TM Associates Lawsuit History and Tenant Complaints

TM Associates Management, Inc., a Rockville, Maryland property management firm, has been named in several lawsuits over the past decade, most notably Simmons v. T.M. Associates Management, Inc., a 2018 federal ruling that shaped how the Fair Housing Act applies to criminal-background screening. The company has also faced a pending federal suit in West Virginia, a dismissed defamation case in D.C., and a pattern of tenant complaints, and it served as property manager at Washington’s Marbury Plaza during the litigation that produced a record $41 million housing-conditions judgment against the complex’s owner.

Simmons v. TM Associates: The Fair Housing Act Ruling

The most consequential case in TM Associates’ litigation history is Simmons v. T.M. Associates Management, Inc., 287 F. Supp. 3d 600 (W.D. Va. 2018).

Annette Simmons and her adult son Derek applied to rent at Pine Ridge Apartments in Louisa, Virginia, a TM Associates-managed property. Derek had a prior misdemeanor conviction for indecent exposure stemming from an incident in which he removed his clothing in public during a mental health crisis caused by schizoaffective disorder. He had since received treatment, and his condition had stabilized.¹ TM Associates denied the application based on the conviction. When the family asked the company to reconsider without weighing the conviction, as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, TM Associates refused, argued that reasonable accommodations were not available to non-tenants, and banned Derek from the property.²

The Simmonses sued in the Western District of Virginia. TM Associates moved to dismiss, arguing the FHA’s disability protections do not extend to criminal convictions, that Derek posed a “direct threat,” and, in the alternative, that his application was actually denied because of a bad credit check.²

On February 14, 2018, Judge Norman K. Moon denied the motion. The court held that the plaintiffs were “not seeking an accommodation of a conviction, but rather an accommodation of a disability by mitigating its effects (i.e., disregarding the conviction).”³ The court also rejected the “direct threat” defense, ruling it required an individualized assessment of current risk, not a blanket presumption based on a past conviction.²

The ruling established that there is no “ironclad rule” excluding accommodations for disability-related criminal convictions under federal housing law, and it has since been cited as a significant precedent on criminal background screening policies.³

Marbury Plaza: Property Manager, Not Defendant

TM Associates is often associated with the Marbury Plaza case, but it was never sued in that litigation. The defendants were the complex’s owner MP PPH LLC, its managing member Dr. Anthony Pilavas, and the prior property manager Vantage Management. TM Associates replaced Vantage as property manager at some point after the D.C. Attorney General’s July 2021 lawsuit was filed.

The suit alleged 148 housing violations across the 674-unit complex, including mold in 96% of apartments and all 98 common areas, water leaks, failing plumbing and electrical systems, nonfunctioning elevators, insect and rodent infestations, gas leaks, and inadequate heating and cooling. More than 2,500 residents were affected.⁴⁵

During the March 2023 contempt proceedings against MP PPH, two TM Associates employees testified as witnesses for the owner: Noah Rabin, a director of maintenance, and Warren Dungee, vice president of operations.⁶ Vantage Management, the prior manager, settled with the Attorney General for $1.1 million, distributed to tenants.⁷

The case ended with a November 2025 Superior Court order holding MP PPH and Dr. Pilavas jointly and severally liable for $29.8 million in restitution, $10.35 million in civil penalties, and roughly $797,000 in attorney’s fees.⁸ The $41 million total was described as the largest housing-conditions judgment against a landlord in U.S. history.⁷ None of that liability attaches to TM Associates.

Bauer v. TM Associates Management (Active)

In July 2024, a plaintiff identified as Bauer filed a civil suit against TM Associates Management in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas E. Johnston. TM Associates answered the complaint in September 2024, filed a counterclaim making Bauer a counter-defendant, and issued a subpoena in February 2025.⁹¹⁰ The case remains active as of early 2025. The specific allegations are not available from public docket entries.

Arrington v. TM Associates Management (Dismissed)

In 2024, tenant Bobby Arrington sued TM Associates in D.C. Superior Court, alleging defamation tied to his rental payments and eviction. The complaint said TM Associates made defamatory statements about him to third parties during tenant meetings in April 2023, and sought more than $75,000 in damages.¹¹

TM Associates removed the case to federal court in May 2025, where it went to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. On July 24, 2025, Judge Boasberg dismissed the case, finding the defamation claim time-barred under D.C.’s one-year statute of limitations. The court also denied Arrington’s motion to remand, ruling the motion improperly sought to add new claims rather than cure the timeliness problem.¹¹

Tenant Complaints Filed With the BBB

As of early 2026, the Better Business Bureau logged 17 complaints against TM Associates over the prior three years, spanning multiple properties. Recurring themes include mold and pest problems. One tenant reported roaches and rats alongside improperly cleaned mold. Another alleged mold in ductwork and walls that management dismissed as “mildew.”¹²

Other complaints involved unreturned security deposits, disputed eviction notices, alleged harassment by leasing staff, refusal to honor lease early-termination clauses, and a property manager’s refusal to share parking-lot security footage after a vehicle was damaged.¹²

1
Shelterforce. When a Renter With Disabilities Is Denied Housing
2
Root and Rebound. Simmons v TM Associates Management Legal Case
3
Justice in Aging. Fair Housing Protections for Formerly Incarcerated and Justice-Involved Older Adults
4
DCist. Marbury Plaza Lawsuit Housing DC
5
DC News Now. DC Wins $41M Lawsuit After Marbury Plaza Tenants Found Living in Inhumane Conditions
6
DC Courts. Appellant’s Brief, MP PPH LLC v District of Columbia, No. 23-CV-422
7
DC Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Schwalb Secures $41 Million
8
DC Office of the Attorney General. Marbury Plaza Remedies Order
9
CourtListener. Bauer v TM Associates Management Inc
10
PACER Monitor. Bauer v TM Associates Management Inc, Notice of Subpoena
11
Midpage. Arrington v TM Associates Management
12
Better Business Bureau. TM Associates Management Inc Complaints