NO.

_________________
CONNIE CASTILLO, SHEILA CIVIL DISTRICT COURT OF
HENDERSON And PAUL BLINN

v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORIAL DRIVE ELDERLY
L.P., HOUSTON HOUSING
AUTHORITY, And
TORY GUNSOLLEY ______TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

COME NOW Connie Castillo, Sheila Henderson and Paul Blinn, the Plaintiffs,

and file this Original Petition complaining of Memorial Drive Elderly LP, Houston

Housing Authority and Tory Gunsolley. For such, Plaintiffs would respectfully show

as follows:

I.
Discovery Control Plan
Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 190.3. Plaintiffs affirmatively seek both injunctive and declaratory relief in

this cause.

II.
Defendant Memorial Drive Elderly L.P.
Defendant Memorial Drive Elderly L.P. (Memorial Drive Elderly) is a Texas

limited partnership. Process may be served upon this Defendant by delivering

citation and petition upon its general partner as follows: V.J. Memorial Corp.,
General Partner, c/o Housing Authority of the City of Houston, 2640 Fountainview,

Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77057, attention Executive Director.

III.
Defendant HHA
Defendant Houston Housing Authority (HHA) is a locally established and

administered public body situated in Houston, Texas. Process may be served upon

HHA by delivering citation and petition upon its Executive Director, Tory Gunsolley,

at Houston Housing Authority, 2640 Fountainview, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77057.

IV.

Defendant Tory Gunsolley (Gunsolley) is an individual who may be found in

Harris County, Texas. This Defendant may be served at his place of work at Houston

Housing Authority, 2640 Fountainview, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77057.

V.
Plaintiff
Plaintiffs Connie Castillo, Sheila Henderson and Paul Blinn are natural persons

who have resided in Harris County, Texas, at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Service

of all pleadings, notices, discovery requests and other documents related to this cause

should be made upon Plaintiffs through their Counsel.

VI.
Preliminary Statement
This suit seeks to block the attempt by a unit of government and its co-

defendants to cancel the leases of all the elderly occupants of a high-rise housing
facility for seniors. The facts which might justify such conduct are as yet

unsubstantiated and are in dispute. Defendants contend that all of the high-rise

apartments were rendered uninhabitable by Hurricane Harvey, and the elderly

Plaintiffs contend that their apartments suffered minimal damages, if any, from that

storm.

VII.
Conditions Precedent
All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs claim for relief have been performed or

have occurred.

VIII.
Facts
2100 Memorial Senior Living Apartments (2100 Memorial) is a residential

high-rise apartment building for seniors which is located at 2100 Memorial, Houston,

Texas. Under a Land Use Restriction Agreement (the LURA) on file in the deed

records for Harris County, Texas: eleven to fifteen per cent of the apartments at 2100

Memorial must be set aside for residents with disabilities; twenty per cent of the

apartments must be occupied by households which are at, or below, 50% of the Area

Median Gross Income level; forty percent of the apartments must be occupied by

households which are at, or below, 60% of the Area Median Gross Income level; all

residents there must be at least 60 years old; and the apartment complex must be

operated in compliance with both State and Federal requirements for the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit Program.

IX.

Defendant HHA owns 2100 Memorial. This Defendant is a public housing

authority formed under Chapter 392 of the Texas Local Government Code. As such,

HHA is a unit of government and its functions are essential governmental

functions and not proprietary functions. TEX. LOCAL GOVT CODE 392.006.

As a public housing authority, HHA is also subject to all landlord obligations and

tenant remedies, other than a suit for personal injuries, as set forth in any lease or

rental agreement and in Chapters 24, 54, 91, 92, and 301 of the Property Code. Id.

X.

As the owner of the real property, Defendant HHA has a non-delegable duty

to comply with the covenants set out in the LURA. This includes the duty of

terminating a tenancy at 2100 Memorial only for good cause. As a unit of

government, HHA also has a duty to provide Plaintiffs, where practicable, with pre-

termination notice and hearing on any decision to interfere with the property interests

of its tenants at 2100 Memorial.

XI.

2100 Memorial is operated on a daily basis by Defendant Memorial Drive

Elderly, which is a limited partnership in which HHA is one of the partners.

XII.
 Defendant Gunsolley is the Executive Director of Defendant HHA (which

owns the property), and the Vice-President of V.J. Memorial Corp. (the general

partner of Defendant Memorial Drive Elderly which manages the property).

XIII.

Each Plaintiff has a current and effective lease for a residential apartment at

2100 Memorial, and each uses their leased apartment as their sole place of habitation.

Plaintiff Castillo lives in Unit 1113, Plaintiff Henderson lives in Unit 915, and Plaintiff

Blinn lives in Unit 807. Each Plaintiff also uses their leased apartment for other

residential purposes, such as a place in which to store personal property (such as pots,

pans, glassware, etc.), much of which is impervious to water and mold damage.

XIV.

On August 25, 2017, Plaintiffs were all residing in their leased homes, were all

current on their monthly rent, and all compliant with the lease in all respects.

XV.

Hurricane Harvey landed in Texas on August 25, 2017. Only the first floor of

2100 Memorial flooded, and that floor suffered extensive damage. The first floor,

however, is where the laundry room and other non-residential rooms were placed.

Nobody lived on the first floor when it flooded, and each Plaintiff resides in an

apartment which remained well above the flood waters. The Plaintiffs apartments

suffered little, or no, damage from Hurricane Harvey, and each Plaintiff continues to
live in their apartment today.

XVI.

Defendants have not filed any forcible detainer actions to evict the Plaintiffs.

Neither have they obtained a writ of possession nor any other judicial order

authorizing them to take possession of any of the Plaintiffs leased homes. Nor have

Defendants obtained any judicial authorization to remove any of the personal

property which Plaintiffs keep and maintain within their homes at 2100 Memorial.

XVII.

On the night of September 18, 2017, all of the residents at 2100 Memorial

(including the Plaintiffs in this cause) were provided a form written notice from V.J.

Memorial Corp. which was signed by Defendant Gunsolley. In that notice, Gunsolley

told each resident that the damage to the residents Apartment is so extensive the

Apartment has become as a practical matter totally unusable for residential purposes

due to health and safety reasons. Gunsolleys notice also stated that

We are therefore forced to exercise our right under Section 92.054(b)

of the Texas Property Code and Paragraph 26 of the TAA Lease Contract to
terminate the TAA Lease Contract by giving you this written notice, which will
effectively terminate your TAA Lease Contract for the Apartment on
September 23, 2017. You have until September 23, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. to
remove your possessions from the unit. If you do not remove your personal
possessions by that time, we will be forced to remove your possessions and
store them at a cost to you.
XVIII.

Plaintiffs are all currently living in their leased apartments, and are all using
their apartments for residential purposes. None of Plaintiffs homes flooded during

the Hurricane, all of the Plaintiffs have power and running water, and none of the

Plaintiffs have noticed any problems or defects which would prevent them from

continuing to live in their homes.

XIX.

Defendants have, on a daily basis, provided shifting reasons to support the

claim that the apartments are totally unusable for residential purposes due to health

and safety issues. Defendants have not yet, however, provided their residents with

any evidence to support any of the allegations of unreasonable danger which rendered

the apartments uninhabitable.

XX.

To date, neither the Plaintiffs nor any other residents have been given the

opportunity of a hearing before their leasehold interests in real property will be

canceled. The lack of such a hearing has deprived Plaintiffs of the opportunity to

require Defendants to substantiate their allegations before their leases are canceled. ,

The lack of a pre-deprivation hearing has also deprived Plaintiffs of the chance to

present any evidence to rebut Defendants reasons for cancelling the leases.

XXI.

On September 21, 2017, Defendant HHAs Board of Commissioners (the

Board) held an open meeting on the premises of 2100 Memorial. Shortly before
that meeting commenced, Plaintiffs served a demand letter upon the Board which,

among other things, demanded an opportunity to invoke a hearing process before

HHA terminated the leases at 2100 Memorial.

XXII.

During the Board meeting on September 21st, Defendant Gunsolley announced

that HHA had already made a final determination to cancel all of the leases at 2100

Memorial. Gunsolley declined to respond to a subsequent question from the

audience as to why the residents were not provided a prior opportunity to meet with

HHA and to contest the planned lease cancellations. After hearing this exchange, the

Board voted to seek funding from FEMA to assist in removing all of the residents of

2100 Memorial following the termination of the residents leases. Through such

conduct, the Board ratified the conduct of canceling all of the leases at 2100 Memorial

without a pre-deprivation hearing because of alleged damage caused by Hurricane

Harvey.

XXIII.
Harm To Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs stand to suffer the imminent loss of valuable due process rights. By

virtue of a written lease, each Plaintiff has a leasehold interest in real property owned

by Defendant HHA, which is a unit of government. HHA and its co-defendants

intend to deprive Plaintiffs of those leaseholds (which are cognizable property

interests) without the opportunity of a pre-deprivation hearing. Such conduct violates

the guarantee of the due course of law under the Texas Constitution, and the promise

of due process of law under the Constitution of the United States of America.

XXIV.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are facing imminent harm from threatened conduct

which Defendants have not yet established to be lawful. Defendants rely upon

Section 92.054(b) of the Texas Property Code as their legal justification for canceling

Plaintiffs leases. This Section, however, only allows a lease to be canceled if, because

of a casualty loss, the leased premises has been rendered completely unusable for

residential purposes. Defendants threat to cancel Plaintiffs leases is based upon

alleged facts which Plaintiffs dispute, which Defendants have not yet substantiated,

and which, unless proven, cannot support the lawful termination of Plaintiffs leases.

In short, Plaintiffs face the imminent cancellation of their right to continue living in

their leased homes because of disputed facts, and they stand to be harmed without

any showing of a lawful reason for making them move. Because of Plaintiffs age and

health, they can neither easily move, nor can they easily find alternative housing if they

are involuntarily displaced. The consequences of forcing these seniors to relocate

could well be perilous, and will foreseeably have adverse consequences beyond mere

inconvenience.

XXV.
Count 1: Declaratory Relief
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that under the guarantee
of the due course of law promised by the Texas Constitution, and the guarantee of

due process rights promised by the Constitution of the United States of America,

Defendants may not terminate a lease in government owned housing unless and until

the lessee has first been given an opportunity for a pre-deprivation hearing in which

to contest the proposed termination. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration as to whether

Defendants have an adequate factual basis to terminate their leases under Section

92.054(b) of the Texas Property Code because of damages caused by Hurricane

Harvey. Plaintiffs seek additional declaratory relief that Defendants may not avail

themselves of self-help remedies of permanently locking them out of their

apartments, or of removing their personal property from the premises, unless and

until Defendants first seek judicial authorization to do so.

XXVI.
Count 2: Injunctive Relief
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction which

bars Defendants from canceling their leases pursuant to Section 92.054(b) of the

Texas Property Code unless and until Defendants first obtain a judicial finding that a

casualty loss related to Hurricane Harvey rendered the Plaintiffs apartments

completely unusable for residential purposes. Plaintiffs also seek a judgment which

permanently enjoins Defendants from availing themselves of the self-help remedies of

permanently locking Plaintiffs out of their apartments, and of removing Plaintiffs

personal property from the premises, unless and until Defendants first seek judicial
authorization to do so. Without such injunctive relieve, Plaintiffs stand to lose

valuable rights and to incur damages for which they cannot be adequately

compensated.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants

be cited to appear and answer, and upon the trial of this cause, the Court enter
judgment for each Plaintiff that grants the following relief:
a) The declaratory relief requested above;
b) The injunctive relief requested above; and
c) The Plaintiffs costs of court.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Mark J. Grandich__

Mark J. Grandich
(713) 652-0077, ext. 1251
State Bar No. 08294850
__/s/ Richard Tomlinson__
Richard Tomlinson
(713) 652-0077, ext. 1154
State Bar No. 20123500
Lone Star Legal Aid
1415Fannin, Third Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Fax (713) 652-3814
mgrandich@lonestarlegal.org
rtomlinson@lonestarlegal.org

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF