Rojas v. Shelter Corporation and Kyle Didier
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01675
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Rojas v. Shelter Corporation and Kyle Didier, Judge Tunheim dismissed the two federal Fair Housing Act claims brought by tenant Marcos Isaac Rojas against his apartment management company without prejudice, and sent his remaining Minnesota state-law claims back to state court.
Tenants who believe their landlord or property management company failed to address race- or ethnicity-based harassment by other tenants may be affected by this ruling's analysis of what facts are needed to support a federal Fair Housing Act disparate-impact or retaliation claim. Pro se litigants in federal court who bring Fair Housing Act claims should note the pleading requirements discussed here.
What happened
In Rojas v. Shelter Corporation and Kyle Didier, Marcos Isaac Rojas, a tenant at an apartment complex managed by Shelter Corporation, filed suit in Minnesota state court against Shelter and its president Kyle Didier, alleging that other tenants subjected him to years of race- and ethnicity-based harassment — including being called 'that Mexican,' having his car vandalized, and being falsely accused of damaging shared laundry equipment — and that Defendants failed to address those complaints. He also alleged that Didier installed a surveillance camera pointed at his parking spot in retaliation after Rojas filed a lawsuit against him. Rojas's complaint included two claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (a federal law prohibiting housing discrimination), one claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and one claim under a Minnesota law governing employee access to personnel records.
Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss all claims. The court analyzed Rojas's two federal Fair Housing Act claims: a 'disparate impact' claim (alleging Defendants had policies that disproportionately harmed a protected minority group) and a retaliation claim. On the disparate-impact claim, the court found that Rojas did not sufficiently allege that Defendants knew about the tenant harassment incidents, failed to act on them, and that such inaction amounted to a policy or practice harming minorities. On the retaliation claim, the court found that the single vague allegation about a camera pointed at his parking spot was not enough to support a plausible claim. The court also noted that most of the alleged incidents occurred before April 2023, outside the two-year window allowed under the Fair Housing Act for filing suit.
Judge Tunheim granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the two federal Fair Housing Act claims (Counts 2 and 4) without prejudice — meaning Rojas is not permanently barred from raising those claims, though any refiling would need to satisfy the legal standards the court identified. Because the federal claims were the only basis for the federal court's jurisdiction, Judge Tunheim declined to rule on the state-law claims and instead remanded them — sent them back — to the Minnesota state court in Washington County, where the case originally started. Several other pending motions filed by both sides were denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. Shelter Corporation and Kyle Didier, Civil No. 25-1675 (JRT/EMB)
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge. **Decided:** December 30, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Marcos Isaac Rojas, proceeding pro se (representing himself without a lawyer), is a tenant at an apartment complex owned and managed by Shelter Corporation. He filed suit in Minnesota state court, Washington County, against Shelter and its president Kyle Didier. His complaint alleged a multi-year pattern of race- and ethnicity-based harassment by fellow tenants — including being called 'that Mexican,' having his car vandalized (April 2021), being accused of damaging laundry machines, and a neighbor's car allegedly attempting to hit his vehicle (June 2021). Rojas alleged that Didier and Shelter showed 'no interest' in addressing his repeated complaints. He further alleged that after he filed a prior lawsuit against Defendants, Didier retaliated by installing a camera pointed exclusively at his parking spot.
Claims
The complaint contained four counts: Count 1 — Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.09 et seq.); Count 2 — Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, disparate-impact theory; Count 3 — Minnesota Statutes §§ 181.960–181.965 (employee access to personnel records); Count 4 — FHA retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Rojas later filed amended and second amended complaints, but the court found they restated the original claims verbatim and treated the initial complaint as operative.
Removal and Procedural Posture
Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction over the FHA claims and supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367) over the state claims. Defendants then moved to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Legal Standards
The court applied the standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly — a complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a claim 'plausible on its face.' The court construed Rojas's filings liberally, as required for pro se plaintiffs under Erickson v. Pardus, while noting that pro se status does not excuse compliance with substantive law.
FHA Disparate-Impact Claim (Count 2)
A disparate-impact claim under the FHA challenges neutral policies or practices that disproportionately harm a protected minority group, without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. The court found that although Rojas alleged harassment by fellow tenants, he did not adequately allege (1) that Defendants knew about the incidents and failed to act, and (2) that such inaction rose to the level of a policy or practice with a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities. The court cited Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 860 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2017), requiring plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to make a prima facie case at the pleading stage.
FHA Retaliation Claim (Count 4)
The FHA, at 42 U.S.C. § 3617, prohibits retaliation against persons for exercising rights protected by the Act. The court found that Rojas's sole factual allegation in support of this claim — that a camera was installed pointed at his parking spot — was too vague and insufficient to support a plausible retaliation claim.
Statute of Limitations
The FHA requires suit to be filed within two years of the discriminatory housing practice. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). Because Rojas filed in April 2025, only events after April 2023 were timely. The court noted that of all the facts alleged, only the June 2024 letter's allegations fell within this window. The court acknowledged this issue but proceeded to address the merits of the FHA claims regardless.
State Law Claims (Counts 1 and 3)
With both federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remanded the case to Minnesota state court, Washington County, citing Ali v. Ramsdell, 423 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2005).
Disposition
(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART as to Counts 2 and 4 (FHA claims), dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) Defendants' motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to Counts 1 and 3. (3) Numerous other pending motions by both parties are DENIED AS MOOT. (4) The case is REMANDED to Minnesota state court, Washington County.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.