MICHAELA NASH * NUMBER: VERSUS * FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CT ABC INSURANCE, INC. * CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP; MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LL MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, INC.; ERICA KENNEDY PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT * SECTION: PETITION FOR DAMAGES The Petition of Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, a major resident and domiciliary of Caddo Parish Louisiana, with respect represents: Made Defendants herein are the following: A. ABC INSURANCE, INC., is an insurer authorized to do business in the State of Louisiana and the liability carrier for CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP, MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, LLC, and ERICA KENNEDY; B. CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, which is domiciled in Baton Rouge, Louisiana with a partnership consisting of MMM CRP Redevelopment, LLC (General Partner) organized under ‘Texas law, CREA Cooper Road Plaza, LLC (Limited Partner) organized under Indiana law, and CREA SLP, LLC (Limited Partner) organized under Indiana law; C. MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC is a limited liability company organized under Texas law with its principal place of business in Conroe, Texas; D. MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business in Conroe, Texas; and E, ERICA KENNEDY isa resident and domiciliary of Louisiana. 1. Ownership and Management of Cooper Road Plaza 1 Defendant CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP owns, maintains, and controls the buildings and land at 2929 Peach Street in the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, which is used as low-income housing and locally known as “Cooper Road Plaza” and “the Cooper Road.” 2 Defendant MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC is the general partner in CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP, and conducts business on behalf of the partnership. Filed Mar 27, 2024 10:51 AM. Bailey Barr Deputy Clerk of Court E-File Received Mar 27, 2024 10:25 AM Caddo Parish 649486 A3. Defendant MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, INC. is the property manager for Cooper Road Plaza and is not in good standing with the Secretary of State of Louisiana for failing to file its annual report at the time of this filing. 4. Defendants CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP, MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, and MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, INC. lease low-income residential units at 2929 Peach St. Louisiana, Shreveport, LA 71107, which are locally known as “Cooper Road Plaza” and “the Cooper Road.” 5. Defendant ERICA KENNEDY manages the front office of Cooper Road Plaza and occupied that position while Michaela Nash lived there. Michaela Nash Moved into Cooper Road Plaza and Reported Problems with Rats Before Suffering Injuries 6 Michaela Nash is a wheelchair-bound woman whose right leg was amputated years ago and was forced to enroll in Social Security Disability after a series of tragic events; however, she wanted and was entitled to continue living her life 7 Michaela Nash applied to live at Cooper Road Plaza, because she needed a handicap- accessible apartment and could not afford to pay for one on the open market 8 Upon information and belief, the Defendants assigned Michaela Nash to live in Unit 2 in Building G, which is known as G2. 9 Upon information and belief, multiple tenants in Building G at Cooper Road Plaza had complained to the front office about the presence of rats before Michaela Nash leased apartment @.10. Upon information and belief, the tenant, who had lived in apartment G2 before Michaela Nash, had complained to the front office of Cooper Road Plaza about the presence of rats. IL Upon information and belief, the tenant, who had lived in apartment G2 before Michaela ‘Nash, had moved out of that unit at least in part due to the presence of the rats. 12. Upon information and belief, screens were missing beneath the crawl space of Building G, which allowed rodents and other varmints access to the spacing between the walls of the different residential units. 13. Upon information and beli rats had eaten through sheetrock and chewed holes in the walls of Building G’s different residential units, which allowed them to navigate throughout the building. 14. Upon information and belief, rodents, moving through the crawlspace, had chewed their way through the sheetrock for the walls of Unit G2, which provided them easy access. 15, The Defendants, as well as whoever oversaw the front office, knew that Michaela Nash was vulnerable and exactly the kind of citizen Low-Income Housing was intended to help. 16. Michaela Nash leased apartment G2 at Cooper Road Plaza on January 27, 2023. 17. On or around April 1, 2023, Michaela Nash heard what sounded like rats in her bedroom ceiling, 18. In early April of 2023, Michaela Nash heard what seemed like the sound of rats emanating from beneath the bathtub and behind the wall of the bathroom sink.19. In early April of 2023, Michaela Nash began hearing the rat sounds emanating from the kitchen. 20. In early April 2023, Michaela Nash told Erica Kennedy about noise emanating from the walls of G2. In response, Ms. Kennedy laughed and said, “Girl, you might got some rats in the wall.” 21 On or around Saturday, April 8, 2023, Michaela Nash saw a rat dart behind the refrigerator. 2. On or around Sunday, April 9, 2023, the Plaintiff was preparing Easter Dinner for her family at her apartment and briefly left for several minutes to retrieve ice. 23. When Michaela Nash reentered the apartment, approximately six (6) rats were scurrying around the apartment. 24, On or around Monday, April 10, 2023, Michaela Nash wheeled herself to the front office to report the rats and asked to speak to Erica Kennedy. 2s. Erica Kennedy told Michaela Nash that Cooper Road Plaza did not provide pest control services, 26. On or around April 12, 2023, Michaela Nash called the number for the corporate office, which was on the wall of the front office of Cooper Road Plaza, and asked who she should speak with regarding her rat problem. 27. A woman named Ms, Bertha called Michaela Nash back. During their phone conversation, Ms, Bertha advised Ms. Nash that 1) Erica Kennedy had not relayed any reports of rats to her; 2)that Cooper Road Plaza did provide pest control services; and 3) that the inspector would come out more often, 28. On or around Monday, April 17, 2023, Ms. Bertha accompanied a man, who upon information and belief was an exterminator, on the grounds of Cooper Road Plaza. 29. Upon information and belief, Erica Kennedy and Ms. Bertha entered Michaela Nash’s apartment without warning or permission, while Ms. Nash was at a medical appointment after Ms. Nash reported the problem, 30. Erica Kennedy and Ms. Bertha’s inspection of Michaela Nash’s apartment should have alerted the Defendants that the holes and cracks in G2 meant the rats would continue to be a problem until they were filled. 3h The Defendants did not place screens over openings in the crawl space or fill holes in the walls, so the rats continued to have free reign of Building G. 32. Michaela Nash, who suffers from diabetic neuropathy, sometimes has difficulty feeling sensation in the lower part of her remaining leg. 33, On or around May 26, 2023, at 5:00 a.m., Michaela Nash awoke in her bed and saw a rat chewing on her left fourth toe. 34. The punctures from the rat’s teeth were deep and Michaela’s blood covered the bottom- left side of her mattress and sheets. 35. Over the week following the rat attack, the swelling, drainage, and pain in Michaela Nash’s left fourth toe and dorsal foot began increasing.36. An x-ray of the foot performed on June 2, 2023, revealed soft tissue swelling over the left fourth toe, 37. An MRI of the foot performed on June 3, 2023, showed generalized mild soft tissue swelling through the midfoot. 38, Culture samples from the rat bites of Michaela Nash’s left foot showed the presence of MRSA and Serratia. 39. On June 8, 2023, Michaela Nash was instructed to take 250 mg of Levofloxacin daily and 100 mg of Minocycline twice daily on June 8, 2023, for the next two weeks IIL Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 40. From the first day that Michaela Nash reported rats to Erica Kennedy, Ms. Kennedy knew or should have known the issue stemmed from an endemic and entrenched rat population that had been an issue for that particular building before Ms. Nash moved into G2. Al, After getting attacked by a rat in her sleep, Michaela Nash requested to move into a handicap accessible unit at Cooper Road Plaza that did not have a rat problem. 42. Erica Kennedy rejected Michaela Nash’s request to move into a handicap-accessible unit without a rat problem on the basis that she would bring the rats with her. 43. Because Ms. Kennedy refused to allow her to move to a different unit, Michaela Nash applied to live at a different apartment complex. 44. At some point, Erica Kennedy confronted Michaela Nash about applying to live at another apartment complex.45. Michaela Nash applied to live at Canaan & Villages Apt. in Shreveport, Louisiana, 46. On or around June 28, 2023, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Plaintiff contacted Ms. Eva at Canaan & Villages Apt. regarding the status of her application. 41. Ms. Eva advised Michaela Nash that she had not received Ms. Nash's rent verification, 48. After Ms. Eva informed Michaela Nash that she had not received rent verification, the Plaintiff contacted Erica Kennedy and requested she send the rental verification form to Canaan & Villages Apt 49. At or around 11:00 a.m., Erica Kennedy faxed and/or emailed the rent verification paperwork to Canaan & Villages Apt. 50. At or around sometime between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., Michaela Nash called Ms. Eva, who said, “We're not able to give you the apartment, because you failed the rental veri SI. The day after Canaan rejected Michaela Nash’s application based on Erica Kennedy's baseless allegations, a rat chewed another hole through the wall of G2 that Ms. Kennedy refused to let Ms. Nash leave. 32. Eriea Kennedy would and should have known that giving a negative review of Michaela Nash would result in Canaan rejecting the Plaintiff's application 53. Upon information and belief, no one at Cooper Road Plaza had ever individually cited Michaela Nash for any infractions or incidents with the Lease Violation Notice form.54. There is no documentation that Michaela Nash ever engaged in the level of troublemaking that Erica Kennedy later accused her of committing. 55, Erica Kennedy knew or should have known the result of her actions would force Michaela ‘Nash to continue living in an apartment filled with rats, including at least one that bit her multiple times, 56. Erica Kennedy abused her posi mn of authority to trap Michaela Nash in an apartment filled with rat(s) that had previously attacked her. 37. Erica Kennedy knew that her actions, which prevented Michaela Nash, from moving to a new residence were certain or substantially certain to cause emotional distress, because Michaela Nash was clearly and legitimately terrified of rats attacking her. 58, The emotional distress that Michaela Nash suffered was severe. 59. Interfering with a wheelchair bound woman's attempts to move away from an apartment filled with rats after being bitten was extreme and outrageous 60. conduct towards Michaela Nash was extreme and outrageous. 61. During the time that Erica Kennedy actively interfered with Michaela Nash’s attempts to move to a new apartment without aggressive rats, the rat bites on Michaela Nash’s foot continued to worsen. IV. Michaela Nash’s Condition Continued to Worsen 62 When doctors prescribed Levoflaxacin and Minocycline to Michaela Nash on June 8, 2023, Ms. Nash had a history of chronic kidney disease, but her renal function was stable.63. By July 6, 2023, the skin around the rat bite was swelling and began to smell alarmingly bad. 64. On July 11, 2023, surgeons at Willis Knighton Medical Center amputated the fourth and fifth toes of Michaela Nash’s left foot. 65. The amputation of Michaela’s fourth and fifth toes exposed tendon and bone tissue. 66. On or around July 23, 2023, Michaela Nash visited Willis Knighton Medical Center for chest pain that worsened with inspiration, nausea, and vomiting. In the Emergency Department, Michaela was found to have renal failure, hyperglycemia with blood glucose of 459, and hyponatremia. 67. On or around July 23, 2023, the left foot wound culture was again po: 68. On or around July 24, 2023, Michaela’s urine culture was positive for Klebsiella. 69. On August 3, 2023, Michaela underwent a debridement on her left foot, including an excision of her fourth and fifth metatarsals. 70. In or around the first part of August of 2023, the medication prescribed to Michaela Nash since the rat bite caused severe constipation and rectal bleeding. 7. Months after surgery, the amputation wound of Michaela Nash’s left foot still exposed her tendon and bone tissue and was infected with MRSA and streptococcus aglactiae, n The following is a photograph taken 11/10/23 from Michaela Nash's medical records that shows surgical wound from left fourth and fifth toe amputations:Surgical Wound Taken: 11/10/2023 73. The lingering infection in the surgical wound was severe enough to threaten Michaela ‘Nash’s remaining leg with the risk of amputation, 74. Upon information and belief, the antibiotics needed to save Michaela Nash’s leg from amputation was putting pressure on her kidneys. 75. Upon information and belief, the pressure from the antibiotics on Michaela Nash’s kidneys ‘caused them to shut down and resulted in her hospitalization for kidney failure. ve Notice of an Endemic and Pervasive Rat Population. 76. Upon information and belief, residents of Cooper Road Plaza have complained to the front office about large and aggres ive rodents for years. 77. Upon information and belief, residents of Cooper Road Plaza have reported seeing rats in their bedrooms to the front office.8. “A rat in a bedroom is not tolerable and requires immediate action.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 1: Introduction at 1:6. Retrieved from govisites/d >_11839.PDP). https: 79. “Rats are aggressive, and social conflicts are most common at feeding sites, prime resting areas, and territorial boundaries.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:5. Retrieved from htips://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDE), 80. “Rats have caused more human suffering and economic damage than any other vertebrate pest.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16-1. Retrieved from s/DOC hitps://Avww. hud. gov/sit 9. PDF 81. Rats are responsible for the spread of many diseases, including the Plague, Murine Typhus Fever, Rat-Bite Fever, Salmonella Food Poisoning, Leptospirosis or Weil's disease, and Trichinosis. See Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16: Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDF 82. The rats that plague Cooper Road Plaza are capable of chewing through walls and materials to create entries for buildings: Rats gnaw constantly, and their teeth are extremely hard. They commonly chew through building materials such as conerete block, aluminum siding, sun-dried adobe brick, wall board, wooden cabinets, lead sheathing, and plastic or lead pipes. After gnawing a hole, an adult rat can compress its body and squeeze through a half-inch opening(Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16-1. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDF). 83. Norway rats will nest inside walls, the space between the floors and ceilings, and in crawlspaces with a preference for the lower floors of a building: Indoors, Norway rats nest inside walls, in the space between floors and ceilings, underneath equipment, between and under pallets, and in crawlspaces, storage rooms, and any cluttered area that is normally unoccupied. Norways prefer to nest in the lower floors ofa building. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:7. Retrieved from h s/DOC_11839.PDF), 84, Upon information and belief, the rats at Cooper Road Plaza have eaten through sheetrock and chewed holes in the walls of multiple residential buildings, which has created a highway they can use to enter and to exit apartment units. 85. Upon information and belief, the rats at Cooper Road Plaza have eaten through walls and created rat holes in multiple buildings, which has made it difficult for the residents to get rid of, let alone manage, the rats through their individual efforts. VI. Integrated Pest Management 86. Given the severity of the rat problem, the Defendants knew or should have known that they needed to hire a professional and competent pest control company to assess and implement a comprehensive pest management plan for Cooper Road Plaza, rather than choose the cheapest plan from the lowest cost pest control provider.87. ‘The Department of Housing and Urban Development has explained that an integrated and multifaceted approach with careful inspection, upgraded sanitation, and rat proofing structures to exclude rat entry is critical to long-term rat control: Successful long-term rat control is not simple. The key is to control the environment of rat populations, not individual rats. Rat control requires an integrated approach that includes nonlethal tools such as careful inspection, upgraded sanitation, and rat proofing structures to exclude rat entry. Lethal control may combine the use of selected rodenticides with low-risk control measures such as snap traps or glue boards. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16-2. Retrieved from https:/avwy $39. PDF) 88, While the residents of Cooper Road Plaza reported a growing rat population for years, the front office did not implement the kind of integrated approach that the Department of Housing and Urban Development deems necessary to control a rodent infestation. 89. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants have implemented or hired a third party to conduct integrated pest management for Cooper Road Plaza. 90. Amid the boom in the rat population, the Defendants, including whoever was responsible for managing the front office, knew or should have known that “[tJhe key is to control the environment of rat populations, not individual rats” and that the tenants could not individually address those rats. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16-2. Retrieved from hi Z F VII. Rat Holes 1 roughout Cooper Road Plaza oL While the residents of Cooper Road Plaza reported a growing rat population for years, the front office refused to rat proof the buildings and apartment units.92. “The most successful long-term form of rat control is to build them out, called rat-proofing a technique that makes it impossible for rats to get into a building in the first place.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:11. Retrieved from https://www-hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDF) 93. The Defendants knew or should have known that rat proofing buildings was essential, because the Department of Housing and Urban Development has stated, “[t]he most successful long-term form of rat control is to build them out, called rat-proofing a technique that makes it impossible for rats to get into a building in the first place.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development, (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:11. Retrieved from https:/;www. hud. gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDF). v Cooper Road’s Cheap Abatement Efforts Failed to Curb the Rat Population 94. Instead of adopting an integrated pest management approach, the Defendants have intermittently provided glue traps to the residents of Cooper Road Plaza. 95. ‘The Defendants limited the total number of glue traps they provided to residents, so there were not nearly enough for the number of rats frolicking around Cooper Road Plaza. 96. The glue traps that Defendants provided to residents of Cooper Road Plaza were too small for many of the rats, which were able to escape them with ease. 97, The Defendants knew or should have known that relying solely on traps and bait stations cannot control a rat population, given warnings from the Department of Housing and Urban Development:Rats are wary of anything new that appears in their territory. A bait station, a trap, a block of wood will be avoided for a few days until the rats become familiar with the new object; even then, they approach cautiously. This fear of new objects can make baiting and trapping difficult, Rats will avoid poison bait when it is first placed. Later, they may nibble warily. Ifthe poison bait makes them ill, but doesn’t kill them, they will subsequently avoid similar baits or stations. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16: Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839,PDE). 98. Absent an integrated pest management approach, the rat population at Cooper Road Plaza was more likely to adapt to the presence of poison and traps, which would only make it harder for residents to individually handle the rat problem. 99. “Rats can taste certain chemicals at a parts-per-million concentration. (This explains why rats often reject baits or avoid traps that have been contaminated with insecticides.)” Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:5. Retrieved from Dac 11839.PDF 100. Once a mother rat becomes wary of rodenticides or traps, her offspring will learn to avoid them, which makes control more difficult in sites where long-term rodent-baiting programs failed in the past: If the mother rat has become wary of rodenticides or traps, many of her young will learn to avoid them. This teaming experience can make control difficult in sites where long-term rodent-baiting programs have been unsuccessful in the past. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:5. Retrieved from hittps://www. hud, gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDE).101. That female rat, who becomes wary of rodenticides and traps, will give birth to about twenty offspring, who will also avoid rodenticides and traps.! 102. After three months, each of those twenty or so offspring, who are averse to rodenticides and traps, will be sexually mature and begin the mating cycle anew: The young are totally weaned at four or five weeks old, when they weigh about 1- 1/2 ounces, and at the age of three months, they are independent of their mother. They will mate and continue the cycle in the same location, or will migrate to a new area. (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:5. Retrieved from s/DOC_11839.PDF), IX. Accumulation of Trash 103. Upon information and belief, the management of Cooper Road Plaza has allowed trash to accumulate on the property that provides food for rodents. 104, Upon information and belief, the management of Cooper Road Plaza has allowed trash to overflow and surround dumpsters such that waste management services would refuse to pick up ‘the trash. 105. Upon information and belief, the Defendants employed groundskeepers and maintenance workers, who should have been capable of picking up trash from the common areas and clearing the dumpsters, so waste services could remove garbage. ' “A mature female rat can give birth to about twenty young in a year (four to six at a time), if she lives that long.” (Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). HUD Maintenance Guidebooks: Guidebook 7: Termite, Insect, and Rodent Control, Chapter 16: Rats at 16:5. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11839.PDF).106. Unfortunately, the Defendants’ groundskeepers and maintenance workers have allowed waste and trash to accumulate in the common are: sand around the dumpsters. 107. When waste control services refuse to pick up and clear trash from the dumpsters due to the presence of debris, the trash pile at Cooper Road Plaza just gets larger. 108. The sheer volume of trash provided rats at Cooper Road Plaza with a readily accessible food source that could fuel their population growth. X. Priori ing Facade Over Habitabi and Silencing Residents 109. Cooper Road Plaza is subject to inspections from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 110. Sara Pratt, a former senior HUD official who worked at the agency under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, has said that HUD’s inspection system “is pretty much a failure,” and the agency’s staffing levels after years of budget cuts are “wholly inadequate” to assess properties. i. Throughout the 2010s, the HUD inspection formula deducted more points for deficiencies on the property site, like the exterior of the building, than for the actual condition of the dwelling units. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, "How Some Property Owners Are Gaming the HUD Inspection Process" (GAO-19-254, February 2019), p. 18, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ga0- 19-254.pdf (Last Visited Jan. 31, 2024)). 112. A score below 60 is defined as a fi lure and triggers enforcement actions that Multifamily Housing or the Departmental Enforcement Center can take to require the correction of physical deficiencies.113. From 2013 through 2017, the median inspection scores for HUD multifamily and public housing properties in the United States were in the mid- to high-80s. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, "How Some Property Owners Are Gaming the HUD Inspection Process" (GAO-19-254, February 2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/ga0-19-254.pdf (Last Vis ited Jan. 31, 2024)). 114, Cooper Road Plaza has one of the worst ratings among public housing projects in the State of Louisiana, 115. During a physical inspection in or around 20111, a HUD inspector gave Cooper Road Plaza a score of 47, which is a failure. 116. Upon information and belief, the Defendants entered prioritized facade and exterior maintenance and improvement at Cooper Road Plaza to pass HUD inspections, rather than improve conditions inside the residential units. 17. During the Trump Administration, HUD determined that some properties focused on repairs that allowed them to pass inspection, potentially without addressing poor conditions in tenant units, and that some property owners actually attempted to cover up, rather than address, problems—such as by using mulch outside of a building to hide erosion. Government Accountability Office, "How Some Property Owners Are Gaming the HUD Inspection Process" (April 30, 2019), https://www.gao.gov/blog/2019/04/30/how-some-property-owners-are-gaming- the-hud-inspection-process (Last Visited Jan. 31, 2024), 118 Specifically, because more points are deducted for deficiencies on the property site than for deficiencies in a dwelling unit, some property owners would prioritize site repairs over unit repairs.119. Additionally, some property owners would attempt to cover up, rather than address, deficiencies—such as by using mulch on a building exterior to hi 120. Thanks to the flaws in HUD's rating system, the Defendants made fagade improvements to pass HUD inspections, even while the housing it provided became increasingly uninhabitable. 121. During a physical inspection on or around June 27, 2013, a HUD inspector gave Cooper Road Plaza a score of 63, 122. During a physical inspection on or around May 11, 2017, a HUD inspector gave Cooper Road Plaza a score of 67. 123. Upon information and belief, Erica Kennedy told the tenants of Cooper Road Plaza, before Michaela Nash’s arrival, that they were prohibited from hiring any third party to inspect the building or their units for defects or pest problems. 124. Upon information and belief, the residents of Cooper Road Plaza noticed the Defendants focused on fagade work, while the residential units continued to exist in a state of squalor. 125. In order to avoid scrutiny, the Defendants took steps throughout the 2010s to prevent tenants from organizing amongst themselves, speaking with the news media, secking legal assistance, and reporting violations of federal and state law. 126. Upon information and belief, the front office, as well as the Defendants, has/have deliberately cultivated the belief among the residents of Cooper Road Plaza that if they publi e or draw attention to mismanagement over issues like the rat problem, then the front office will evict them.127. Upon information and belief, the front office has threatened to evict residents for reporting problems at Cooper Road Plaza that are embarrassing to the Defendants 128. Erica Kennedy threatened to evict at least one resident for speaking with a local television news reporter about poor conditions at Cooper Road Plaza. 129, When two residents attempted to circulate a petition to draw attention to the subpar living conditions at Cooper Road Plaza, nearly every resident ~ save five or six people ~ said they wanted to sign but could not do so due to their belief the front office would evict them. 130. For its residents, eviction from Cooper Road Plaza would be akin to being blacklisted from all assisted housing in North Louisiana with the probable consequence being forced homelessness. 131 Upon information and belief, the threat of evictions from the Defendants has had a chilling effect on residents at Cooper Plaza and allowed their mismanagement to continue with enormous consequences for the residents. XI. LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS 132. Atall relevant times, CRP Redevelopment, LP owned the buildings on 2929 Peach Street that constitute Cooper Road Plaza. 133, As the owner of Cooper Road Plaza, including Building G, CRP Redevelopment, LP had a non-delegable duty imposed on it by Civil Code Articles 2322 and 2696 that continued, even if it were leased. See Burton v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, Inc., 623 So. 2d 243, 246 (La. App. 4 Cir, 1993), writ not considered, 631 So. 2d 436 (La. 1994). 134, The presence of the rats and the rat holes in Building G created an unreasonably dangerous condition for its occupants.135. The magnitude of the risk of rat bites (ie., the severity of the consequences if rat bites occur) was substantial as apartment G2 was intended for use as a residence and was occupied by a wheelchair bound woman, who would have difficulty dealing with and evading rats. See, e.g., Burton v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, Inc., 623 So. 2d 243, 246-47 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), writ not considered, 631 So. 2d 436 (La. 1994). 136. The presence of rats, as well as the rat holes, in Building G had been a problem for prior tenants and so constituted a relatively permanent condition susceptible to being considered a vice or defect in the apartment itself within the meaning of Civil Code Articles 2317 and 2322. See, e.g., Burton v. Hous. Auth, of New Orleans, Inc., 623 So. 2d 243, 246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), writ not considered, 631 So, 2d 436 (La. 1994) (“The rat infestation and the rat holes had existed for several months and perhaps a year prior to Burton being bitten and so constituted a relatively permanent condition susceptible to being considered a ‘vice’ or ‘defect’ in the apartment itself within the meaning of Civil Code Articles 2317 and 2322.”) 137. Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, shows that the incident sued on herein was caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Defendant, CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP, which includes but is not limited to the following: a, Refusing to warn Michaela Nash about the presence of aggressive rats that populate Cooper Road Plaza; b. Refusing to develop and pursue an integrated pest management strategy in order to address the rat population; ¢. Violating 51 La, Admin. Code Pt V, 303(B), which provides that “[e]very building, place, and premises shall be kept and maintained by the owner or occupant in a clean and sanitary condition, and free from rodents”; a. Violating 51 La. Admin. Code Pt V, 303(C), which provides “[nJo rubbish, garbage, or other waste shall be dumped, left, or be permitted to accumulate or to remain in any building, place, or premises in such a manner that the same will, or may, afford food harborage, or a breeding place for rodents”; b. Refusing to place screens beneath the crawl space of Building G, which has allowed the rodents easy access to the residential units, in violation of 51 La. Admin, Code Pt V, 305(D) (“All foundation and exterior wall openings, except those used as doors or windows or for purposes of ventilation and light, such as openings due to deterioratedwalls or broken masonry or conerete, shall be protected against the ingress of rodents, by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete, or masonry.”); Refusing to repair holes in G2, as well as the other units in Building G, which has allowed the rodents to travel freely through the building; Refusing to address overflowing trash at the dumpsters of Cooper Road Plaza, which has provided a food supply for the rats; Refusing to pick-up trash littered on the premises of Cooper Road Plaza, which provides a food supply for the rat Negligent inspection of Building G, as well as Unit G2, on multiple occasions before Michaela Nash moved into the unit; Negligent Retention/Seleetion of Pest Control Services; Negligent administration of Pest Control Services; and Other acts to be proven at trial, 138. Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, shows that the incident sued on herein was caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Defendant, MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, which includes but is not limited to the following: a, Refusing to warn Michaela Nash about the presence of aggressive rats that populate Cooper Road Plaza; Refuusing to develop and pursue an integrated pest management strategy in order to address the rat population; Violating 51 La. Admin. Code Pt V, 303(B), which provides that “[e]very building, place, and premises shall be kept and maintained by the owner or occupant in a clean and sanitary condition, and free from rodents”; Violating 51 La. Admin, Code Pt V, 303(C), which provides “[n]o rubbish, garbage, or other waste shall be dumped, left, or be permitted to accumulate or to remain in any building, place, or premises in such a manner that the same will, ot may, afford food harborage, or a breeding place for rodents”; Refusing to place screens beneath the crawl space of Building G, which has allowed the rodents easy access to the residential units, in violation of 51 La. Admin. Code Pt V, 305(D) (“All foundation and exterior wall openings, except those used as doors or ‘windows or for purposes of ventilation and light, such as openings due to deteriorated walls or broken masonry or concrete, shall be protected against the ingress of rodents by closing such openings with cement mortar, conerete, or masonry.”); Refusing to repair holes in G2, as well as the other units in Building G, which has allowed the rodents to travel freely through the building; Refusing to address overflowing trash at the dumpsters of Cooper Road Plaza, which has provided a food supply for the rats;Refusing to pick-up trash littered on the premises of Cooper Road Plaza, which provides a food supply for the rats; Negligent inspection of Building G, as well as Unit G2, on multiple occasions before Michaela Nash moved into the unit; Negligent Retention/Selection of Pest Control Services; and Negligent administration of Pest Control Services; and, Other acts to be proven at trial 139. Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, shows that the incident sued on herein was caused in whole or part by the negligence of Defendant, MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Refuusing to warn Michaela Nash about the presence of aggressive rats that populate Cooper Road Plaza; Refusing to develop and pursue an integrated pest management strategy in order to address the rat population; Violating 51 La. Admin. Code Pt V, 303(B), which provides that “[e]very building, place, and premises shall be kept and maintained by the owner or occupant in a clean and sanitary condition, and free from rodents”; Violating 51 La. Admin, Code Pt V, 303(C), which provides “[n]o rubbish, garbage, or other waste shall be dumped, left, or be permitted to accumulate or to remain in any building, place, or premises in such a manner that the same will, or may, afford food harborage, or a breeding place for rodents”; Refusing to place screens beneath the craw! space of Building G, which has allowed the rodents easy access to the residential units, in violation of 51 La. Admin, Code Pt V, 305(D) (“All foundation and exterior wall openings, except those used as doors or windows or for purposes of ventilation and light, such as openings due to deteriorated walls or broken masonry or concrete, shall be protected against the ingress of rodents by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete, or masonry.”); Refusing to repair holes in G2, as well as the other units in Building G, which has allowed the rodents to travel freely through the building; Refusing to address overflowing trash at the dumpsters of Cooper Road Plaza, which hhas provided a food supply for the rats; Refuusing to pick-up trash littered on the premises of Cooper Road Plaza, which provides a food supply for the rats; Negligent inspection of Building G, as well as Unit G2, on multiple occasions before Michaela Nash moved into the unit; Negligent Retention/Selection of Pest Control Services; Negligent administration of Pest Control Services; and1. Other acts to be proven at trial, 140. Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, shows that the incident sued on herein was caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Defendant, MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC, which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Refusing to warn Michaela Nash about the presence of aggressive rats that populate Cooper Road Plaza; b. Refusing to develop and pursue an integrated pest management strategy in order to address the rat population; ¢. Violating 51 La, Admin, Code Pt V, 303(B), which provides that “[e]very building, place, and premises shall be kept and maintained by the owner or occupant in a clean and sanitary condition, and free from rodents”; 4. Violating 51 La. Admin. Code Pt V, 303(C), which provides “[n]o rubbish, garbage, or other waste shall be dumped, left, or be permitted to accumulate or to remain in any building, place, or premises in such a manner that the same will, or may, afford food harborage, or a breeding place for rodents”; e. Refusing to place screens beneath the crawl space of Building G, which has allowed the rodents easy access to the residential units, in violation of $1 La. Admin, Code Pt V, 305(D) (“All foundation and exterior wall openings, except those used as doors or windows or for purposes of ventilation and light, such as openings due to deteriorated walls or broken masonry or concrete, shall be protected against the ingress of rodents by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete, or masonry.”); £ Refusing to repair holes in G2, as well as the other units in Building G, which has allowed the rodents to travel freely through the building; g. Refusing to address overflowing trash at the dumpsters of Cooper Road Plaza, which has provided a food supply for the rats; h, Refusing to pick-up trash littered on the premises of Cooper Road Plaza, which provides a food supply for the rats; i. Negligent inspection of Building G, as well as Unit G2, on multiple occasions before Michaela Nash moved into the unit; j. Negligent Retention/Selection of Pest Control Services; k. Negligent administration of Pest Control Services; and 1. Other acts to be proven at trial. 141. At all relevant times, the Defendants employed ERICA KENNEDY as a manager in the front office for Cooper Road Plaza,142. Throughout all of her interactions with Michaela Nash, ERICA KENNEDY was acting in the course and scope of her employment with the Defendants. 143. The Defendants are vicariously liable for the tortious conduct that ERICA KENNEDY inflicted on Michaela Nash. 144, ERICA KENNEDY intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Michaela Nash and intentionally interfered with Ms. Nash’s contracts with Cooper Road Plaza and other housing providers in the Caddo Parish area, XI. FAIR HOUSING ACT 145. The Fair Housing Act provides that it “shall be unlawful” for a landlord, renting under Section 8, to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person. 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604()(2)(a). 146. Federal law provides that for purposes of the Fair Housing Act, discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(f)(3)(B). 147, The severity of the rat problem at Cooper Road Plaza uniquely impacted wheelchair users, such as Michaela Nash, and deprived her of the opportunity to use and enjoy the unit. 148. All of Cooper Road Plaza’s wheelchair accessible residential units are located on the first ce floor, and wheelchair reliant tenants can only choose from those units.149. The rat population is larger on the first floors of the residential uni it Cooper Road Plaza than on the higher floors. 150, Given these circumstances, wheelchair users, who live at Cooper Road Plaza, are exposed toa greater risk from the rat population. 151, Wheelchair users, like Michaela Nash, may find it challenging to access certain areas of their home where rats could be nesting or hiding, such as tight spaces, comers, or high shelves that might be difficult to reach or inspect thoroughly. 152. Wheelchair users, like Michaela Nash, may have greater difficulty actually finding and sealing rat holes in the apartment that enable the rats to easily enter and exit an apartment unit. 153. Wheelchair users, like Michaela Nash, who have reduced sensitivity in their lower extremities, may not realize when a rat has begun to chew on their foot, until the wound has reached a certain degree of severity. 154, Wheelchair users, like Michaela Nash, have limited mobility and dexterity, which makes it more likely for them to evade rats. 155. Dealing with a rat infestation can be stressful and overwhelming for anyone, but for wheelchair-bound individuals, the added challenges may exacerbate feelings of helplessness or frustration, especially if they feel unable to address the problem independently, 156. At one point, the rats began chewing the wires of Michaela Nash’s electric wheelchair, which forced her to get another one.157. The presence of the rats and the Defendants’ refusal to provide meaningful and accommodations to Michaela Nash had a disparate impact on Michaela Nash’s ability to use and enjoy her dwelling as non-wheelchair user residents could. 158. Michaela Nash asked the front office of Cooper Road Plaza for assistance and instead of providing meaningful accommodations, the Defendant(s) abandoned her to the rats, 159. The Defendant(s) discriminated against Michaela Nash in violation of the Fair Housing Act when itthey make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services that were necessary for Michaela Nash to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her dwelling as non-wheelchair user residents could. 160. After an endemic and entrenched rat population attacked Michaela Nash, the Defendants refused to her request to move to another unit within Cooper Road Plaza and told her that she would bring the rats with her. 161. ‘The Defendants had no basis for blaming Michaela Nash, a wheelchair user, for an endemic and preexisting rat problem for which Cooper Road Plaza that she could not have been expected to safely handle without accommodations. 162. The Defendants’ decision to deny a dwelling free from rats, which Michaela Nash requested after a rat attacked her, violated 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(1)(1)(a), which prohibits a landlord, renting under Section 8, from discriminating in the rental of or denying a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap. 163. When Michaela Nash attempted to exercise her right to find another landlord, who could provide an apartment free from rats, the Defendants actively interfered with her attempts to do so.164. Under § 3617 of the FHA, it is “unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by ... [§ ] 3604 [of the FHA].” 42 U.S.C. § 3617. 165 Federal law provides that Michaela Nash may commence a civil action in state court for the discriminatory housing practices the Defendants pursued against her. 42 U.S.C.A. § 3613(a)(1(A). 16. As a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices and in accordance with 42 US.C.A. § 3613(c), Michaela Nash sustained and is entitled to recover the following damages: a. Actual Damages; b. Punitive Damages; and c. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. XIII. MICHAELA NASH’S INJURIES AND DAMAGES 167. As a result of the rat bite, Michaela Nash sustained injuries to her body that are not limited to the following: a. Puncture wounds to her foot; b. Amputation of Multiple Toes; c. Kidney Failure; d, Intense Emotional Distress; and e. Other Injuries that will be Proven at Trial. 168 As a result of injuries from Defendants’ gross negligence, Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, sustained damages which include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Past medical bills; b, Future medical bills;c. Past mental and physical pain and suffering; 4, Future mental and ph ical pain and suffering; e. Permanent disability: f. Loss of household services; and g. Loss of enjoyment of life. 169. Venue is proper in the Court under La. C.C.P. art. 74 because Caddo Parish is where the wrongful conduct occurred and the Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, was injured. 170. Upon information and belief, ABC INSURANCE, INC. issued a liability policy to the Defendant(s) providing coverage for the tortious acts alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, PRAYS: a. That there be judgment herein in favor of Plaintiff, MICHAELA NASH, and against Defendants, ABC INSURANCE, INC., CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP, MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, LLC, and ERICA KENNEDY, for a reasonable sum in damages, together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid and the cost of the proceedings; b. That any expert fees be fixed and taxed as costs; and c. For all general and equitable relief. [SIGNATURE BLOCK AND SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE]Respectfully submitted: DUDLEY DEBOSIER INJURY LAWYERS ‘ADAM SAVOIE (#32676) STUART J. CRICHTON (#35401) 4300 Youree Drive, Suite 250 Shreveport, LA 71105 Telephone: 318.216-4417 Facsimile: 225.831.1602 asavoie@dudleydebosier.com scrichton@dudleydebosier.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Please issue service of the Petition for Damages to: CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LP 11616 Southfork Avenue Suite 302 Baton Rouge, LA 70816 MMM CRP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC Through its Registered Agent for Service of Process. Tommy Fazio 11616 Southfork Ave. Baton Rouge, LA 70816 MULTI-FAMILY MANAGEMENT MINISTRIES, INC. Through its Registered Agent for Service of Process: Gordon R. Konrad 6209 Bridgehampton New Orleans, LA 70126