Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Rights Class Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court considers whether tenant can press class claims over security-deposit practices in Tatulli v. AvalonBay
Summary
The Appeals Court considered whether a tenant who sued AvalonBay over security-deposit deductions should have been allowed to pursue class claims based on the landlord’s preprinted move-in and move-out forms and account handling.
The Appeals Court heard argument in Tatulli v. AvalonBay Communities on whether the motion judge abused discretion in denying class certification in a security-deposit dispute.
Plaintiff Margaret Tatulli’s counsel, Walter Jacobs, said AvalonBay used preprinted move-in/move-out and inspection forms that authorized routine cleaning and painting charges rather than limiting deductions to tenant-caused damage. Jacobs said the forms and a Bank of America records request showed security deposits were held in a corporate account and that individual suits were impractical because the likely damages per tenant were small. He argued the judge should have allowed limited class discovery or certified the class so other tenants could seek redress.
AvalonBay’s attorney, Steven While, urged the court to affirm. He told the panel that the plaintiffs largely failed to pursue class discovery over several years, never moved to compel, and presented no evidence other than the named plaintiff’s experience to show numerosity or typicality. He cited a recent decision, Henry v. Bizzuto Management, as on point where forms alone did not support class certification without evidentiary support that other tenants shared the same harms.
The judges pressed both sides about the procedural record: whether the plaintiff had sought limited class discovery before the class-certification hearing, whether the denial of class discovery was preserved in the record, and whether a four- or five-year gap between filing and the class-certification ruling prejudiced the defendant. The trial court’s ruling on the merits later found individualized issues about actual cleaning needs and did not accept every form-driven claim.
Why it matters: the appeal turns on how much class-based discovery plaintiffs must secure before a judge can meaningfully evaluate numerosity, commonality and typicality when the alleged wrongdoing is a landlord’s routine forms and assessment practices. The case was argued and submitted for decision.
