The tenants in a St. Louis City apartment building on Union Boulevard have filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging their landlord tricked and coerced them into paying a fitness facility fee even though the gym has been closed since March.
“Plaintiffs are not suing Defendant for not keeping the fitness facility open during the pandemic but rather for making Plaintiffs bear the financial brunt of the pandemic with respect to the fitness facility by continuing to change them and the Class a monthly Fitness Facility Fee in exchange for nothing,” attorney Ronald J. Eisenberg wrote on behalf of the tenants in the complaint.
Taylor Baker, Daniel Pinto, and Dominic Vaiana sued Central West End apartments on Nov. 25 in St. Louis City Circuit Court on behalf of themselves and other tenants who live in the 400-unit building. They seek redress for being charged a mandatory $15 month fee.
“I don't see any justification for it,” Eisenberg told the St. Louis Record. “It's not the landlord's fault that there's a pandemic but they are charging money even though the fitness center is not available. That seems blatantly unjust.”
As of Dec. 3, there have been 309,368 coronavirus cases reported statewide and 4,102 fatalities, according to Missouri’s COVID-19 dashboard. In St. Louis city and county, there have been 12,690 cases and 235 deaths to date.
“The three lead plaintiffs are all very overall dissatisfied with their experience with this landlord,” Eisenberg said in an interview. “One of them said when he complained, he never got a response and that it often takes months to get a response from maintenance. An air conditioner was fixed, for example, but it still doesn't work.”
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were threatened in their leases of various cumulative consequences, including financial and otherwise, if they were to withhold payment of the monthly $15 Fitness Facility Fee.
“I haven't spoken with the landlord so I don't know how in the world they are going to justify charging somebody for a fitness center that's not available,” Eisenberg said.
The lawsuit charges violations of the Merchandising Practices Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
“We've got a very strong case,” Eisenberg added. “I don't know what defense they're going to give to say that it's okay to collect money for something that you're making people pay under threat of eviction and harm to their credit and then not have it available.”