Information on the class action lawsuit against Brooksdale corporate housing can be obtained from the Georgia Attorney General’s Office and also obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further details on the class action lawsuit against Brooksdale are as follows:
Class Action Lawsuit Against Brokedale
In November of 2021, the United States Attorneys General announced the intention to file a lawsuit against the Brooksdale senior living facility for failing to implement the most serious of standards with regard to its most important housing units. Subsequently, in January, 2021, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of residents of Brooksdale who had sustained injuries as a result of the neglect of this facility.
On July 5th of that year, the United States Attorneys General stated that there were four additional victims who had died as a result of the same negligence that had been committed by Brooksdale. At that time, no final decisions had been made regarding the class action lawsuit against Brooksdale. On October 8th of the same year, it was reported that the United States Attorneys General had filed additional charges against the Brooksdale management companies and planned to announce final decisions regarding the remaining occupants of the above-mentioned senior living facility as soon as possible.
Pursuant to the United States Attorneys General’s intent to bring the matter before the courts, on January 5th, the defendants filed an answer in opposition to plaintiffs’ claim that they had been subject to a purposeful chronically insufficient staffing decision in violation of FHA safety standards.
According to the answer, Brooksdale maintained that it did not experience any understanding of persons or their inability to hire new employees, but rather received applications from persons wishing to move into the facility. As a result of this, plaintiffs were not able to meet all of the deadlines with respect to obtaining at-grade, low vacancy positions.
The Brooksdale management Companies further explained that its goal throughout the duration of its existence in business had been to carefully adhere to all of the applicable regulations and to fill every vacancy that was created by personnel transitions as required by FHA policy. These actions, they claimed, were in compliance with FHA policies requiring stability in its work force.
Plaintiffs contend that the United States Attorneys General has a duty to bring the matter to trial because they have a duty to protect the citizens of the State of Florida from foreseeable or impending dangers.
The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim on this basis, reasoning that plaintiffs waived the right to bring the lawsuit at that point because of their success in securing an award of damages in the prior case.
While noting that the Florida court’s reasoning was legally incorrect, the Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. In light of this court’s conclusion, the plaintiffs are now left with only one option: to pursue a different venue for filing their lawsuit.
On a further note, it is also worth noting that there are numerous class action lawsuit claims being pursued by other insurance providers against the defendants of thebrookdale mismanagement policy.
Many of these lawsuits have been brought against brokers and underwriters of the FHA loans that were sold in the Brookdale mismanaged mortgage deal.
Other class action lawsuit claims are being pursued by individual homeowners that are experiencing financial hardships as a direct result of the defendants’ predatory lending program. While the defendants in the case of the Brookdale mismanaged mortgage policy, failed to heed the warnings of their underwriters, they apparently were not able to heed the warnings of their own agents.
For their part, the defendants argue that they were properly notified of deficiencies in the FHA’s loan qualification guidelines, that the lead plaintiff failed to make her timely claims, and that she failed to preserve evidence of these deficiencies.
In support of this argument, the defendants point to the district court’s finding that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Alternatively, the defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they failed to establish a likelihood of relief from the defendants’ mischaracterization of the risks inherent in the FHA loan program. While these defenses may be appropriate, it is not clear that these defenses would apply to a claim that involved the defendants’ deliberate or inaccurate drafting of the FHA’s loan qualification guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint.
