DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

961 chars 
20 One of our dissenting colleagues characterizes this case as turning on the
“very limited issue” of “whether the specific allegations in a complaint satisfy the
plausibility pleading standard” and doubts that this is a “question of exceptional
importance” warranting rehearing en banc. Lohier, J. Dissenting Op. at 21 n.8
(quoting Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(2)) (hereinafter “Lohier Dissent”). This case raises
questions of exceptional importance because the panel’s ruling, if undisturbed,
would significantly expand landlord liability, with the probable result of
fundamentally restructuring the landlord-tenant relationship. See Note 44, post.
       21Id. at 311. Because we conclude that Francis has failed to adequately allege
that the KPM Defendants’ failure to intervene was motivated by discriminatory
intent, we need not address whether that failure constituted “adverse action”
within the meaning of McDonnell Douglas.
       22   A.28 (Complaint ¶ 63).