IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.

LOUIS CITY
STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. JOSHUA D. )

HAWLEY, in his official capacity as Missouri )
Attorney General, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.
v. )
) Division No.
ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, )
)
and )
)
MCCORMACK BARON MANAGEMENT, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )

PETITION

The State of Missouri, through Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley, states the following:

1. The residents of the Clinton-Peabody Housing Complex have long been forced to

live in intolerable conditions. They have faced rodent and pest infestations, substantial

accumulation of black mold, significant water damage, and numerous other serious issues. Despite

notice of these conditions and widespread public outrage, Defendants have defied Missouri law by

refusing to take appropriate remedial action. No Missourian should be forced to come home to

the conditions that Clinton-Peabody residents face each day. Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley

brings this action to vindicate the rights of the residents of the Clinton-Peabody Housing Complex

and to enforce the laws of the State of Missouri.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Joshua D. Hawley is the duly elected Attorney General of Missouri and brings this

action in his official capacity.

1
 3. The Missouri Attorney General has authority to enforce the provisions of the

Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

4. The Missouri Attorney General has authority to bring actions to abate and remedy

public nuisances.

5. The Missouri Attorney General has authority to seek equitable relief to enforce the

State’s sovereign interest in ensuring that its political subdivisions comply with Missouri law.

6. The Missouri Attorney General has authority to bring claims on behalf of residents

of housing provided by the St. Louis Housing Authority in order to protect the State’s sovereign

and quasi-sovereign interests.

7. The St. Louis Housing Authority (“Housing Authority”) is a municipal corporation

and a political subdivision and instrumentality of the State of Missouri.

8. The Housing Authority has its principal place of business in the City of St. Louis.

9. The Housing Authority owns the Clinton-Peabody Housing Complex (the

“Complex”), located near downtown St. Louis, Missouri.

10. McCormack Baron Management, Inc. (f/k/a McCormack Baron Ragan

Management Services, Inc.) (“McCormack Baron”) is a Missouri corporation having its principal

place of business in the City of St. Louis.

11. McCormack Baron serves as an agent of the Housing Authority in connection with

the Complex and serves as property manager of the Complex pursuant to a Management

Agreement executed on or about January 13, 2013.

12. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action under Article V, § 14

of the Missouri Constitution.

13. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties.

2
 14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 407.100.7, RSMo, and § 508.010,

RSMo.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The Implied Warranty of Habitability

15. The Housing Authority enters into written lease agreements with all of its tenants.

16. A true and accurate copy of the standard-form lease agreement between the

Housing Authority and residents of the Complex is attached as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by

reference herein.

17. On information and belief, the Housing Authority has entered into leases

substantially similar to Exhibit 1 with all residents of the Complex at all relevant times.

18. In the standard-form lease, among other things, the Housing Authority expressly

agrees:

a. “To maintain the dwelling unit and the [Complex] in decent, safe and

sanitary condition”;

b. “To comply with the requirements of applicable building codes, housing

codes, and HUD regulations materially affecting health and safety”; and

c. “To make necessary repairs to the dwelling unit.”

19. Under Missouri law, all residential lease agreements include an implied warranty

of habitability.

20. “[A] landlord impliedly warrants the habitability of leased residential property.”

Detling v. Edelbrock, 671 S.W.2d 265, 270 (Mo. banc 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Heins

Implement Co. v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. banc 1993).

3
 21. In particular, “a landlord warrants that the dwelling is habitable and fit for living at

the inception of the lease and that it will remain so during the entire term. The landlord warrants

that he will provide facilities and service vital to the life, health and safety of the tenant and to the

use of the premises for residential purposes.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted).

22. An unabated rodent or pest infestation in a residence breaches the implied warranty

of habitability.

23. The presence of substantial mold growth within a residence breaches the implied

warranty of habitability.

24. The unabated intrusion of water into a residence breaches the implied warranty of

habitability.

25. Applicable housing and building codes can provide additional substantive content

to the implied warranty of habitability. See Detling, 671 S.W.2d at 270.

26. St. Louis City Ordinance No. 68791, § 302.5 provides: “All structures and exterior

property shall be kept free from rodent harborage and infestation. Where rodents are found, they

shall be promptly exterminated by approved processes which will not be injurious to human health.

After extermination, proper precautions shall be taken to eliminate rodent harborage and prevent

infestation.”

27. Among other things, the St. Louis City Code provides:

a. “All buildings and structures shall be rat-stopped, freed of rats and

maintained in a rat-stopped and rat-free condition.” St. Louis City Code § 11.08.380.

b. “No owner, agent or occupant shall permit or allow any building to be

infested with rats or shall permit or allow any condition to exist in or around such building or on

4
any premises or any vacant lot which may be conducive to rat infestation.” St. Louis City Code

§ 11.08.410.

c. “Every continuing act or thing done, made, permitted, allowed or continued

on any property, public or private, by any person or legal entity, their agents or servants or any

person or legal entity who aids or abets therein, to the damage or injury of the inhabitants of the

City or a substantial part thereof, shall be deemed a public nuisance unless otherwise provided for

in this code.” St. Louis City Code § 11.58.010.

d. “All buildings, structures or premises, and all parts thereof, both existing

and new, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition.” St. Louis City Code § 105.2.5; see

also § 105.2.6 (“The owner(s) or the owner’s agent shall be responsible for the safe and sanitary

maintenance of the building, structure or premises and its means of egress facilities at all times.”).

e. “Buildings, structures or equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe,

unsanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress, facilities, inadequate light and

ventilation, or which constitutes a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the

public welfare, or which involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall

be deemed an unsafe condition.” St. Louis City Code § 116.1.

McCormack Baron Serves as Agent and Property Manager of the Housing Authority and
Is Responsible for Operating and Maintaining the Complex

28. On or about January 13, 2013, McCormack Baron entered into a Management

Agreement with the Housing Authority pursuant to which McCormack Baron agreed to become

an agent of the Housing Authority for purposes of managing and maintaining the Complex.

29. A true and accurate copy of the Management Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2

and is incorporated by reference herein.

5
 30. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, McCormack Baron assumed the duty to

operate and maintain the Complex in accordance with law, including the implied warranty of

habitability and all applicable provisions of the St. Louis City Code.

31. McCormack Baron has custody and control over the Complex as agent for the

Housing Authority.

32. Among other things, McCormack Baron agreed to the following pursuant to the

Management Agreement:

a. “maintain the Property in good repair in accordance with the Management

Plan and local codes and in a condition at all times acceptable to the Owner. This will include, but

not be limited to, cleaning, painting, decorating, plumbing, carpentry, grounds care, and such other

maintenance and repair work as may be necessary, subject to any limitations imposed by the Owner

in addition to those contained herein.”;

b. “complete preventative maintenance activities”;

c. “contract with qualified independent contractors for the maintenance and

repair of systems and for extraordinary repairs that are beyond the capability of regular

maintenance employees”;

d. “systematically receive and investigate all service requests from residents,

[and] take such action thereon as may be justified . . . Emergency requests will be received and

serviced on a 24-hour basis.”; and

e. “All deficiencies that are an emergency in nature as defined by Federal

requirements and Owner policy shall be corrected or abated within 24 hours. . . . All deficiencies

that are non-emergencies shall be corrected within 15 days or less.”

6
 33. Under the Management Agreement and its agency relationship with the Housing

Authority, McCormack Baron has assumed full control over the operation and maintenance of the

Complex, and has custody of the Complex.

Rodent and Pest Infestations Pose Serious Health Risks to Residents, Their Families, and
Their Guests

34. Infestations of residential units by rodents and other pests pose severe health risks

to residents.

35. According to a public-health treatise published by the World Health Organization,

rodents “present a great risk to human health, especially to people whose health is already

compromised. Studies show that rats and mice can be infected with a large variety of parasites

and zoonotic agents, which elevates their status from mere nuisances to public health pests. In

addition to being reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, [they] are also linked to medical problems

associated with asthma and indoor allergic reactions, which further supports the need for effective

pest management practices for controlling them.”

36. Moreover, “the awareness of rats and mice in and around a dwelling can be a source

of anxiety for its occupants. Thus, the presence of rats and mice also affect mental health.”

37. Similarly, the presence of cockroaches in a residence can cause “direct health

problems” including “allergic responses, transport of pathogenic organisms and contamination of

food.”

38. Cockroaches carry and may transmit numerous serious pathogens.

39. For example, one study found that approximately 70% of the cockroaches tested

“were contaminated with Salmonella spp., many of which were resistant to antibacterial drugs.”

40. In addition, “[n]umerous studies have shown the association between (and potential

significance of) cockroaches in lower-income households and asthma among children. [One study

7
indicates] that exposure to cockroach allergen has an important role in causing morbidity due to

asthma among inner city children.”

41. “Children allergic to cockroach allergen and exposed to high levels had a 3.4 times

higher rate of hospitalization for asthma than other children. This group also had 78% more

unscheduled visits to health care providers because of asthma. They also missed significantly

more days of school than did other children.”

The Presence of Substantial Mold Accumulation in Residential Units Poses Serious Health
Risks to Residents, Their Families, and Their Guests

42. The presence of substantial mold accumulation in residential units also poses

serious health risks to residents, their families, and their guests.

43. Medical research indicates that indoor mold accumulation may cause and/or

exacerbate a number of serious health conditions, including but not limited to acute pulmonary

hemorrhage, asthma, hemosiderosis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, extrinsic allergic alveolitis,

interstitial lung disease, upper respiratory tract irritation, and perennial allergic rhinitis.

44. In addition, indoor molds can produce and release highly toxic substances called

mycotoxins, which are associated with a variety of adverse health effects.

45. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that “[i]nfants may be

particularly susceptible to the effects of these inhaled mycotoxins because their lungs are growing

rapidly.”

46. Indoor molds can also release volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) into a

residence’s air supply.

47. VOCs are associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including respiratory

and allergic conditions.

8
Unabated Water Intrusion into Residences Poses Serious Health Risks to Residents, Their
Families, and Their Guests

48. The intrusion of water into residences, such as through unabated leaks, is associated

with numerous adverse health consequences.

49. One study found a close link between pulmonary hemorrhage and residing in homes

with chronic water intrusion. See Montana, et al., Environmental Risk Factors Associated with

Pediatric Idiopathic Pulmonary Hemorrhage and Hemosiderosis in a Cleveland Community, 99

PEDIATRICS No. 1 (1997).

50. Medical research indicates that “moisture in buildings is associated with the onset

of asthma in children and adults.” Storey, et al., GUIDANCE FOR CLINICIANS ON THE RECOGNITION

AND MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO MOLD EXPOSURE AND MOISTURE INDOORS

(2004), at 24.

51. “In recent years, there have been numerous reports in both the medical literature

and the popular media that indoor exposure to fungi or fungal toxins has caused significant disease

or death in the occupants of water damaged homes or workplaces.” Id. at 28.

The Conditions in Large Swaths of the Complex Breach the Implied Warranty of
Habitability and Constitute a Public Nuisance

52. Numerous units within the Complex have long faced serious rodent and pest

infestation problems, substantial mold problems, and numerous other issues.

53. The situation has received substantial coverage in local media outlets and has

elicited numerous resident complaints to Defendants.

54. Both the Housing Authority and McCormack Baron have had notice of these issues

for months.

9
 55. These conditions violate the implied warranty of habitability, breach the standard-

form lease, and constitute a public nuisance.

56. Defendants have failed to remedy these issues despite notice of the relevant facts.

Consumer #1

57. Consumer #1 resides at 1110 Dillon Drive, which is part of the Complex.

58. The Housing Authority owns 1110 Dillon, and McCormack Baron operates,

maintains, and has custody of 1110 Dillon.

59. Consumer #1 has entered into a lease agreement with the Housing Authority that is

substantially identical to Exhibit 1.

60. Consumer #1 resides with three minor children.

61. Consumer #1 has experienced serious and persistent rodent and cockroach

infestations.

62. Roaches are present throughout much of Consumer #1’s home, with numerous

roaches swarming in certain portions of her home.

63. Roach feces is scattered throughout her home.

64. For example, the image below reflects roach feces and a roach on the door frame

of one of Consumer #1’s closets:

10
 65. Similarly, the image below reflects roach feces, other residue, and several roaches

on the wall of Consumer #1’s home:

66. The image below reflects a number of roaches scrambling across a door in

Consumer #1’s home:

11
 67. The image below reflects numerous roaches caught by an adhesive trap—purchased

by Consumer #1 herself—in the common area of her home:

12
 68. Consumer #1 regularly sees mice in her home, and mouse feces is regularly found

within her home.

69. For example, the image below reflects mouse feces in the room of one of her

children:

70. Similarly, the image below reflects mouse feces on the shelf of one of Consumer

#1’s closets:

13
 71. Consumer #1 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

72. Defendants have failed to remedy the mouse and cockroach infestations in

Consumer #1’s home.

73. Consumer #1 has also experienced substantial mold growth in her home, in large

part because of serious and unremedied water leaks in her home.

14
 74. For example, the image below reflects water damage and mold accumulation due

to a leaking pipe under the sink of Consumer #1’s bathroom:

75. The image below reflects extensive black mold growth in the laundry room of

Consumer #1’s home:

15
 76. An unabated water leak in Consumer #1’s laundry room has caused extensive water

damage and results in the presence of standing water in her home.

77. The image below reflects water damage and rotting of the doorframe and door as a

result of that leak:

16
78. The image below reflects water damage to a wall as a result of that leak:

17
 79. Consumer #1 reported that on multiple occasions, dead birds have been found in

her dryer exhaust—presumably because there is no screen or other barrier between the exhaust

and the exterior of the home—causing a fire hazard.

80. Consumer #1 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

81. Defendants have failed to remedy the mold and water issues in Consumer #1’s

home.

82. On or about October 27, 2017, the Housing Authority was cited by the St. Louis

Department of Health for municipal code violations at 1110 Dillon due to mice infestation.

83. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Violation relating

to 1110 Dillion, which is incorporated by reference herein.

84. As described above, the conditions giving rise to the municipal code violation

continue unabated.

Consumer #2

85. Consumer #2 resides at 1108 Dillion Drive, which is part of the Complex.

86. The Housing Authority owns 1108 Dillon, and McCormack Baron operates,

maintains, and has custody of 1108 Dillon.

87. Consumer #2 has entered into a lease agreement with the Housing Authority that is

substantially identical to Exhibit 1.

88. Consumer #2 resides with two minor children.

89. Consumer #2 has experienced serious and persistent rodent-infestation problems in

her home.

18
 90. Consumer #2 regularly sees mice in her home, and mouse feces is regularly found

within her home.

91. For example, the image below reflects mouse feces found in a utility closet in

Consumer #2’s home:

92. The image below reflects mouse feces found in Consumer #2’s kitchen:

19
 93. The image below reflects mouse feces found in Consumer #2’s master bedroom,

near the window air-conditioning unit:

20
 94. The image below also reflects mouse feces found in Consumer #2’s master

bedroom:

21
 95. Mice enter Consumer #2’s home through several locations.

96. As reflected in the image below, there is a substantial gap between the bottom of

the back door and the threshold, providing easy access to Consumer #2’s apartment for mice and

other pests:

97. As reflected in the image below, there is a substantial gap between the window air-

conditioning unit and the wall, providing easy access to Consumer #2’s apartment for mice and

other pests:

22
 98. As reflected in the image below, a gaping hole in the wall near the front door of

Consumer #2’s apartment provides easy access to the apartment for mice and other pests:

23
 99. As reflected in the image below, yet another hole in the wall near the front door of

Consumer #2’s apartment provides easy access to the apartment for mice and other pests:

100. Consumer #2 has also experienced rodents entering her apartment through the floor

vents.

101. In an effort to prevent mice from entering her home through the floor vents,

Consumer #2 has been forced to stuff towels or clothes in the floor vents, as reflected in the image

below:

24
 102. Consumer #2 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

103. Defendants have failed to remedy the mouse infestation in Consumer #2’s home.

104. On or about October 13, 2017, the Housing Authority was cited by the St. Louis

Department of Health for municipal code violations at 1108 Dillon due to mice infestation.

105. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Violation relating

to 1108 Dillion, which is incorporated by reference herein.

106. As described above, the conditions giving rise to the municipal code violation

continue unabated.

Consumer #3

107. Consumer #3 resides at 1535 Castle Lane, which is part of the Complex.

108. The Housing Authority owns 1535 Castle, and McCormack Baron operates,

maintains, and has custody of 1535 Castle.

109. Consumer #3 has entered into a lease agreement with the Housing Authority that is

substantially identical to Exhibit 1.

25
 110. Consumer #3 resides with four children under the age of 13, including twins under

the age of one.

111. Consumer #3 has experienced substantial black mold growth within her home.

112. For example, the image below reflects serious black mold growth on the doorframe

of Consumer #3’s bathroom:

113. The image below reflects serious black mold growth on the floor boards of one of

the bedrooms in Consumer #3’s home:

26
 114. Consumer #3 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

115. In a recent written maintenance request, Consumer #3 pleaded with Defendants to

remedy the mold growth in her home because her “twins keep getting sick.”

116. Defendants have failed to remedy the substantial black mold accumulation in

Consumer #3’s home.

117. Consumer #3 has also experienced serious and persistent rodent-infestation

problems in her home.

118. Consumer #3 regularly sees mice in her home, and mouse feces is regularly found

within her home.

119. For example, the image below reflects mouse feces near the window air-

conditioning unit in the common area of Consumer #3’s home:

27
 120. A doctor for Consumer #3’s twins, who are under the age of one, indicated that they

“are at increased risk for developing allergies, nausea, and vomiting from all the mice urine and

feces depositing on the carpeting [of Consumer #3’s home]. They should not be staying in that

type of toxic environment.”

121. Consumer #3 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

122. Defendants have failed to remedy the mouse infestation in Consumer #3’s home.

Consumer #4

123. Consumer #4 resides at 1531 Castle Lane, which is part of the Complex.

124. The Housing Authority owns 1531 Castle, and McCormack Baron operates,

maintains, and has custody of 1531 Castle.

125. Consumer #4 has entered into a lease agreement with the Housing Authority that is

substantially identical to Exhibit 1.

126. Consumer #4 resides with three minor children.

28
 127. Consumer #4 has experienced serious and persistent rodent-infestation problems in

her home.

128. Consumer #4 regularly sees mice in her home, and mouse feces is regularly found

within her home.

129. For example, the image below reflects mouse feces in Consumer #4’s kitchen:

130. Consumer #4 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

131. Defendants have failed to remedy the mouse infestation in Consumer #4’s home.

132. Consumer #4 has experienced substantial mold growth within her home, due in part

to unremedied water leaks and water damage.

133. For example, the image below reflects substantial mold growth and water damage

under the kitchen sink of Consumer #4’s home:

29
 134. Consumer #4 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

135. Defendants have failed to remedy the mold accumulation and water leakages in

Consumer #4’s home.

136. Consumer #4 has also experienced substantial bed-bug problems in her home.

137. Consumer #4 has repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

of these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

138. Defendants have failed to remedy the bed-bug infestation in Consumer #4’s home.

139. On or about October 30, 2017, the Housing Authority was cited by the St. Louis

Department of Health for municipal code violations at 1531 Castle due to mice infestation.

140. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Violation relating

to 1531 Castle, which is incorporated by reference herein.

141. As described above, the conditions giving rise to the municipal code violation

continue unabated.

30
 Consumer #5

142. Consumer #5 currently leases 1123 S. 14th Street, which is part of the Complex.

143. The Housing Authority owns 1123 S. 14th Street, and McCormack Baron operates,

maintains, and has custody of 1123 S. 14th Street.

144. Consumer #5 has entered into a lease agreement with the Housing Authority that is

substantially identical to Exhibit 1.

145. Consumer #5 is currently pregnant, and she also lives with her three minor children.

146. Consumer #5 previously resided at 1123 S. 14th Street.

147. However, the conditions at her home became so intolerable, especially in light of

her pregnancy, that she was forced to leave her home and move in with family.

148. On the day that she decided to vacate her apartment, Consumer #5 saw five mice

on her floor upon returning home from an outing.

149. Consumer #5 experienced serious and persistent rodent-infestation problems in her

home.

150. Consumer #5 regularly saw mice in her home, and mouse feces was regularly found

within her home.

151. The image below reflects a gaping hole in the wall of Consumer #5’s kitchen,

through which mice enter and exit the room:

31
 152. The image below reflects a mouse tunnel in the wall of one of the bedrooms in

Consumer #5’s apartment:

32
 153. The image below reflects a mouse hole through the couch in Consumer #5’s

common area:

154. Consumer #5 repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority of

these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

155. Defendants failed to remedy the mouse infestation in Consumer #5’s home,

ultimately causing her to move out.

156. Consumer #5 experienced serious and persistent cockroach-infestation problems in

her home.

157. When she lived in her apartment, Consumer #5 regularly saw cockroaches

throughout the apartment.

158. For example, the image below reflects a cockroach on the toilet of Consumer #5’s

bathroom:

33
 159. The image below reflects a substantial accumulation of roach residue on a door in

Consumer #5’s apartment:

34
 160. Consumer #5 repeatedly notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority of

these issues and requested that the issues be remedied.

161. Defendants failed to remedy the roach infestation in Consumer #5’s home.

162. Consumer #5’s apartment has also sustained substantial water damage from leaking

pipes and from an explosion of the heater core of her heating unit, which in turn has contributed

to substantial black mold accumulation in the apartment.

163. The image below reflects water damage and black mold accumulation under the

sink of Consumer #5’s kitchen, caused by a leaking pipe:

164. Consumer #5 also indicated that the heater core of her heating unit exploded,

spreading a substantial amount of water into her living room.

35
 165. Although Consumer #5 notified McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority of

this issue, they initially refused to send maintenance personnel to address the problem.

166. Only after Consumer #5 contacted the Fire Department about the issue did

Defendants agree to send maintenance personnel to her unit.

The Problems Experienced by Consumers #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 Are Not Isolated Incidents
But Rather Are Illustrative of Systemic Problems at the Clinton-Peabody Complex

167. On information and belief, numerous other residents of the Complex have

experienced serious rodent, pest, mold, and water intrusion issues similar to those experienced by

Consumers #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5.

168. On information and belief, other residents of the Complex have provided notice to

Defendants of these serious and dangerous conditions, but Defendants have not appropriately and

promptly remedied these conditions.

169. When engaging in the acts and omissions described above, Defendants acted

wantonly, willfully, outrageously, and with reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions

and the welfare of the residents of the Complex.

170. At all relevant times, Defendants knew that the failure to maintain the Complex in

compliance with the implied warranty of habitability could pose substantial health risks to the

residents of the Complex, their families, and their guests.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

171. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-170 above.

172. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) prohibits “[t]he act, use or

employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,

36
misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material

fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.”

§ 407.020.1, RSMo.

173. The leasing of residential property constitutes “merchandise” within the meaning

of the statute. § 407.010(4), (6), RSMo.

174. “Unfair practices” violating the MMPA include “any practice” that “[o]ffends any

public policy as it has been established by the . . . statutes or common law of this state” and

“[p]resents a risk of, or causes, substantial injury to consumers.” 15 CSR 60-8.020.

175. By breaching the implied warranty of habitability, Defendants have engaged in

conduct that offends the common law of the State of Missouri and that presents a substantial risk

of harm to consumers.

176. “Unfair practices” violating the MMPA also include any practice that “[v]iolates

state . . . law intended to protect the public; and . . . [p]resents a risk of, or causes[,] substantial

injury to consumers.” 15 CSR 60-8.090.

177. By breaching the implied warranty of habitability, Defendants have engaged in

conduct that violates state law intended to protect the public and presents a substantial risk of harm

to consumers.

178. Thus, Defendants have engaged in unfair practices in violation of § 407.020.

179. “Fraud” violating the MMPA “includes any acts, omissions or artifices which

involve falsehood, deception, trickery, breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, and

are injurious to another or by which an undue or unconscionable advantage over another is

obtained.” 15 CSR 60-9.040(1).

37
 180. “Fraud, as used in [the MMPA,] is not limited to common law fraud or deceit and

is not limited to finite rules, but extends to the infinite variations of human invention[.]” 15 CSR

60-0.040(2).

181. In its lease with residents of the Complex, the Defendants expressly represented

that it would “maintain the dwelling unit[s] and the [Complex] in decent, safe and sanitary

condition”; “comply with the requirements of applicable building codes, housing codes, and HUD

regulations materially affecting health and safety”; and “make necessary repairs to the dwelling

unit.”

182. As described above, these representations were false.

183. Moreover, by entering into lease agreement with Complex residents, by operation

of Missouri law, Defendants represented and committed to those residents that they would

maintain the unit in a sanitary, healthy, and safe condition.

184. As described above, this representation was false.

185. By failing to comply with the implied warranty of habitability, Defendants

breached their legal and equitable duties.

186. Defendants have engaged in unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices in violation

of the MMPA.

187. When engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants acted wantonly,

willfully, outrageously, and with reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

Plaintiff awarding the State (a) an injunction requiring Defendants to repair and remediate the

conditions in the Complex to comply with the implied warranty of habitability, the standard-form

lease, and all applicable building, health, and other municipal codes; (b) restitution of rent

38
payments made in connection with apartments that did not satisfy the implied warranty of

habitability; (c) disgorgement of all monies paid to McCormack Baron in connection with any unit

at the Complex during all time periods in which that unit did not satisfy the implied warranty of

habitability; (d) all civil penalties authorized by law, including by § 407.100.6, RSMo; (e) punitive

damages; (f) costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter pursuant to § 407.130, RSMo,

and any other costs, fees, and expenses available under applicable law; and (g) such further relief

as the Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II – PUBLIC NUISANCE

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

188. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-187 above.

189. “A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the

general public.” City of St. Louis v. Varahi, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)

(quotation omitted).

190. Rights common to the public include “the public health, the public safety, the public

peace, the public comfort [and] the public convenience.” Id. (quotation omitted).

191. The conditions at the Complex pose a substantial and unreasonable threat to the

health, safety, and comfort of the public.

192. Therefore, Defendants are currently maintaining the Complex as a public nuisance.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an injunction ordering

Defendants to abate all conditions at the Complex that threaten the public health, public safety,

public peace, public comfort, and/or public convenience; and for such further relief as the Court

deems just and appropriate.

39
 COUNT III – CIVIL CONSPIRACY
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

193. Plaintiff hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-192 above.

194. McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority have entered into an express

contractual agreement regarding the maintenance, upkeep, and management of the Complex.

195. On information and belief, McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority have

communicated regarding the conditions of the Complex, including issues relating to rodent and

pest infestations at the Complex.

196. McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority have reached one or more

agreements regarding whether to conduct maintenance necessary to abate the rodent and pest

issues in the Complex and in individual units within the Complex.

197. The course of action agreed to by McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority

has resulted in systematic breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, systematic breaches of

the standard-form lease, and the creation of a public nuisance in the Complex.

198. Both McCormack Baron and the Housing Authority have engaged in acts and

omissions in furtherance of their agreement.

199. Defendants’ acts and omissions in furtherance of their agreement has caused

violations of the MMPA, the creation of a public nuisance, and serious harms on the residents of

the Complex.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

Plaintiff awarding the State (a) an injunction ordering Defendants to repair and remediate the

conditions in the Complex to comply with the standard-form lease, the implied warranty of

habitability, and all applicable building, health, and other municipal codes, and to abate all

40
conditions at the Complex that threaten the public health, public safety, public peace, public

comfort, and/or public convenience; (b) restitution of rent payments made in connection with

apartments that did not satisfy the implied warranty of habitability; (c) disgorgement of all monies

paid to McCormack Baron in connection with any unit at the Complex during all time periods in

which that unit did not satisfy the implied warranty of habitability; (d) all civil penalties authorized

by law, including by § 407.100.6, RSMo; (e) punitive damages; (f) costs of the investigation and

prosecution of this matter pursuant to § 407.130, RSMo, and any other costs, fees, and expenses

available under applicable law; and (g) such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSHUA D. HAWLEY
MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Michael Martinich-Sauter

Michael Martinich-Sauter, Mo. Bar No. 66065
General Counsel and Director of Policy
Amy Haywood, Mo. Bar No. 66555
Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection Section
Missouri Attorney General’s Office
815 Olive Street, Suite 200
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(573) 751-8145 (telephone)
(314) 340-7957 (facsimile)
michael.martinich-sauter@ago.mo.gov
amy.haywood@ago.mo.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff

41