Last words

 Sun 1.10.21

         I’ve said it all and I don’t see myself adding anything beyond this last reply to Landlord’s eviction complaint.  In it, I am replying to Landlord’s response when I sought to join my case seeking an injunction to stop Landlord’s agent from dismantling the gazebo I was given permission to install and its action to evict me.  Of course, there could be surprises . . .

REPLY TO PETITIONER’S RESPONSE

MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

28 U.S. CODE §1367

         Petitioner claims in his response that a Forcible Entry and Detainer action in state court is a summary proceeding to determine who has a right to immediate possession of Respondent’s apartment; Respondent may not join other actions, or file counterclaim with request that the Court restrict itself to its contours.  The flaw in Petitioner’s argument is in not acknowledging that state court itself crossed that line when it solicited a Procedural Order seeking information on the rules, laws, state and federal, to be employed.  The case had become more complex than anticipated.  Petitioner objected (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Court’s Procedural Order, Respondent’s ex. N,) “The Forcible Entry and Detainer statute and M.R.Civ.P. 80D provide no authority or basis for a District Court Judge to issue such an order and make such an inquiry.  It is beyond the scope of the authority of District Court Judge Peter Darvin to independently initiate and require a statutory and regulatory inquiry and interpretation.”  Eviction Court opened the door to counterclaims by inviting a memorandum of law, (see attached Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law filed on November 17, 2020, ex.1)

“[Respondent] has neither sought nor received leave to amend her original Answer, filed more than 4 months earlier.”  Instant Court demanded, through its Clerk, that Respondent submit an Answer.  It was submitted on December 7, 2020.

          “Ms. Saint Pierre’s reliance 28 U.S. CODE §1367 as the basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over an entirely separate state court action is misplaced (emphasis added).”  As stated in §1367, the Court already has jurisdiction: any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.  

The links that connect the two cases in a logical relationship are Respondent’s 14, MRSA §556, Special Motion to Dismiss (Respondent’s ex. I,) and the gazebo and garden, which are the FED action’s only viable lease complaints according to HUD eviction rules.  See also Respondent’s 1st affidavit with its section on harassment. (*Respondent’s 1st affidavit, although submitted as exhibit D, is not listed in Court’s list, therefore it is prudently attached, ex. 2.)

Petitioner’s Forcible Entry and Detainer is fatally flawed.  Respondent was not served a 30-day Notice of Termination and the FED Complaint to which it was attached did not meet 24 C.F.R. §247.4, which specifies the exact requirements of a pre-termination notice; Landlord violated his statutory obligations by not honoring his written permission, per lease clause 12, to allow Respondent’s gazebo in the yard; Petitioner attempts to evict Respondent with complaints not stated or included in her lease; Landlord instituted a FED action two months after receiving notice from Respondent of a severe mold problem in her unit, (Presumption of retaliation 14 M.R.S. §6001.3.C.)  No writ of possession may issue in the absence of rebuttal of the presumption of retaliation.  There has been no rebuttal, and the mold problem has not been eradicated.

Respondent is a responsible adult whose rent payment is electronically deposited into Landlord’s account monthly.  The photographs submitted of her apartment depict a well-kept home as is the photo of her cheerful yard with gazebo and garden, which is in line with other tenant gardens on the premises.  She has neither breached a material, essential or substantial term of her lease.  Petitioner is harassing Respondent with its FED case in expectation she will abandon her own case, or better, that she will be evicted eliminating Petitioner’s obligation to honor its written permission for the placement of a gazebo in the curtilage of Respondent’s home.  Indeed, Petitioner’s attorney in state court and also in its attached memorandum, page 18, informed Respondent that her lease is not terminated each year, thus erasing past complaints with the new lease, rather it is recertified.  Should she prevail in the eviction case, Landlord could simply re-assert its claim in another court action.

         For the foregoing reasons, supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under the circumstances of these cases as it will not cause inconvenience, confusion, or prejudice to any party.  Accordingly, in favor of judicial economy, convenience and fairness the Court must grant Respondent’s motion for supplemental jurisdiction.

Dated January 6, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

 .

 The favorite essay this past month has been Nagual