Lawsuit against Pioneer Investments and lead poisoning dismissed by RI judge

Judge writes Department of Health must enforce lead abatement laws

Half of the case was dismissed in March.
Responsibility for implementing many leading standards lies with cities/towns or the Department of Health, prevailing rules.
The judge writes that not enough people were harmed for the AG to step in.

PROVIDENCE – A Superior Court judge dismissed remaining charges in a lawsuit against a rental company Pioneer Investments LLC and its chairman Anurag Sureka, attorney general’s office Five children were allegedly poisoned by lead at the Pioneer flats, and a total of 11 children had detectable levels of lead in their blood.

In a decision published last weekSupreme Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter He wrote that the attorney general’s office lacks the authority to enforce a number of laws intended to prevent children from being exposed to violence. poisoned with leadits tenants are protected from deplorable living conditions and false advertising of rental apartments.

HE decision comes later Taft-Carter rejected this offer The other half of the counts in the March caseThe attorney general’s office determines that There was no authority for four of the five charges In the fifth, he referred to previous Supreme Court decisions: Freedom from lead poisoning is not a “public right” and therefore the attorney general’s office cannot exercise its enforcement authority public nuisance laws for lead violations.

In a newsletterAttorney General Peter Neronha wrote that he plans to appeal the dismissals.

undo RI Tenant organizer Shana Crandell said the decision meant she saw “very little” responsibility for landlords but hoped a new rent registration system would bring more accountability.

“We will continue to organize tenants into unions,” he said.

John Caletri, who represented Piooner and Sureka, wrote in an email that the firings were “expected and ultimately inevitable because the case was fundamentally flawed from the start.”

State law is clear that the Department of Health must notify lead violations and give homeowners the opportunity to resolve the problem before the attorney general files a lawsuit, and in this case, the attorney general filed the lawsuit without taking any action. Caletri wrote that “necessary actions” were taken and that no violations were pending.

How did the case begin?

The Providence Journal first began reporting on deplorable conditions at Pioneer Investment properties in 2022. Central Falls children living in Pioneer Investments apartment reportedly suffering from lead poisoningfollowed by a story Pioneer tenants living in poor conditions try to come together to get their flat repaired.

In February 2023, Tenants blamed the company Trying to force them to move out due to their work organizing other tenants to make their apartments livable.

Organizing efforts led by progressive group undo RILeading tenant organization efforts for other landlords and buildings, Including Elmwood Realty.

attorney general’s office filed his first lawsuit In June 2023. The state required Pioneer to bring its units into compliance, pay fines, provide relief to tenants and hire an independent auditor to ensure the company complies with the law.

in an interview with The Providence Journal shortly after making her complaint.Neronha said his action against Pioneer is part of his office’s commitment to be more aggressive against those who put tenants at risk in 2021.

Neronha said at the time that he wanted the civil division to “consider coming forward on behalf of Rhode Islanders as much as we consider defending the state when a lawsuit is filed.”

Why did the judge reject the case?

The remaining counts were brought to trial, Taft-Carter wrote in its decision. Lead Poisoning Prevention ActDismissed for not complying with the law allowing the attorney general to independently file lawsuits for violations and the main enforcement measure of the law administrative procedures Brought to you by the Ministry of Health.

“Clearly, the Legislature intended RIDOH to be the primary agency charged with enforcing the provisions of the LPPA.” Taft-Carter wrote.

According to court documents, there were no lead violation orders pending with the Department of Health at the time the lawsuit was filed. He wrote that the state government should “exhaust administrative remedies” before bringing lawsuit demands.

“Second, the court ruled that the Department of Health must exhaust all tools at its disposal (i.e., fines) before my office can take action. I believe this has the potential to cause real, tangible harm to the people of Rhode Island in any given situation. It is a public health concern.” Neronha wrote in his newsletter:. “Needless to say, my office stands behind the allegations in the complaint, and we will continue to vigorously pursue accountability here through appeals and other means.”

What was the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office looking for?

The lawsuit asked the court to:

Obtain an injunction to force Pioneer to obtain lead certifications showing that its units are lead resistant
Place leases in escrow for use in lead optimization
Stop advertising potentially unsafe units
To give permission independent audit of its work

Taft-Carter gave two reasons Because most of the charges were dismissed in March: The attorney general’s office has no authority to prosecute for violations under applicable state law, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not apply to tenants.

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office made allegations in this context Lead Hazard Reduction Act. According to this law, cities and towns enforcing lead violations through housing codebut that did not allow him to sue the attorney general for violations, he wrote.

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office also filed a criminal complaint Residential Landlord Tenant Act. Taft-Carter again in the attorney general’s office A lawsuit cannot be filed due to violations within the scope of this.

“There is absolutely no legal basis for a civil lawsuit filed by the Attorney General and RIDOH to enforce the (Residential Landlord Tenant Act) on behalf of disgruntled tenants in case law or the relevant legal order.” Taft-Carter wrote.

Doesn’t the Deceptive Trade Practices Act apply to tenants?

The Attorney General’s Office filed two claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. While the attorney general can sue for violations of this law, Taft-Carter wrote that the attorney general’s office cannot sue when the deceptive trade practice involves a landlord-tenant relationship because tenants are not consumers under case law.

Taft-Carter cited a 2001 case: Kelley – Cowesett HillsA situation where the landlord installed asbestos-filled tiles in an apartment after the tenant requested that the floor be repaired.

“The tenant’s request that the landlord make repairs to his apartment does not elevate the tenant to the status of a consumer entitled to compensation under the Act.” The Supreme Court wrote the following in its decision in 2001.

Taft-Carter made no distinction between the repair request and the broad issues that the attorney general’s office alleges are violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A tenant seeking repairs because of a toxic product used differs from claims made by the attorney general’s office:

Pioneer failed to maintain heating systems but was told the advertised heat was included in the rent
Not fixing water problems, including leaky roofs, burst pipes, and tubs and sinks that don’t drain
Not solving mold problems
Requiring tenants to pay additional fees for emergency plumbing work
Not providing lead descriptions
“Pioneer actively deceives prospective tenants into entering and continuing their leases by offering apartments for rent and then failing to maintain plumbing and water systems, resulting in catastrophic breakdowns and health hazards that are not timely or adequately mitigated.” According to the initial complaint.

“With all due respect to the court, we have been repeatedly disappointed with the decisions in this case and believe the court erred here for two important reasons.” Neronha wrote in his newsletter:. “The court found that Pioneer’s conduct did not violate the DTPA because the tenants were not consumers, which is both unlawful and likely seems absurd to anyone who has ever paid for a product.”

Judge: Not enough people affected by alleged misconduct

Taft-Carter also rejected a claim”homeland of parentsA doctrine that allows states to bring lawsuits on behalf of citizens in cases where “the lawsuit implicates a state’s quasi-sovereign interests in the welfare of its citizens,” according to the Legal Information Institute.

Taft-Carter wrote that there were 11 children and tenants in the home who had detectable levels of lead in their systems, including five children with lead poisoning. 175 units owned and operated by PioneerA significant enough portion of Rhode Island’s population“Allowing the Attorney General to invoke the doctrine.

At the end of the hearing in March, Keith Hoffmann, representing the state, tried to explain to Taft-Carter that they were investigating the 12th case of a child suffering from lead poisoning. The number of confirmed cases is still at 11.

“You’ve already made allegations, I think 11 or 12 kids have done this,” Taft-Carter said. he said, according to a transcript.. “It’s very sad, but this is my decision.”

Thank you to our subscribers who help make this coverage possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting quality local journalism. Providence Journal subscription. Here is our latest offer.

This report used material from past Providence Journal stories. Follow Wheeler Cowperthwaite on X, @WheelerReporter, or reach her via email [email protected].