Latest news with #AngelKelley
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
2 counts dismissed in eviction fee lawsuit involving Greystar entity
This story was originally published on Multifamily Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Multifamily Dive newsletter. A judge has dismissed two of the four counts filed against the owner and Greystar-affiliated operator of The Eddy, a Boston multifamily property, in a class action lawsuit from two residents who alleged the companies assessed illegal fees related to eviction proceedings. The defendants in the case, filed in Massachusetts District Court on Nov. 29, 2023, include New York City-based GREP Atlantic LLC, an entity of Charleston, South Carolina-based multifamily firm Greystar, and Eddy Owner LLC, the property's owner, according to court documents. On Sept. 12, 2022, the plaintiffs entered a lease at The Eddy, which at the time was owned by East Boston, Massachusetts-based GEGC 2 New Street LLC, a party not named in the lawsuit. On Jan. 13, 2023, GREP and GEGC started eviction proceedings against the plaintiffs for nonpayment of rent, according to court documents. While the case was pending, the defendants assessed 'eviction/legal recovery' fees against the tenants for a total of $652. The eviction was voluntarily dismissed by GREP and GEGC in May 2023, but the charges remained on the account, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs paid the fees to avoid eviction, and were allegedly later given a $490 credit, which did not cover the full amount of the fees. At the time the fees were charged, no court had entered a judgment in the case, no legal fees or costs had been assessed and GREP had not filed a petition for attorneys' fees with the court, according to court documents. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by assessing legal fees without any guarantee that they would be legally due, deceiving renters in the process. They also filed the case as a class action lawsuit, including any other renters who may have been assessed fees in this way, and demanded an award of $5 million, according to the civil docket. Neither Greystar nor Eddy Owner's legal representation responded to requests for comment from Multifamily Dive. On March 21, following a motion to dismiss the case from GREP and Eddy Owner, District Judge Angel Kelley denied Count II, in which the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had unjustly enriched themselves with the fee assessments, and Count III, a claim of negligent misrepresentation. '[The] plaintiffs' argument presumes their own interpretation of law to be the correct and prevailing one,' Kelley wrote. 'Conversely, [the] defendants assert their own legal interpretation as basis for the assessments — something they were forthcoming about in their communications with Plaintiffs. … Because the legality of the issue remains unsettled, there is no version of events in which it would be appropriate to characterize defendants' representations regarding the assessment of fees as 'false information.'' However, Kelley upheld Count I — the MCPA violation — and Count IV, a petition for declaratory relief. The court also denied the defendants' allegation that the case was entirely moot since GREP and Eddy Owner had refunded the fees. 'Defendants' reimbursement does not represent full relief to render the action moot,' Kelley said. Case proceedings are ongoing and no trial date has been set, according to the court docket. This case is one of a number involving the country's largest housing owner and operator, which owns or operates almost 1 million multifamily units in the U.S. alone. The Washington state attorney general recently sued Greystar, eight other landlords and Richardson, Texas-based apartment software provider RealPage, alleging that RealPage's revenue management software allowed housing providers to share nonpublic data and raise rent prices. The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Colorado have also sued Greystar for allegedly deceiving consumers about monthly rent costs by adding mandatory fees on top of advertised prices. This complaint, submitted four days before the end of the Biden administration, is listed as pending on the FTC website. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Cuts to NIH research funding blocked nationwide after lawsuit from Oregon, 21 other states
A federal judge has paused cuts to health funding nationwide in response to a lawsuit filed by Oregon and 21 other states against the Trump administration. Universities and Democratic-led states warned the cuts would lead to layoffs, lab closures and a curtailment of scientific and medical studies. The injunction, ordered by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, means the funding caps cannot be implemented while the lawsuit is ongoing. The caps would limit the reimbursement rate for indirect costs to 15%. According to the initial lawsuit, Oregon Health and Science University had an agreed upon reimbursement rate for those costs of 56%. The cuts would save more than $4 billion per year, the National Institutes of Health said in a post on X. The post also said that of $35 billion in grants distributed by NIH last year, $9 billion went to indirect costs. 'This is a big win for science and public health,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. 'The Trump administration's cuts would have hurt research that's vital to our future, and we're glad the court stepped in to stop that. We will keep fighting to make sure that lifesaving and life-changing medical research and innovation aren't held back by reckless decisions driven by politics.' The policy was "a unilateral change over a weekend, without regard for on-going research and clinical trials," Kelley said. This created an "imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care," she added. A U.S. Justice Department lawyer during a Feb. 21 court hearing described the NIH post as a "misunderstanding of what the guidance does," saying the money would not be saved but redirected to funding new research grants, according to Reuters. OHSU received $277 million in NIH funding last year, including indirect costs, a spokesperson said. Those indirect costs went toward things like utilities and facilities. The University of Oregon received about $162 million in research funding from federal sources for fiscal year 2024. NIH funds made up about $56.7 million, or around 35%, of the federal funding. "The bottom line is that university research is absolutely critical to our society and to the economy — not for any one group but for everyone," said Anshuman 'AR' Razdan, the University of Oregon's vice president for research and innovation. Oregon State University spokesperson Rob Odom said NIH is a valued research partner and any "across-the-board reduction in funding threatens research advances of the utmost importance to Oregon, the nation and the world.' USA TODAY and Reuters contributed to this story. Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@ or 971-208-5615. This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Cuts to NIH medical research funding paused after Oregon lawsuit
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Biden-nominated federal judge extends hold on Trump NIH research funding cuts
A federal judge has further blocked the National Institutes of Health from implementing a policy to crackdown on how much money it doles out for indirect costs associated with grants it awards. NIH announced a plan last month to set the rate at 15% across the board. "The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead. NIH is accordingly imposing a standard indirect cost rate on all grants of 15% pursuant to its 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c) authority," the NIH explained in a notice last month. Scientists Expect Major 'Medical Breakthroughs' Despite Trump's Cap On Nih Research Funding But the agency has been blocked from implementing the policy as challenges play out in court. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, who had issued a temporary restraining order last month, granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday. Read On The Fox News App "The imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care, warranted the issuance of a nationwide temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo, until the matter could be fully addressed before the Court," the court document declared. 'What A Ripoff!': Trump Sparks Backlash After Cutting Billions In Overhead Costs From Nih Research Grants "Following full briefing and oral argument by the parties, as well as review of accepted amicus briefs, the Court GRANTS a nationwide preliminary injunction," the document states. After then-President Joe Biden nominated Kelley to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2021, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Susan Collins of Maine voted with Democrats to confirm the jurist to the role. Trump Nih Appointee Defends President's Research Funding Cuts, Lays Out New Vision For Future The judge's decision comes as various states, universities and other entities challenge NIH's attempt to adopt the across-the-board 15% article source: Biden-nominated federal judge extends hold on Trump NIH research funding cuts
Fox News
06-03-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Biden-nominated federal judge extends hold on Trump NIH research funding cuts
A federal judge has further blocked the National Institutes of Health from implementing a policy to crackdown on how much money it doles out for indirect costs associated with grants it awards. NIH announced a plan last month to set the rate at 15% across the board. "The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead. NIH is accordingly imposing a standard indirect cost rate on all grants of 15% pursuant to its 45 C.F.R. 75.414(c) authority," the NIH explained in a notice last month. But the agency has been blocked from implementing the policy as challenges play out in court. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, who had issued a temporary restraining order last month, granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday. "The imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care, warranted the issuance of a nationwide temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo, until the matter could be fully addressed before the Court," the court document declared. "Following full briefing and oral argument by the parties, as well as review of accepted amicus briefs, the Court GRANTS a nationwide preliminary injunction," the document states. After then-President Joe Biden nominated Kelley to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2021, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Susan Collins of Maine voted with Democrats to confirm the jurist to the role. The judge's decision comes as various states, universities and other entities challenge NIH's attempt to adopt the across-the-board 15% rate.
CBS News
06-03-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Federal judge extends block on Trump administration's funding cuts to medical research
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from drastically cutting medical research funding that many scientists say will endanger patients and cost jobs. The new National Institutes of Health policy would strip research groups of hundreds of millions of dollars to cover so-called indirect expenses of studying Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease and a host of other illnesses — anything from clinical trials of new treatments to basic lab research that is the foundation for discoveries. Separate lawsuits filed by a group of 22 states plus organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide sued to stop the cuts, saying they would cause "irreparable harm." U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston had temporarily blocked the cuts last month. Wednesday, she filed a preliminary injunction that puts the cuts on hold for longer while the suits proceed. The NIH, the main funder of biomedical research, awarded about $35 billion in grants to research groups last year. The total is divided into "direct" costs – covering researchers' salaries and laboratory supplies – and "indirect" costs, the administrative and facility costs needed to support that work. The Trump administration had dismissed those expenses as "overhead," but universities and hospitals argue they're far more critical. They can include such things as electricity to operate sophisticated machinery, hazardous waste disposal, staff who ensure researchers follow safety rules and janitorial workers. Under prior policy, the government negotiated those rates with institutions. As an example, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would get another $50,000 to cover indirect expenses for a $100,000 project. The NIH's new policy would cap indirect costs at a flat rate of 15% instead, calculated to save the agency $4 billion a year. Current and former health officials previously told CBS News they were shocked by the change, and stressed federal authorities already carefully scrutinize and negotiate down how much funding goes to indirect costs. "We fight like hell trying to keep the rates down," one former federal health official, who had worked with the team responsible for auditing indirect costs on NIH's behalf for years, said last month. Negotiations over requests to cover those costs are often contentious and involve inspections of the facilities and interrogations of the researchers working out of the buildings looking to "poke holes" in their submissions. "We do not give away the farm. Whoever said that has never gone out on a site visit with us," said the former official. Dr. David J. Skorton of the Association of American Medical Colleges, one of the plaintiffs, applauded the ruling. "These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives," he wrote in a statement, saying the NIH-funded research "benefits every person and community in America."
