Apartment Management Consultants, LLC — the Utah-based firm known as AMC that manages roughly 153,000 apartment units across 26 states — has been named in a series of AMC property management lawsuits and regulatory actions covering tenant security deposits, resident safety, employee background checks, real estate licensing, and state taxes. Some cases are still active; others have settled or been decided on appeal. Below is what each matter involves and where it stands.1Multifamily Dive. Multifamily Operations Apartment Technology AMC
California Security Deposit and Late Fee Class Action
A tenant named Rosa Navarro filed a putative class action against AMC in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, alleging that the company withholds residential security deposits in bad faith and charges unlawful, excessive late fees. The complaint brings claims under California Civil Code § 1950.5 (security deposits), California’s Unfair Competition Law, and Civil Code § 1671, which limits liquidated damages clauses in contracts.2Security Deposit Class Action. Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants Complaint
Navarro alleges the practices are not isolated to one building. According to the complaint, AMC applied the deposit and late fee practices through a centralized system across the 174 California apartment complexes it manages, making them a company-wide policy rather than local management errors.2Security Deposit Class Action. Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants Complaint
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin as case number 4:24-cv-06829. As of mid-2026 the litigation is active, with expert discovery set to close September 30, 2026, and briefing pending on AMC’s motion for relief from a June 2026 discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.3PACER Monitor. Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC
Oregon $6 Million Habitability and Safety Lawsuit
In June 2024, two families who had lived at The Landings at Morrison in Gresham, Oregon, sued AMC, the property owners, and the city of Gresham in Multnomah County Circuit Court. They are seeking $6 million in damages.4Multifamily Dive. Oregon Renters File $6M Lawsuit Against Apartment Operator After Threats
The families allege that between late June 2023 and September 2023, they made 19 reports to property management and seven reports to police about threats from two neighboring tenants, a father and son. The conduct described includes brandishing knives, attempting to enter the plaintiffs’ units, racist and misogynistic slurs, threats of rape and murder, spraying unknown liquids on doors, and tampering with fire extinguishers. Plaintiffs say the lease permitted immediate termination for serious threats or outrageous conduct, but management did not serve eviction papers until September 8, 2023, and the neighbors remained in the unit until at least September 19, when the son was arrested. The complaint is supported by Ring doorbell footage of several incidents.4Multifamily Dive. Oregon Renters File $6M Lawsuit Against Apartment Operator After Threats
Named defendants alongside AMC include ownership entities JSP Avalon I, II and III LLC and PLRA Gresham LLC (both Delaware companies) and the city of Gresham, which the plaintiffs contend failed to adequately investigate or respond. At the time of reporting, the son’s criminal case was on hold pending mental health treatment, and the father had not been criminally charged.
California Real Estate Licensing Action and Settlement
In July 2024, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) filed an accusation against AMC’s California entity, AMC-CA Incorporated, and its designated broker, Michael Terrence Cobery. A First Amended Accusation followed in November 2024.5California Department of Real Estate. First Amended Accusation, H-42888 LA
The DRE alleged AMC-CA conducted property management business under the unlicensed fictitious names “AMC” and “Apartment Management Consultants, LLC” on websites, lease agreements, bank documents, and management contracts, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 10159.5. The accusation also described trust fund handling problems: discrepancies in trust account balances, failure to maintain accurate daily records, commingling of funds, holding broker-owned money in trust accounts beyond the 25-day limit, and using unlicensed individuals as trust account signatories without required fidelity bonds. It further alleged AMC-CA employed unlicensed persons to sign rental agreements and manage units without proper branch licenses, and that Cobery failed to adequately supervise the corporation, including by not being an authorized signatory on most trust accounts.6California Department of Real Estate. Accusation, H-42888 LA
Terms of the DRE Settlement
AMC-CA and Cobery settled rather than litigate. The Stipulation and Agreement was adopted as the Real Estate Commissioner’s decision on June 27, 2025, effective May 28, 2025.7California Department of Real Estate. Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement and Order, H-42888 LA
Both respondents received a 45-day license suspension, stayed on the condition that each pays $4,500 (calculated at $100 per day). They are jointly liable for $11,680.65 in investigative and enforcement costs, $14,535 for the initial audit, and up to $18,168.75 for a follow-up audit to confirm the violations have been corrected. Cobery must also complete a continuing education course on trust fund accounting and pass a Professional Responsibility Examination within six months; his licenses remain indefinitely suspended until he does.7California Department of Real Estate. Stipulation and Agreement in Settlement and Order, H-42888 LA
Washington Business Tax Appeal
AMC sought a refund of Business and Occupation taxes it had paid for January 2015 through December 2018. The Washington Department of Revenue had assessed AMC $480,853.78, plus interest and penalties, after finding that AMC had excluded the payroll of its on-site property employees from reported gross income, treating those wages as tax-free reimbursements paid on behalf of property owners rather than as its own revenue.8FindLaw. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC v. Department of Revenue
On November 12, 2025, Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Department of Revenue. The court concluded AMC was the employer of the on-site workers, citing AMC’s employee handbook, job offer letters, tax withholding practices, and control over hiring, firing, and benefits. Because AMC was the employer, wages drawn from property operating accounts counted as its income under state tax law. The court rejected AMC’s argument that it acted only as an agent for the property owners and dismissed a due process challenge, holding that the Department had identified funds AMC actually received rather than imputing phantom income.8FindLaw. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC v. Department of Revenue
Employment Lawsuits
FCRA Background Check Class Action
In October 2018, a former AMC employee named Legros filed a class action alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case, Legros v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC (Case No. 5:18-cv-02209-PA-SP), was removed from California superior court to federal district court.9ClassAction.org. Apartment Management Consultants Hit With FCRA Class Action Over Allegedly Improper Background Checks
Legros, who worked as a community ambassador maintenance technician, alleged AMC pulled his background report without his knowledge or consent and then fired him in November 2017 based on the results. The complaint claimed AMC did not provide a clear, standalone written notice that a background check might be obtained, did not secure written authorization before running the check, and did not give him a copy of the report or a summary of his rights before terminating him.9ClassAction.org. Apartment Management Consultants Hit With FCRA Class Action Over Allegedly Improper Background Checks
ADA Case Sent to Arbitration
Showalter v. Apartment Management Consultants LLC et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-06174), an Americans with Disabilities Act case against AMC and an individual defendant, Sam Carter, was filed in Clark County Superior Court in Washington and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in December 2023. In October 2024, Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright granted AMC’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court proceedings. As of an April 2026 joint status report, arbitration remained ongoing with no final resolution reported.10PACER Monitor. Showalter v. Apartment Management Consultants LLC et al
A Note on the AMC Management RICO Case
Some search results turn up Geivett v. AMC Management, LLC, an Eighth Circuit ruling about inflated condominium collection lawsuits. That case involves a different entity, a condominium association manager, not the apartment management firm covered above. In November 2025 the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the RICO claims as time-barred, holding that the district court had not applied the “separate accrual” rule, under which a new RICO cause of action can arise each time a plaintiff suffers a distinct injury from ongoing wrongful conduct.11FindLaw. Geivett v. AMC Management, LLC12Missouri Lawyers Media. 8th Circuit RICO Condo Fee Dispute If you are researching the apartment company, this ruling is not about it.