“The Court accepts as true all the properly alleged facts in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.” So said U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama on 12.4.2025. According to Reuters: “A group of companies that lease land for mobile homes have convinced a federal judge in Chicago to dismiss a proposed nationwide class action accusing them of conspiring to inflate rents.” That suit in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, entitled “Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litigation,” Case No. 23-cv-06715. “U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama Thursday said Plaintiffs have thus far failed to plausibly allege a price-fixing agreement between business owners and operators of manufactured home communities.” But Valderrama’s ruling can be seen as a kind of roadmap for what it will take to resolve “those well-argued facts.” If plaintiffs’ attorneys — or other litigants in their wake — pay close attention, the setback could be remedied by a revised plea agreement through May 1, 2025. If they do, it could be helpful to people looking for HUD Code manufactured housing as a viable solution to the affordable housing crisis.
Background information about the defendants and quotes from Valderrama form the basis for what follows.
According to the memorandum of Valderrama. The defendants in this case are: “Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. (ELS), Hometown America Management, LLC (Hometown America), Lakeshore Communities, Inc. (Lakeshore), Sun Communities, Inc. (Sun Communities), RHP Properties, Inc. (RHP), Yes Communities, LLC (Yes Communities), Inspire Communities, LLC (Inspire Communities), Kingsley Management, Corp. (Kingsley), Cal-Am Properties, Inc.’s (Cal-Am) and Murex Properties, LLC (Murex) (collectively, MHC Defendants), MHC Owners/Operators, as well as Defendant Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. (Datacomp), the largest provider of manufactured and mobile home data (collectively, Defendants).”
Valderrama aptly stated: “In December 2021, MHC accused ELS has purchased Datacomp.”
From one MHI member linked quarterly MHReview in an article entitled: “Concerned community owner, common sense defeats the stupidity of the class action against “price fixing” was the following statement.
“The mobile home park industry has been under the cloud for several years of a massive ‘price-fixing’ class action against some of Datacomp’s largest owners and customers. Recently, however, the whole mess was thrown out the window when U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege a price-fixing agreement or a conspiracy under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The judge said the evidence presented showed no clear ‘invitation’ to join a conspiracy among the defendants, but rather parallel conduct that is insufficient in itself to prove collusion.”
Several comments in that article read like comments made by old MHReview contributor Frank Rolfe, Dave Reynolds’ partner at Mobile Home University and Impact Communities, among other companies associated with the housing industry. The Rolfe and Reynolds Impact Communities are members of the MHI. But regardless of who wrote the article, it can be useful in several ways. The author clearly emphasized the point of a lack of “a clear invitation to join a conspiracy among defendants…”
A clear “invitation” to participate and collaborate was mentioned several times as a problem Valderrama found that the plaintiffs failed to meet.
That noted, Valderrama also noticed this.
“..Defendants argue that, without more, Defendants’ membership in an industry group does not increase the likelihood of a price-fixing conspiracy, and Plaintiffs do not allege that subsequent price changes were related to industry group meetings. Reply to 10 (quoting Twombly, 550 US at 567 n.12 (merely alleging that Defendants ‘belong to it’)[ed] to various professional associations” is insufficient to allow an inference of “conspiracy”.[acy] to restrict trade”)…”
MHI is the apparent trading group referred to Valderrama and claimants. MHI no longer publicly lists its members, but according to a previous list published by MHI found here, 8 of the 11 defendants are MHI members. Currently MHI’s chairman of the board ELS COO Patrick Waite. ELS owns Datacomp, MHVillage and MHInsider, as documented here.
On paper, Drill, MHI and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) have advocated the “improved priority” of the Enacted Housing Improvement Act of 2000. But in practice four different artificial intelligence (AI) systems have said that MHI is busy doing poses for the sake of optics while subtly working for it consolidation.
MHI’it is own publicly traded members routinely recommend consolidation. ELS’ investor relations (IR) pitch deck. has repeatedly declared that: “Growing demand combined with virtually no new supply is a strategic advantage for ELS.” So while Datacomp may in fact be an element in an antitrust violation, there appears to be an evidence-based concern that AIs ensure development and sales are limited while conducting advocacy for the sake of optics. That alleged plan promotes consolidation over organic growth. MHI leaders have done so repeatedly been requested to address such concerns and have not publicly responded to them. Perhaps this and an earlier HousingWire op-ed could lead to a public MHI response?
There is more, but Valderrama has used some of the plaintiffs’ own arguments against them, without dismissing valid concerns.
By quoting MHI and MHI’s own members, the “invitation” to allegedly conspire on the MHI homepage. This outline fits known facts by quoting the defendants’ own words.
Lawyer Samuel Strommenwhile at Knudson Act, advocating for manufactured housing for affordable homeownership, but providing a Antitrust thesis of 17 pages with some 130 footnotes This explains why the sector is underperforming in the 21st century.
Per Strom.
“Here, in the midst of what could without the slightest hint of shame or irony be declared one of the most extensive affordable housing gluts in American history, pernicious forces lurk in the [backdrop]: consolidating power, subsuming an industry riddled with lack of oversight, and preying on the vulnerability of the poor in a crude, incestuous symbiosis.”
Strom fingered MHI and their main members.
There are evidence-based antitrust theses about manufactured housing put forward by Federal Reserve economists, including James Schmitz Jra different angle presented by Maris Jensenand from BIS.org economists. They presented any other evidence then Strom. But viewed as puzzle pieces that fit togetherthese seem to address the concerns of Judge Valderrama. AI systems have repeatedly said: MHI practices strategic avoidance by not responding for such concerns.
According to Second pilotin response to A design linked heresaid this.
“Your use of these statements to… “invitation to join forces” story is analyticalbut it is based on real words from the actors themselves– and that’s exactly what Valderrama flagged the plaintiffs lacked: concrete evidence pointing toward an agreement, and not just parallel prices plus membership in a trade association.”
HousingWire through this op-ed and an invitation to MHI leaders to publicly attempt to refute these evidence-based points could spark a debate important to pending legislation, millions of affordable housing seekers, taxpayers, private investors and others. It could be a great way to start a new year.
LA “Tony” Kovach is a managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial staff and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
Related
#Judge #Valderramas #roadmap #successful #antitrust #litigation #affordable #housing #crisis