’s contract with Pendergraph was then assigned to the Town.
17. As a proximate result of the failure to repair and/or otherwise improper repairs,
water intruded into the structures of Holly Plaza and mold began to develop in the walls and
ceilings of units at Holly Plaza.
18. Briana rented an apartment at Holly Plaza from Holly Ridge for herself and her
minor children. Briana’s lease recognized that her rent was being subsidized by HUD.
19. The subsidization of the lease was made pursuant to an agreement between HUD
and Holly Ridge.
20. HUD has promulgated National standards for the condition of HUD housing. 24
CFR § 5.703. “The standards under this section apply to all HUD housing.” Id. at § 5.703(a). The
section on “Health and safety concerns” requires:
The inside, outside and unit must be free of health and safety hazards that
pose a danger to residents. Types of health and safety concerns include, but are
not limited to carbon monoxide, electrical hazards, extreme temperature,
flammable materials or other fire hazards, garbage and debris, handrail hazards,
infestation, lead-based paint, mold, and structural soundness.
24 CFR 5.703(d)(1) (emphasis added).

21. Briana’s lease was subsidized with an HUD Housing Choice Voucher.
Regulations for that program require that “[t]he dwelling unit must be free of pollutants in the air
at levels that threaten the health of the occupants.” 24 CFR § 982.401(h).
22. HUD considers mold a pollutant. See https://www.hudexchange.info
/faqs/programs/housing-choice-voucher-program/uncategorized/housing-quality-standards-
hqs/can-hud-provide-guidance-on-the-issue-of-mold-present-within-housing-choice/.
23. In exchange for the rent subsidization payments for Briana and other tenants, Holly
Ridge agreed to comply with HUD’s standards and safety regulations.
24. In November of 2022, Briana and the other tenants began to make complaints about
the moldy conditions in their units after the mold became visible to them in their units. Briana
specifically complained to Pendergraph, Holly Ridge, and the Onslow County Health Department.
Her requests for remediation went unanswered and the moldy conditions worsened.
25. On November 6, 2022, Briana came home to water damage, wet sheet rock, and
visible mold in her unit.
26. The water damage consisted of standing water and visible mold on the first floor of
her unit that had leaked from a locked closet holding the HVAC system in her unit that only
Pendergraph had access to.
27. Briana called the Pendergraph emergency after hour line and it was not in service.
28. Briana notified Pendergraph the next business day of the water and visible mold.
29. Pendergraph attempted to remediate the issues by cleaning up the water with a shop
vacuum.
30. Shortly after, Briana notified Pendergraph that the mold had not been properly
remediated and was still present.

31. Briana notified Karen Justice, an employee of Pengergraph, that her walls were still
wet and she was concerned for A.P. considering she has asthma.
32. Pendergraph still did not remediate the problem.
33. On December 13, 2022, Pendergraph did testing for mold of Briana’s unit.
34. Pendergraph told Briana mold was not active in her unit.
35. Pendergraph refused to release the mold results to Briana.
36. Pendergraph told Briana that her unit did not present any health risks.
37. In January of 2023, another tenant in Building G complained of water intrusion.
38. On January 11, 2023, Pendergraph attempted to remediate this mold complaint filed
by another Holly Ridge tenant in Briana’s building.
39. Pendergraph hired Service Master to remediate the mold.
40. Service Master removed the sheet rock in Briana’s unit to find visible mold on the
studs inside her walls.
41. Pendergraph came and sprayed the mold with a chemical and put up new sheet rock.
42. Briana requested the Material Safety Data Sheet for the chemicals sprayed in her
unit.
43. Pendergraph refused to disclose what chemicals were sprayed in the unit and would
not provide a Material Safety Data Sheet.
44. On February 28th, 2023, Briana notified Pendergraph that visible mold was
continuing to grow in her apartment.
45. Briana submitted photographs to Pendergraph of mushrooms growing out of her
wall.
46. Pendergraph hired Stanley Steamer to clean the mold.

47. Stanley Steamer recommended a thorough cleaning of the visible mold growing out
of the walls and a more thorough look behind the sheet rock to determine how invasive the mold
was.
48. Pendergraph denied the Stanley Steamer recommendation.
49. Stanley Steamer also indicated mold had spread into Briana’s duct work.
50. Pendergraph ordered Stanley Steamer to only clean the duct work in Briana’s unit.
51. After this duct work cleaning, Pendergraph notified Briana that her unit posed no
health risks.
52. On Friday, October 27, 2023, Briana was notified by Holly Ridge that Briana and
many others were potentially at risk of mold exposure and needed to vacate the premises by
Monday, October 30, 2023.
53. Holly Ridge told Briana to try and take everything of value with her.
54. Holly Ridge told Briana that she would be accommodated in a hotel room at 139
Circuit Ln., Jacksonville, NC 28546 at Home2 Suites by Hilton.
55. Briana was notified that if she attempted to go back on her porch or into her unit,
she would be escorted off by Holly Ridge Police Department.
56. Thereafter, the mold went unabated.
57. On November 3, 2023, as a result of mold complaints, Briana’s unit was inspected
by Holly Ridge.
58. On November 7, 2023, Briana’s unit was inspected by Pendergraph.
59. On November 8, 2023, the Town Manager notified Briana Paull that her unit was
not safe, and she could not return.
60. Thereafter, Briana sought medical attention for herself and family. Her blood was

tested, and her the test was positive for five different types of mold: curvularia, lunata, epicoccum,
monilifor, helminthosporium, and alternata/tenuis.
61. As a result of the exposure to mold, Briana’s 10-year-old daughter A.P. has been
put on a nebulizer and is breathing through a tube. She is also experiencing nose bleeds and
migraines.
62. Briana and the other tenants at Holly Plaza were notified on November 21, 2023,
that Holly Ridge will be condemning all units at Holly Plaza because Holly Ridge’s Building
Inspector determined the buildings at Holly Plaza are unsafe for human habitation.
63. Holly Ridge further notified Briana and the other tenants that Holly Ridge will
accommodate them at the hotel until December 31, 2023. After this date they will be on her own.
64. Finally, Holly Ridge accepted Pendergraph's offer to immediately terminate
Pendergraph's management contract.
COUNT I –
Breach of Contract
(Against Holly Ridge and Pendergraph)
65. Plaintiffs reassert and reallege the allegations above and in addition state as follows:
66. Holly Ridge and/or Pendergraph agreed to comply and were required to comply
with applicable HUD regulations and standards at Holly Plaza.
67. Holly Ridge and Pendergraph allowed conditions at Holly Plaza to occur and
remain that led to the infestation of the property with mold.
68. The presence of mold at the property is so pervasive that the property has been
condemned.

69. The existence of mold in and around the dwelling units at Holly Plaza constitutes
safety hazards inside and outside the units that pose a danger to residents in violation of 24 CFR
5.703(e)(1).
70. The existence of mold in and around the dwelling units at Holly Plaza causes the
dwelling units to have “pollutants in the air at levels that threaten the health of the occupants” in
violation of 24 CFR § 982.401(h).
71. Holly Ridge and Pendergraph breached the contract that they had with HUD.
72. Briana and the other tenants at Holly Ridge are third party beneficiaries of the
agreement between HUD and Holly Ridge and Pendergraph.
73. As a proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiffs and the other tenants comprising
the class have suffered personal injuries, economic, and non-economic damages in an amount to
be determined by the jury in this action.
COUNT II –
RRAA; Breach Of Warranty Of Habitability
(Against Holly Ridge and Pendergraph)
75. Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiffs with fit and habitable housing under the
North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (“RRAA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-38 et seq.
76. Plaintiffs’ leases were subject to the RRAA. During all relevant times, Holly Ridge
was the owner and contracting party pursuant to the lease and otherwise subject to the RRAA.
77. During all relevant times, Pendergraph was the property manager, an agent of the
owner, and/or otherwise was subject to the coverage of the RRAA.
78. During all relevant times, Defendants, jointly and severally, acted as the property
manager and a contracting party pursuant to the lease, an agent of the owner, or otherwise were

materially involved in providing property management services under the lease and subject to the
RRAA.
79. During all relevant times, some or all of Defendants had actual or apparent authority
to perform the landlords’ obligations under the lease and the RRAA.
80. During all relevant times, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42(a)(1) required Defendants to
comply with the current applicable building codes, including, but not limited Town of Holly Ridge
Code of Ordinances, Ch. 6, Building Regulations.
81. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42(a)(2) required Defendants to make all repairs and do
whatever necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.
82. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42(a)(8) required Defendants, within a reasonable period of
time based upon the severity of the condition, to repair or remedy any imminently dangerous
condition on the premises after acquiring actual knowledge or receiving notice. Imminently
dangerous conditions include excessive standing water, sewage, or flooding problems, caused by
plumbing leaks or inadequate drainage that contribute to mold.
83. During all pertinent times, Defendants, under all the facts and circumstances, had
sufficient actual knowledge of pervasive defects and dangerous conditions in the units comprising
the Holly Plaza so as to be deemed to have been on notice for purposes of triggering any RRAA
duties that had a notice prerequisite. Defendants received numerous complaints and repair
requests, including those from Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiff satisfied any applicable notice
requirements for purposes of triggering any RRAA duties that have a notice prerequisite.
84. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42(b), Defendants are not released from their
obligations by Plaintiffs’ explicit or implicit acceptance of the landlord’s failure to provide
10

premises complying with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42, whether done before the lease was made, when
it was made, or after it was made.
85. Defendants violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42 in the following particulars as to
Plaintiffs:
A. By failing to make all repairs and do whatever necessary to put and keep the
relevant homes in fit and habitable conditions;
B. By failing to repair or remedy imminently dangerous conditions within a reasonable

period of time based on the severity of the conditions;
C. By breaching the Holly Ridge Code of Ordinances, Ch. 6, Building Regulations §

6.2(m), § 6.5(a)(3), § 6.5(a)(5); § 6.16; § 6.17 (c), § 6.17 (z); § 6.18; § 6.19, in one
or more respects;
D. By leasing and allowing families to occupy dwellings in known violation of

relevant provisions of the Holly Ridge Code of Ordinances, Ch. 6, Building
Regulations; and
E. In at other ways Plaintiffs will prove at trial.
86. Defendants had a duty to provide fit and habitable housing not only under the
RRAA but under federal regulations and North Carolina common law.
87. Defendants impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs that the leased premises were in fit
and habitable condition. In fact, Defendants knew or should have known that the rental homes had
many defects, including mold and other deficiencies.
88. The property leased by Plaintiffs had improper construction and/or repairs,
pervasive mold, and other conditions which threaten the health and safety of Plaintiffs and family
members.
89. Defendants had adequate time to repair and remedy the unsafe and unsanitary
conditions after years of complaints and repair requests but have failed to make a reasonable effort
to repair and remedy the defective conditions.
11

90. Plaintiffs and the other tenants who comprise the class are entitled to the abatement
of rent payments made by them or on their behalf by HUD for the period of time their units at
Holly Plaza were uninhabitable, entirely or in part.
91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-
42, Plaintiffs sustained damages including personal injuries, economic, and noneconomic losses.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their implied warranty
of habitability, Plaintiffs were injured, and are entitled to damages in an amount to be determined
by the jury in this action, and declaratory, injunctive, or equitable relief to the extent available.
COUNT III
Violations of UDTPA
(against all Defendants)
94. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were engaged in commerce in the State of
North Carolina by renting and managing residential real estate to Plaintiffs in North Carolina.
95. Defendants are proper defendants under the UDTPA.
96. Plaintiffs and the other former tenants who comprise the class are members of the
consuming public as defined by UDTPA, as they sought to acquire goods and services by lease,
namely a habitable, properly maintained residence from Defendants.
97. Unfair and deceptive trade practices related to marketing of rental housing to
prospective customers and in connection with performing landlord and property management
duties are subject to the UDTPA because the rental of residential housing is considered commerce
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.
98. The conduct of Defendants as set forth herein is against established public policy
of the State; is unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers; and
has the capacity and tendency to deceive the average consumer.

12

99. Defendants, in the course of leasing to Plaintiffs, violated the UDTPA in multiple
respects, including without limitation:
A. By breaching the implied warranty of habitability and the RRAA;
B. By engaging in an unconscionable course of action;
C. By failing to correct defects and demanding continued rent payments after
Defendants knew that the property management service provided by Defendants violated N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 42-42 and the RRAA;
D. By failing to correct defects and demanding continued rent payments after
Defendants knew that leased premises violated Town of Holly Ridge;
E. By collecting rent after having knowledge of the uninhabitable nature of part and/or
all of Plaintiffs’ leased premises;
F. By failing to honor promises to correct deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ leased premises
and continuing to demand rent;
G. By misrepresenting the condition, fitness and habitability of the rental property;
H. By utilizing false representations and deceptive measures to avoid incurring
customer service and repair and maintenance costs as well as the costs of extensively renovating
or replacing housing units;
I. By knowingly making false or misleading statement of facts concerning the need
for parts, replacement, or repair service;
J. By knowingly making false or misleading statement of facts related to the existence
of and cause of pervasive mold in the leased premises;
K. By representing that work or services had been performed on, or parts replaced in,
goods when the work or services were not performed or the parts replaced;
13

L. By failing to disclose information concerning defects known to Defendants;
M. By undertaking conduct which Defendants knew, or should have known, offended
well-established public policy, state law, and was otherwise unlawful, unfair, deceptive,
misleading, coercive, and substantially injurious to Plaintiffs;
N. By manipulating service and repair records; and
O. By such other ways Plaintiffs may prove at trial.
100. Some or all of the improper conduct alleged herein were done willfully, or with the
conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs.
101. Defendants received numerous complaints and repair requests, including those
from Plaintiffs.
102. Defendants, by virtue of their course of administering, leasing, building and
repairing units at Holly Plaza were uniquely aware of the condition of them, improper construction
and/or repair of the buildings, pervasive mold and other potentially hazardous conditions.
Nevertheless, Defendants knowingly and intentionally leased units to Plaintiffs and others,
represented that they were habitable, and that appropriate repair and remedy work had been
undertaken in the past and would be undertaken in the future.
103. Despite the aforementioned violations, Defendants collected the full amount of
rent, giving Plaintiffs no discount for the condition of their housing, nor for the inadequate repair
and maintenance.
104. Plaintiffs suffered actual injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
unfair and deceptive actions, including, but not limited to, the overpayment of rent.
105. Defendants’ actions were in or affecting commerce and constitute unfair and
deceptive trade practices, proscribed by Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
14

106. Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to recover compensatory damages in
an amount to be determined by the jury in this action, treble damages, and attorney’s fees.
COUNT IV
Breach of Contract/Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
(Against Town of Holly Ridge)
108. Plaintiffs entered into a valid contract with Defendant in the form of a lease.
109. The lease imposed explicit or implied duties on Defendants Town of Holly Ridge
and Pendergraph Management, as owner and property manager respectively, to perform the
contract so as to ensure the units were fit for human habitation.
110. Defendants failed to comply with the material terms of the lease by failing to
ensure the houses were fit for human habitation and by failing to diligently repair and remedy the
conditions affecting habitation.
111. It is well-established that a contract carries with it an implied covenant by the
parties to act fairly and in good faith in carrying out the agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
112. Defendants had an implicit obligation to act in good faith and make reasonable
efforts to perform their obligations under the lease including, but not limited to, keeping the
residence safe and habitable, providing adequate repair and maintenance services, providing
honest information to the tenants, and not using Defendants’ vastly more powerful economic
position to oppress and intimidate families.
113. Plaintiffs reasonably understood and expected that Defendants would, in
accordance with their lease:
15

A. Communicate truthful information regarding known defects in the housing,
including material facts regarding the condition of the leased home, of which
Defendants had knowledge, and Plaintiffs lacked knowledge;
B. Respond promptly, effectively, and truthfully to concerns about the condition of the
leased property, including refraining from providing misinformation when
responding to concerns;
C. Faithfully observe and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws,
rules, regulations, orders, ordinances, and other governmental standards and
requirements including, but not limited to, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42;
D. Maintain leased property in good order and in a decent, safe and sanitary condition;
E. Ensure professional management and maintenance of housing consistent with the

standard of a market-rate rental development;
F. Refrain from leasing houses that did not meet minimum adequacy standards for
health and safety;
G. Undertake repairs, renovations, remediations and construction in compliance with

local building codes and ordinances, and commensurate with industry standards
and the representations made to induce families to lease;
H. Make sure the rental units are free from defects which would affect the safety,
appearance, or habitability of the rental property, and make sure that units have
components and construction to maintain safety;
I. Inspect housing for suitability based on environmental, health, and safety

considerations prior to leasing;
J. Refrain from leasing residential housing which Defendants knew or should have
known would pose a health risk to residents.
114. Defendants breached their contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing with Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, by engaging in the acts and omissions
described hereinabove.
115. Plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of Defendant Town of Holly Ridge’s
breaches of contract, including due to the overpayment of rent, as well as incurring out-of-pocket
expenses and other consequential and special damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
16

116. As a proximate and legal result of Defendant’s breaches of contract, Plaintiffs are
entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury in this action.
COUNT V
Negligence
(Against all Defendants)
118. Defendants owed the following duties to Plaintiffs:
A. To communicate truthful information regarding known defects in

rental property, including material facts regarding the condition of leased homes
which Defendants had knowledge, and Plaintiffs lacked knowledge, of which
Plaintiffs ought reasonably to be informed before entering into residential leases;
B. To respond promptly, effectively, and truthfully to concerns about

the condition of the premises expressed to them by Plaintiffs, including refraining
from providing misinformation when responding to concerns;
C. Faithfully observe and comply with all applicable Federal, State and
local laws, rules, regulations, orders, ordinances, and other governmental standards
and requirements including, but not limited to, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42;
D. Maintain leased property in good order and in a decent, safe and

sanitary condition;
E. Ensure professional management and maintenance of housing

consistent with the standard of a market-rate rental development;
F. Refrain from leasing houses that did not meet minimum adequacy
standards for health and safety;
G. Undertake repairs, renovations, remediations and construction in

compliance with local building codes and ordinances, and commensurate with
industry standards and the representations made to induce families to lease;
H. Make sure the rental units are free from defects which would affect
the safety, appearance, or habitability of the rental property, and make sure that
Units have components and construction to maintain safety;
I. Inspect housing for suitability based on environmental, health, and

safety considerations prior to leasing;
J. To provide a hazard-free living environment;
17

K. To refrain from leasing residential housing which Defendants knew
or should have known would pose a health risk to residents;
L. To adhere to the terms of the residential leases; and
M. To exercise reasonable care for the safety of foreseeable

tenants/Plaintiffs.
119. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs.
120. Defendants’ breaches of duties constitute negligence, gross negligence, negligence
per se, and/or reckless and willful conduct.
121. As a proximate and legal result of Defendants’ breaches of the duty of care,
Plaintiffs have been injured.
122. Plaintiffs have been injured as a result of Defendants’ breaches of the duty of due
care, including by suffering injury to personal property, and/or, by suffering injury to their person,
adverse health effects, physical symptoms or significant illness, caused by mold exposure arising
out of Defendants’ negligence, or by other foreseeable impacts of the negligence; and have
incurred out-of-pocket, actual, special or consequential damages.
123. As a proximate and legal result of Defendants’ negligence, recklessness, and gross
negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in amounts to be determined by the jury
in this action at time of trial. To the extent that Defendants’ conduct was undertaken intentionally
or with reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences to Plaintiffs, and the requirements of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-1 et seq. have been met by the evidence, Plaintiffs are also entitled to
exemplary or punitive damages from the Defendants other than Holly Ridge and are entitled to
punitive damages from Holly Ridge to the extent it is specifically authorized by statute.
COUNT VI
Temporary Recurrent Private Nuisance
(Against all Defendants)
18

125. Plaintiffs who occupied the residential units during the pertinent times have
standing to bring this claim due to their lawful possessory and occupancy interest.
126. During the pertinent times, the Defendants proximately caused the Plaintiffs to
incur a substantial and unreasonable interference with their ability to use and enjoy their leasehold
property.
127. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ creation and maintenance of a
temporary and recurrent private nuisance, the Plaintiffs have been injured and damaged.
128. Furthermore, the nuisance conditions herein are abatable but Defendants have
unreasonably refused to abate them.
129. The nuisance herein was temporary and recurrent.
130. As a result of the Defendants’ creation and maintenance of a private nuisance, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for their discomfort, annoyance, aggravation,
irritation and loss of use and enjoyment in an amount to be determined by the jury in this action.
COUNT VII
Punitive Damages
(Against Town of Holly Ridge and Pendergraph)
132. As set forth below, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary or punitive damages from
the Defendants other than Holly Ridge and are entitled to punitive damages from Holly Ridge to
the extent it is specifically authorized by statute.
133. This relief is brought alternatively as a claim for relief or as a remedial allegation.
134. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15, punitive damages may be awarded if the claimant
proves that the defendant is liable for compensatory damages and that one of the following
aggravating factors was present and was related to the injury for which compensatory damages
19

were awarded: (1) Fraud; (2) Malice; or (3) Willful or wanton conduct. The claimant must prove
the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence.
135. Under the circumstances, there are adequate facts to demonstrate the existence of
an aggravating factor within the meaning of Chapter 1D due to the commission of malice or willful
or wanton conduct. Willful or wanton conduct means the conscious and intentional disregard of
and indifference to the rights and safety of others, which the defendant knows or should know is
reasonably likely to result in injury, damage or other harm. Willful or wanton conduct means more
than gross negligence.
136. The malice or willful or wanton conduct was related to the injury to the plaintiff for
which the finder of fact may award relief under one or more of the merits claims which constitute
adequate predicate claims for punitive damages.
137. The Defendants’ officers, directors or managers participated in or condoned the
malice or willful or wanton conduct.
138. The Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount reasonably needed,
considering:
A. The need to punish the Defendants for egregiously wrongful acts committed against
the Plaintiffs and to deter the Defendants and others from committing similar
wrongful acts, considering only that evidence which relates to the reprehensibility
of the Defendants’ motives and conduct;
B. The likelihood, at the relevant time, of serious harm to the Plaintiffs or others
similarly situated;
C. The degree of the Defendants’ awareness of the probable consequences of its

conduct; the duration of the Defendants’ conduct;
D. The actual damages suffered by the Plaintiffs;
E. Any concealment by the Defendants of the facts or consequences of its conduct;
F. The existence and frequency of any similar past conduct by the Defendants;
whether the Defendants profited by the conduct; and
20

G. The Defendants’ ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or
net worth.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
139. This suit is properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
140. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 23(b)(3) provides that a class action may be maintained if:
the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The
matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or

defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims

in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
141. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: all tenants and former
tenants of Holly Plaza between January 1, 2019 and present.
142. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following subclass: All members of the class
that sustained personal injuries as a result of the presence of pervasive mold in the leased
residential properties. Plaintiffs seek certification of this subclass only on the issue of liability
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).
143. The members of the prospective class are so numerous that joinder of all class
members is impractical. Plaintiffs’ good faith belief is that there are more than 100 class members.
The exact number and identities of the class members are currently unknown and can only be
ascertained from the books and records of the Defendants and/or appropriate discovery.
21

144. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class that
predominate over any questions affecting any individual class members.
145. Common questions of fact include, but may not be limited to:
a. Did the Defendants improperly construct and/or repair the residential

housing leased by the Plaintiffs?
b. Did the Defendants’ improper construction and/or repairs result in

pervasive mold in the residential housing leased by Plaintiffs?
c. Did the Defendants fail to disclose material facts regarding the improper
construction and/or repairs and the presence of mold in the residential
housing leased by Plaintiffs?
d. Did the Defendants respond promptly, effectively, and truthfully to

concerns about the condition of the leased residential housing?
e. Did the Defendants maintain the leased residential housing in good order
and in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition?
f. Did the Defendants ensure professional management and maintenance of

housing consistent with the standard of a market-rate rental development?
g. Did the Defendants lease residential housing that did not meet minimum
adequacy standards for health and safety?
h. Did the Defendants undertake repairs, renovations, remediations and

construction of the residential housing in compliance with local building
codes and ordinances, and commensurate with industry standards?
i. Did the Defendants fail to make all repairs and do whatever was necessary
to put and keep the residential housing in fit and habitable condition?
j. Did the Defendants fail to repair or remedy imminently dangerous

conditions within a reasonable period of time based on the severity of the
conditions?
k. Did the Defendants make sure the leased residential housing units were free
from defects which would affect the safety, appearance, or habitability?
l. Did the Defendants inspect the residential housing for suitability based on
environmental, health, and safety considerations prior to leasing?
m. Did the Defendants lease residential housing which they knew or should
have known would pose a health risk to residents?
22

n. Did the Defendants collect rent or attempt to collect rent after having
knowledge of the uninhabitable nature of part and/or all of the residential
housing leased to Plaintiffs?
o. Did the Defendants represent that work or services had been performed on,
or parts replaced in, goods when the work or services were not performed,
or the parts replaced?
p. Did the actions of the Defendants result in personal property damage and
economic loss to the members of the class?
q. Did the actions of the Defendants result in personal injuries and economic
loss to the members of the class?
146. Common questions of law include, but may not be limited to:
a. Did the Defendants Holly Ridge and Pendergraph Management violate the
North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (“RRAA”), N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 42-38 et seq.?
b. Did the Defendants Holly Ridge and Pendergraph Management breach the
implied warranty of habitability?
c. Did the Defendants violate the UDTPA?
d. Did the Defendants breach their contracts/leases with the Plaintiffs and
breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?
e. Was the Defendants’ conduct negligent?
f. Was the Defendants’ conduct willful or wanton?
g. Did the Defendants’ conduct create a temporary recurrent private nuisance?
147. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class and Plaintiffs have the same
interest as all other members of the class - they all have an identical interest to pursue the claims
as it relates to Defendants’ conduct.
148. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the class.
Plaintiffs are individuals who were harmed by Defendants’ conduct. The interests of the Plaintiffs
are coincident to, and not antagonistic to, the interest of other class members.
23

149. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with experience in class action litigation, as well as
other complex litigation.
150. The questions of law and fact common to members of the class predominate over
any questions affecting individual class members. The prosecution of separate actions by
individual members of the class would result in duplicative litigation over the same issues and
possibly create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that could result in establishing
inconsistent standards of conduct, policies and/or procedures for the Defendants.
151. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy because the expense and burdens of individual litigation make it
difficult for members of the class to individually seek redress of the wrongs imposed upon them.
152. The prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of
repetitious litigation. Moreover, neither Plaintiffs, nor their counsel, will have difficulty managing
their respective roles in prosecuting this action as a class action.
153. The class is readily ascertainable based on Defendants’ records.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury of all claims and issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor against Defendants as follows:
1. For a finding in Plaintiffs favor on all causes of action and for an award of actual,
compensatory, special, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at
trial;
2. For an award of treble damages as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16;
3. For an award of rent refund/restitution/abatement in an amount to be determined by

the Court or jury;
4. For disgorgement of the profits and fees collected by Defendants;
24

5. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the extent allowed under
North Carolina law, including under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1;
6. For an award of punitive damages to the extent the evidence may show violation of
Chapter 1D of the North Carolina General Statutes and proof of an aggravating
factor; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
November 27, 2023.
/s/ Anna Majestro

Anna C. Majestro, N.C. Bar # 50850
Benjamin S. Chesson, N.C. Bar # 41923
J. Douglas Grimes, N.C. Bar # 32699
David N. Allen, N.C. Bar # 9095
ALLEN, CHESSON & GRIMES PLLC
505 N. Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: 704.755.6010
amajestro@allenchesson.com
bchesson@allenchesson.com
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
dallen@allenchesson.com
David S. Miller Jr. (pro hac forthcoming)

MILLER LAW, LLC
81 Columbus Street, Unit A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone:843-822-131
david@attorneymiller.com
Anthony J. Majestro (pro hac forthcoming)

West Virginia Bar No. 5165
POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Tel: (304) 346-2889
Fax: (304) 346-2895
amajestro@powellmajestro.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25

JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
The Town of Holly Ridge;
Briana Paull
Holly Ridge Housing Authority; et. al
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Onslow County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Onslow
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Anna Majestro
505 North Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 USC 1331
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Breach of contract
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 5,000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
11/27/2023 /s/ Anna Majestro
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ
AMOUNT
Document 2-1 Filed
APPLYING IFP
11/28/23 PageMAG.
JUDGE
1 of 2
JUDGE
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2-1 Filed 11/28/23 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District of North Carolina
__________NewDistrict of __________
Bern Division
BRIANA PAULL, individually; )

BRIANA PAULL, as guardian of A.P., A.P., R.K. Jr., and A.F.,
her minor children )
and BRIANA PAULL, as class representative on behalf of the )
class defined herein, )
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 23-CV-
)
HOLLY RIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY; )
THE PENDERGRAPH COMPANIES, LLC;
PENDERGRPAH PROPERTIES, LLC;
)
FRANKIE W. PENDERGRAPH; and JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS 1 )
through 10, )
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)

Frankie W. Pendergraph
Pendergraph Management, LLC
Post Office Box 19691
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Anna Majestro
David S. Miller Jr. (pro hac Anthony J. Majestro (pro hac
Benjamin Chesson forthcoming)
forthcoming)
Doug Grimes Powell & Majestro PLLC
Miller Law, LLC
David Allen 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Allen Chesson and Grimes PLLC Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print Save As... Reset

for the
__________ District
New of __________
Bern Division
BRIANA PAULL, as guardian of A.P., A.P., R.K. Jr., and )
A.F., her minor children; )
and BRIANA PAULL, as class representative on behalf of the
class defined herein,
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
PENDERGRAPH PROPERTIES, LLC;
)
FRANKIE W. PEDNDERGRAPH; and JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS 1 )
through 10,
)
Defendant(s) )

Holly Ridge Housing Authority
Circle Drive #H1
Holly Ridge, North Carolina 28445
Benjamin Chesson forthcoming) forthcoming)
Doug Grimes Miller Law, LLC Powell & Majestro PLLC
David Allen 81 Columbus Street, Unit A 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Allen Chesson and Grimes PLLC Charleston, South Carolina 29403 Charleston, West Virginia 25301
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
__________ NewDistrict of __________
Bern Division
case defined herein,
)
Plaintiff(s) )
v. )
Civil Action No. 23-CV-
THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE; )
)
through 10, )
Defendant(s) )
The Pendergraph Companies, LLC

3924 Browning Place
Benjamin Chesson David S. Miller Jr. (pro hac Anthony J. Majestro (pro hac
Doug Grimes forthcoming) forthcoming)
David Allen Miller Law, LLC Powell & Majestro PLLC
Allen Chesson and Grimes PLLC 81 Columbus Street, Unit A 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
505 North Church Street Charleston, South Carolina 29403 Charleston, West Virginia 25301
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
__________ NewDistrict of __________
Bern Division

BRIANA PAULL, as guardian of A.P., A.P., R.K. Jr., and A.F.,
)
her minor children; )
case defined herein,
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
)
through 10, )
Defendant(s) )

Pendergraph Properties, LLC
3924 Browning Place, Ste 1
Benjamin Chesson forthcoming)
forthcoming)
Doug Grimes Powell & Majestro PLLC
Miller Law, LLC
David Allen 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Allen Chesson and Grimes Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
PLLC
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
__________ District of __________
New Bern Division
class defined herein, )
Plaintiff(s) )
v. )
Civil Action No. 23-CV-
THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE; )
)
FRANKIE W. PENDERGRAPH; and JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS )
1 through 10, )
Defendant(s) )

The Town of Holly Ridge
212 North Dyson Street
Holly Ridge, North Carolina 28445
whose name and address are: Anna Majestro David S. Miller Jr. (pro hac Anthony J. Majestro (pro hac
Benjamin Chesson forthcoming) forthcoming)
Doug Grimes Miller Law, LLC Powell & Majestro PLLC
David Allen 81 Columbus Street, Unit A 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Allen Chesson and Grimes Charleston South Carolina 29403 Charleston, West Virginia 25301
PLLC
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


Town of Holly Ridge Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Town of Holly Ridge Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

BRIANA PAULL, individually;

THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 25

2. The Town of Holly Ridge is a North Carolina political subdivision located in

capacity (among other reasons).

5. Alternatively, if it is determined that Holly Ridge has governmental immunity for

of liability purchase, the functional equivalent of liability insurance, or participation in a

government risk pool.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 2 of 25

are collectively referred to as Pendergraph.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

State of North Carolina.

FACTS UNDERLYING PLAINITFFS’ CLAIMS

12. Holly Ridge caused Holly Plaza to be constructed in 1980.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 3 of 25

Pendergraph to manage Holly Plaza.

ceilings of units at Holly Plaza.

and Holly Ridge.

section on “Health and safety concerns” requires:

24 CFR 5.703(d)(1) (emphasis added).

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 4 of 25

at levels that threaten the health of the occupants.” 24 CFR § 982.401(h).

22. HUD considers mold a pollutant. See https://www.hudexchange.info

Ridge agreed to comply with HUD’s standards and safety regulations.

visible mold in her unit.

Pendergraph had access to.

remediated and was still present.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 5 of 25

32. Pendergraph still did not remediate the problem.

35. Pendergraph refused to release the mold results to Briana.

37. In January of 2023, another tenant in Building G complained of water intrusion.

by another Holly Ridge tenant in Briana’s building.

39. Pendergraph hired Service Master to remediate the mold.

studs inside her walls.

not provide a Material Safety Data Sheet.

continuing to grow in her apartment.

45. Briana submitted photographs to Pendergraph of mushrooms growing out of her

46. Pendergraph hired Stanley Steamer to clean the mold.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 6 of 25

48. Pendergraph denied the Stanley Steamer recommendation.

Monday, October 30, 2023.

Circuit Ln., Jacksonville, NC 28546 at Home2 Suites by Hilton.

she would be escorted off by Holly Ridge Police Department.

56. Thereafter, the mold went unabated.

58. On November 7, 2023, Briana’s unit was inspected by Pendergraph.

not safe, and she could not return.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 7 of 25

monilifor, helminthosporium, and alternata/tenuis.

64. Finally, Holly Ridge accepted Pendergraph's offer to immediately terminate

Pendergraph's management contract.

with applicable HUD regulations and standards at Holly Plaza.

remain that led to the infestation of the property with mold.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 8 of 25

violation of 24 CFR § 982.401(h).

agreement between HUD and Holly Ridge and Pendergraph.

be determined by the jury in this action.

owner, and/or otherwise was subject to the coverage of the RRAA.

Case 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ Document 2 Filed 11/28/23 Page 9 of 25

Code of Ordinances, Ch. 6, Building Regulations.

plumbing leaks or inadequate drainage that contribute to mold.