Panel dismisses Crooks complaint, citing lack of plaintiff and invoking Rule 6.1(b)

Chair (speaker 2) moved to dismiss a complaint brought in the Crooks matter after staff reported there had been no new contact from either the complainant or the landlord.

Moderator (speaker 1) told the panel that the tenant had moved out and that staff recommended dismissal “for lack of, you know, for lack of jurisdiction,” and asked the commissioners to consider whether the case should be dismissed.

Commissioner (speaker 4) and other commissioners agreed there had been no new information or changed circumstances. The panel voted to dismiss the case and then amended the motion to specify that the dismissal be undertaken under Rule 6.1(b), which allows summary dismissal where a complainant has vacated the unit and there are no retaliation allegations.

The roll-call as read on the record recorded unanimous support; the chair announced, “The motion passes; in that case it is dismissed.”

Why it matters: The dismissal removes the case from the panel’s active docket but leaves open the option for refiled complaints if new evidence or a claim of retaliation is later submitted. The panel’s use of Rule 6.1(b) signals it treated the lack of an active complainant and absence of retaliation claims as grounds for summary disposition.

Next steps: The panel closed the matter without prejudice to any future filings by an affected tenant or party.