U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama on 12.4.2025 accepted all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint and drew all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs. According to Reuters, a proposed nationwide class action accusing land leasing companies for mobile homes of conspiring to inflate lot rents was dismissed by Judge Valderrama in Chicago. The suit in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division was styled “Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litigation,” Case No. 23-cv-06715. Valderrama ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege a price-fixing agreement among corporate owners and operators of manufactured home communities. However, his ruling can be seen as a roadmap for fixing the well-pleaded facts until 1.5.2025, providing insight for those looking into HUD Code manufactured housing as a solution to the affordable housing crisis.
Background information about the defendants and quotes from Valderrama will provide context for the subsequent details.
Per Valderrama’s memorandum, the defendants in this action are Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. (ELS), Hometown America Management, L.L.C. (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, L.L.C. (Murex) (collectively MHC Defendants), MHC owners/operators, as well as Defendant Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. (Datacomp), the nation’s largest provider of manufactured and mobile home data (collectively, Defendants).
Valderrama noted that in December 2021, MHC Defendant ELS purchased Datacomp.
An article in MHReview states, “For several years now the mobile home park industry has been under the cloud of a massive “price-fixing” class action against several of the largest owners and clients of Datacomp. Recently, however, the whole mess was tossed out when U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege a price-fixing agreement or conspiracy under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The judge said the evidence presented did not show a clear “invitation” to join a conspiracy among the defendants, but rather parallel conduct insufficient on its own to prove collusion.”
Several remarks in that article read like comments made by Frank Rolfe, a partner with Dave Reynolds in Mobile Home University and Impact Communities, among other manufactured housing industry connected enterprises. Regardless of who wrote the article, it may prove useful for those paying attention to the case.
Valderrama observed 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 correlated to industry group meetings.
MHI is the apparent trade group referenced by Valderrama and plaintiffs. MHI no longer publicly lists members, but according to a prior MHI published list, 8 of the 11 defendants are MHI members.
Boor, MHI, and MHARR have argued for the “enhanced preemption” of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. However, evidence suggests that MHI is working towards consolidation rather than promoting growth.
Attorney Samuel Strommen has argued in favor of manufactured housing for affordable homeownership but provided a 17-page antitrust thesis explaining why the industry is underperforming in the 21st century. Strommen pointed fingers at MHI and their key members.
There are various evidence-based antitrust theses in manufactured housing advanced by economists and attorneys, each presenting different evidence and angles.
When looked at as puzzle pieces that fit together, these findings seem to address the concerns raised by Judge Valderrama. AI systems have consistently pointed out that MHI is engaging in strategic avoidance by not addressing these concerns.
According to Copilot, in response to a draft provided, they stated, “Your use of these statements to construct an ‘invitation to collude’ narrative is analytical, but it is based on actual words from the individuals themselves—which is exactly what Valderrama indicated the plaintiffs were lacking: solid evidence indicating agreement, not just parallel pricing and trade association membership.”
This op-ed by HousingWire, along with an invitation to MHI leaders to publicly challenge these evidence-based arguments, could kickstart a crucial debate that impacts pending legislation, millions of affordable housing seekers, taxpayers, retail investors, and others. It could be a great way to kick off the new year.
L. A. “Tony” Kovach is a managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC.
This article does not necessarily reflect the views of HousingWire’s editorial team and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
Related