Small-Claims Cases Spark Protest, Settlement Talk

A state court magistrate agreed to continue two back-rent court cases in order to give a local landlord time to try to reach a settlement with her former tenants.

That was the outcome of two brief, procedural remote hearings on Wednesday in the small claims cases 264 Huntington LLC v. Francisco Mendez Perez and 264 Huntington LLC v. Honorio Ramirez.

Both hearings took place via the court’s Microsoft Teams Meeting video-streaming service, and included a discussion sparked by the magistrate about whether the media should be permitted to write about public court proceedings.

The plaintiff in both cases is a holding company controlled by local landlord, state economic development official, and city zoning board commissioner Alexandra Daum.

Her company is seeking $5,000 from Ramirez and $3,845 from Mendez Perez in a bid to try to collect a portion of the debts she claims they owe for months and months of rent-free living in a house she upgraded during the pandemic.

Ramirez and Mendez Perez have pushed to have the small claims cases dropped. They argue that they and their families haven’t lived in the house for nearly two years; they both fell behind on rent in the early months of a global pandemic; and the amounts sought by their former landlord pale in comparison to the profits she has made buying, fixing up, and flipping houses during the pandemic. 

The hearing took place one day after the Independent first ran this detailed article about the cases. It also was held one day after nearly 20 members of the immigrant rights group Unidad Latina en Accion held a protest outside of one of Daum’s downtown properties, announcing the formation of a new tenant union and calling on the landlord to drop the longstanding small claims lawsuits against Ramirez and Mendez Perez.

Neither side got a chance to grapple with the substance of the small claims cases during Wednesday’s remote court hearing.

Rather, at the request of plaintiff’s attorney Ori Spiegel, State Superior Court Magistrate Ann Stone — a former city Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) commissioner whose time on the board briefly overlapped with Daum’s — agreed to continue both matters ​“for a short continuance.” She did so in order to give the landlord and the tenants time to try to settle the case.

“We believe firmly that a settled judgment is much better than” having a magistrate or judge determine the outcome of a case, Stone said to Spiegel. ​“I’m inclined to allow your continuance.”

She then turned virtually to Perez and Ramirez, who were sitting in the same court room to watch the case. Stone asked the court’s Spanish-language interpreter to relay the following message to the defendants: ​“The plaintiff’s attorney thinks that he can settle the case for you, so that’s what’s going to happen with both of these cases.”

Stone did not set a new court date during Wednesday’s hearing for when the two small claims cases should return to her. When asking for a continuance, Spiegel did request between two weeks and a month to give his client time to reach a settlement.

No Estas Solo

On Tuesday afternoon, 20 people gathered outside of one of Daum’s properties on Trumbull Street for an hour-long protest hosted by ULA and focused on the two small-claims lawsuits. 

ULA leader John Lugo criticized Daum’s company’s bid to raise the long-time Huntington Street tenants’ rents from around $1,000 to $1,400 per month. He argued that the landlord didn’t give the tenants a chance to stay, and that she is contributing to the gentrification of the neighborhood. (In this article, Daum details her efforts to keep the Huntington Street tenants in place at a higher rent or to forgive their rental arrears if they left by a certain time. She also spoke about her successful negotiations with other tenants, including one who is also a Mexican immigrant, just like Mendez Perez and Ramirez. And she argued that the increased values of her properties are commensurate to the health, safety, and convenience improvements that her company invests in at these buildings.) 

Mendez Perez and his wife Anolia and three daughters Michelle, 8, Iens, 5, and Brenda, 2, joined Tuesday’s protest on Trumbull Street. 

Mendez Perez held up a sign reading ​“Poor people demand justice” alongside his daughters as passing by cars and walkers honked and cheered in support.

As he took the microphone, he recalled living in the Huntington Street home for 11 years with his family. He said that since moving to an apartment on Rosette Street in the Hill, he has seen and heard of frequent shootings and assaults in his new neighborhood. He said it continues to be a painful process for his kids, especially his oldest Michelle, who he said is always asking him ​“When are we going back?” and ​“Why did we have to leave our house?”

“It’s not my fault that I couldn’t pay the rent,” Mendez Perez said. ​“Because of the pandemic there was no work.” He said the little money he was making he had to use to buy food and pay other bills.

Also on Tuesday, Lugo announced the launch of ULA’s new tenants union, called Tenants Unidos. The union will work to seek justice for immigrant tenants in the city who are living in dangerous conditions, who are threatened with eviction, and who are priced out of their homes.

Lugo added that the union is needed because the city and state lack in offering assistance to residents in such situations.

“Everyday people are coming to us at ULA [and saying], ​‘The landlord is raising my rent. What do I do?’” ULA coordinator of advocacy and partnerships Megan Fountain said. They’re saying: ​“The landlord is evicting me. What do I do?”

During the rally, the group chanted:

Tenants United…will never be defeated

No estas solo (“You are not alone”)

and El pueblo unido jamás será vencido (Spanish for: ​“The people united will never be defeated”).

"The Media Is Entitled To Be Here"

While the magistrate, attorney, and tenants did not discuss the substance of the two small claims lawsuits during Wednesday’s brief hearing, Stone and Spiegel did have a back and forth about the public access to the public court hearing.

Before agreeing to the continuance and adjourning the case for the day, Stone asked Spiegel if he and his client were OK with the Independent watching the public hearing and writing a story about it. 

Per state court protocol, this reporter had requested permission in advance of Wednesday’s public hearing to photograph the small claims case proceedings. In civil court cases, judges typically ask both the plaintiff and the defendant if they have any compelling objections to a reporter taking photographs during a hearing. If the judge decides there is a compelling reason to not permit ​“electronic coverage” of a proceeding, then that judge can turn down the photo request.

However, a reporter — or any other member of the public — needs no such permission from the court to attend a public hearing. And a reporter needs no permission from the court, let alone from the plaintiff’s attorney, to write a story about a public court hearing.

Spiegel took a minute to consult his client. When he turned back on his camera and returned to the virtual proceeding, he asked Stone ​“respectfully” to not allow the Independent to attend or write about the hearing.

Stone ultimately overruled his objection, and allowed the Independent to stay in the virtual room. 

“This is a public hearing,” she said. ​“The media is entitled to be here. … My feeling is that the New Haven Independent will be able to come into all the proceedings in this matter. I don’t see any compelling reason to stop them from doing that.”

“Understood, your honor,” Spiegel replied.