Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A new lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a resident at Lugar Tower Apartments demanding that professional security be restored at the facility during daytime hours to protect residents.
Indiana Legal Services and Fran Quigley, director of the Health and Human Rights Clinic at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, are seeking a temporary restraining order against the Indianapolis Housing Agency, Lugar LP and Bradley Company on the behalf of Sandra Barnes, a Lugar Tower resident who brought a previous case in April against the landlords over the facility’s living conditions.
The TRO motion filed on Tuesday requested immediate restoration of professional security to protect the residents of Lugar Tower.
According to the complaint — Sandra Barnes v. Indianapolis Housing Agency, Lugar LP, Bradley Company LLC, 49D01-2311-PL-044275 — there have been 525 dispatches of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to the location of Lugar Tower. The dispatches include assaults, burglaries-in-progress and dead bodies being found.
Part of the settlement agreement that came from a previous lawsuit was to commit to safe conditions and a reasonable security presence at Lugar Tower to improve the residence.
Marion Superior Judge John Hanley granted the parties’ mutual request to dismiss the claims on Nov. 2.
The next day, Barnes and other residents of Lugar Tower learned the landlords planned to eliminate weekday daytime security Monday-Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The complaint states that on or about Nov. 6, the defendants withdrew daytime security from Lugar Tower.
“Within days of the Indianapolis Housing Agency signing a settlement agreement, our client brought forward new safety concerns because the landlord withdrew daytime security services. The law and the agreement with IHA require them to provide a ‘reasonable security presence.’ Renters have the right to feel safe and protected in their own homes, so we are making sure their landlord adheres to their responsibilities,” Jodi Velasco, with Indiana Legal Services, and Quigley said in a joint statement.
The complaint alleges breach of lease, warranty of habitability, covenant for quiet enjoyment, and settlement agreement.
It also requests a jury trial, as well as an order for the defendants to permanently remedy the safety and habitability issues at Lugar Tower and maintain continuing jurisdiction to monitor compliance with its orders.
“The Defendants’ actions constitute a breach, unremedied after notice, of the Settlement Agreement between Defendants Lugar LP and Bradley Company and Ms. Barnes,” the complaint states.
Barnes is also requesting award of damages for breach of her lease, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quite enjoyment and breach of her settlement agreement.
The defendants objected to the complaint on Wednesday, stating Barnes is not entitled to extraordinary relief.
The first argument the defendants make is that they have no obligation to provide 24/7 security at Lugar Tower and have not breached the agreement, and therefore Barnes failed to demonstrate the required elements for a temporary restraining order.
“Further, the alleged injury to Plaintiff does not outweigh the potential harm to Defendants if Plaintiff’s Motion is granted. In fact, Plaintiff has not alleged any injury. She has alleged that the front desk of area of Lugar Tower has been empty at various times but does not explain how the front desk area being empty at a single point in time has or will cause her injury, or any details of this alleged situation, including how long the front desk area was allegedly ‘empty,’” the objection states.
The defendants also argue that a bond is necessary to protect them from any wrongful restraint or injunction.
“To the extent that this Court is inclined to grant a temporary restraining order, Defendants request that Plaintiff be required to post a bond. A bond will ensure that Defendants are compensated for any injury if an injunction is entered in error and Plaintiff does not prevail on the merits,” the objection states.
The defendants are requesting a bond of at least $52,000, which it alleges is the approximate amount of money they would spend annually to provide two security guards at Lugar Tower on the weekdays.
Barnes responded to the objection, stating the allegations of “significant financial hardship” that would be caused by reinstating daytime security at Lugar Tower, and “no money available” to do so, are not a defense to the mandates of her lease, Indiana’s statutory warranty of habitability, Indiana law’s covenant for quiet enjoyment nor the parties’ settlement agreement.
The response also states that the objection’s allegations are not credible.
“The Defendants are arguing to this Court that just $1,000 weekly to discharge their duty to keep its residents safe suddenly became beyond their means as soon as the litigation under Cause No. 49D12-2308-MI-031784 was dismissed. For that argument to be fully evaluated, Defendants should provide this Court with information about the Indianapolis Housing Agency’s overall budget, including expenditures under contracts provided to Bradley Company and others providing professional services to the Agency,” the response states.
The response further states that the defendants reported aspirations to improve security are not a defense to the mandates or Barnes’ lease, Indiana’s statutory warranty of habitability, Indiana law’s required covenant for quiet enjoyment nor the settlement agreement.
“Needless to say, vague plans do not rise to the level of providing Ms. Barnes and other Lugar Tower residents with the safe living conditions they are entitled to under law and contract — and which were provided by the Defendants until November 6th, two (2) business days after the dismissal of residents’ claims under Cause Number 49D12-2308-MI-031784,” the response states. “Of course, the alleged ‘pleased with the progress’ feelings of an unnamed HUD representative do not constitute a defense to Defendants’ legal obligations either.”
Next, the response states that the allegation of a lack of reported security incidents in the weekdays that have passed without professional security does not relieve them of their duties.
“It appears that Defendants are arguing that Lugar Tower residents, all of whom are seniors and/or living with disabilities, must first be victimized by a criminal and even violent act — an event that Ms. Barnes has demonstrated has occurred dozens of times in recent years on Lugar Tower property — in order for the Court to justify ordering the Defendants to reinstate the security they felt was important — and affordable — for the entire duration that the residents’ litigation was pending under Cause No. 49D12-2308-MI-031784,” the response states.
Lastly, the response argues that the defendants’ request for Barnes to post a $52,000 bond is unjustified.
“Defendants are all organizations with multi-million dollar annual budgets, revenue they have accumulated by providing housing for low-income persons. In Lugar Tower, each of the residents are not only low-income persons, they are also seniors and/or are living with disabilities,” the response states. “The Defendants are aware that Ms. Barnes is herself a senior and living with significant health issues. Asking this Court to force Ms. Barnes to post a $52,000 bond is unjustified, given the Defendants’ resources and lack of significant consequence of the very minimal order requested of this Court. This request smacks of attempted retaliation by the Defendants against one of their residents for exercising her right to seek relief in our state’s courts.”
Indiana Lawyer reached out to the defendants’ attorney for comment.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.