RPM Living is a large multifamily property management company operating across numerous U.S. markets. Interest in the RPM Living Lawsuit has grown as renters search for information about pending litigation, tenant complaints, disputed fees, maintenance concerns, and allegations involving rental practices.
Some searches focus on whether a class action exists, whether RPM Living has agreed to a settlement, and whether current or former residents could receive compensation. Others involve individual complaints that may never become lawsuits.
This article separates documented court proceedings from allegations, consumer reviews, and unverified online discussions. It also explains the California fee-disclosure case, fair housing litigation, complaint patterns, settlement status, and practical steps renters can take when dealing with a property-management dispute.
What Is the RPM Living Lawsuit?
The term RPM Living Lawsuit does not refer to one single legal dispute covering every RPM-managed property or tenant. Public records show multiple matters involving RPM Living, while online searches also combine formal litigation with individual resident complaints.
One notable proceeding is Escareno et al. v. RPM Living, LLC. Plaintiffs Joe Escareno and Justin Mansour filed a proposed class action in California state court in December 2025. They alleged that RPM Living violated California laws by failing to disclose certain mandatory rental-related fees early enough in the apartment application process. These are allegations rather than findings of liability.
A separate federal matter, Turbeville et al. v. RPM Living, LLC et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in September 2025. The docket categorizes that litigation as a civil-rights/accommodations matter involving the Fair Housing Act.
These cases should be evaluated separately because they involve different plaintiffs, legal theories, jurisdictions, and underlying facts.
RPM Living at a Glance
RPM Living began in Austin, Texas, in 2002 as Roscoe Property Management. The company expanded significantly over the following decades through organic growth, acquisitions, and mergers.
According to the company’s current management information, RPM Living manages more than 240,000 multifamily units across more than 25 states and 50-plus submarkets. It describes itself as a vertically integrated multifamily management and investment firm with more than 5,000 professionals.
Its large footprint matters when evaluating complaints. A review concerning one apartment community does not automatically establish that the same conditions exist at other properties. Individual properties may also have different owners even when RPM Living provides management services.
That distinction is particularly important in landlord-tenant disputes because responsibility can depend on the lease, property ownership, management agreement, applicable state law, and the conduct alleged.
Latest RPM Living Lawsuit Update
As of September 2026, publicly accessible records confirm significant activity in the California fee-disclosure case.
The plaintiffs originally filed the proposed class action in San Diego County Superior Court on December 24, 2025. RPM Living removed the dispute to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On April 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the matter to state court.
Importantly, remand is primarily a jurisdictional development. It does not mean the plaintiffs proved their allegations. The federal court’s order addressed whether the dispute belonged in federal court and returned it to state court.
The South Carolina fair housing litigation also remained active according to the publicly indexed federal docket retrieved in February 2026, which showed motion practice and other filings.
| Matter | Publicly Reported Status |
|---|---|
| California fee case | Proposed class action; remanded to state court in April 2026 |
| South Carolina fair housing case | Federal litigation with docket activity reported in 2026 |
| Broad nationwide tenant settlement | No verified universal settlement identified |
Because court cases can change quickly, readers should verify the latest docket before relying on an older article or social-media post.
Understanding the California Fee Disclosure Case
The California dispute centers on how certain charges were allegedly disclosed during the apartment application and leasing process.
According to the federal remand order, plaintiffs Joe Escareno and Justin Mansour alleged that RPM Living violated California statutes by hiding various so-called “junk fees” until relatively late in the apartment application process. RPM Living disputed the case and removed it from state to federal court.
Fee-disclosure litigation generally raises questions about what a prospective renter was told, when mandatory charges became visible, how pricing was advertised, and whether applicable consumer-protection or rental laws required earlier disclosure.
The April 2026 federal order did not decide whether RPM Living was legally responsible for the alleged conduct. Instead, the court concluded that the federal jurisdictional requirements had not been established and remanded the case.
For prospective class members, that distinction is critical. A proposed class action can proceed through extensive litigation before certification, settlement, dismissal, or trial determines what relief—if any—is available.
Fair Housing Litigation Involving RPM Living
RPM Living has also been named in litigation categorized as involving fair housing.
In Turbeville et al. v. RPM Living, LLC et al., plaintiffs Preston Wallace Turbeville and Marissa Martorelli sued RPM Living and several additional defendants. The case was filed on September 16, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
The publicly indexed docket categorizes the nature of the suit as “Civil Rights: Accommodations” and identifies the Fair Housing Act in connection with the action. Docket entries showed continuing litigation activity into February 2026.
Fair housing disputes can involve different legal theories depending on the circumstances, including alleged discriminatory rental practices, accommodation issues, application decisions, or other housing-related conduct.
Being named as a defendant does not establish that RPM Living or any other defendant violated the law. The plaintiffs carry the burden of establishing their claims, while defendants have opportunities to challenge allegations, present evidence, seek dismissal, or otherwise defend themselves.
Common Tenant Complaints About RPM Living
Apart from formal litigation, RPM Living has received consumer complaints involving individual properties. These reports provide insight into issues some renters say they experienced, but they should not be treated as proof of company-wide wrongdoing.
The Better Business Bureau’s RPM Living complaint profile currently reports hundreds of complaints over a three-year period. Categories displayed by the BBB include service or repair, billing, product, order, customer service, and facilities issues.
Common themes appearing in publicly posted complaints include:
- Delayed or disputed maintenance work
- Air-conditioning and property-condition concerns
- Questions about fees or account balances
- Move-out charges
- Security-deposit disputes
- Communication difficulties
- Disagreements over work-order completion
Individual complaints vary substantially, and RPM Living has responded to many of them through the BBB process. Some consumers accepted resolutions, while other matters were recorded as answered rather than resolved.
Maintenance Delays
Maintenance is one of the more visible themes in public tenant complaints.
Some residents have alleged that air-conditioning systems, plumbing problems, security equipment, mold-related concerns, or other repair requests were not addressed as quickly as expected. Other complaints allege that service requests were marked complete even though residents believed the underlying problem remained.
Whether a delay violates landlord-tenant law depends on factors such as the condition involved, notice provided to management, reasonable repair time, lease terms, and state or local habitability requirements.
For tenants, written maintenance requests are generally more useful than relying exclusively on telephone conversations because they create a record showing when management was notified.
Billing Questions
Billing disputes appearing in consumer complaints include questions about rent balances, recurring fees, technology charges, move-out amounts, utilities, and other account entries.
For example, some publicly available BBB complaints dispute ledger balances or particular charges. RPM Living’s responses in individual cases have sometimes maintained that charges were valid, while in other instances credits or other resolutions were provided.
A disputed charge is not automatically unlawful. The relevant questions usually include whether the fee was authorized by the lease, properly disclosed, accurately calculated, and permitted under applicable law.
Residents disputing an amount should retain leases, addenda, payment confirmations, account ledgers, emails, and screenshots from payment portals.
Security Deposits
Security-deposit disputes commonly arise when tenants move out and disagree with deductions for cleaning, repairs, painting, damage, or other charges.
RPM Living’s BBB profile includes complaints from former residents challenging deposit deductions or final account statements. These complaints reflect the residents’ allegations and should not independently be interpreted as legal findings.
State law generally determines when a deposit must be returned, what deductions are permitted, whether an itemized statement is required, and what remedies exist for improper withholding.
Before leaving a property, renters can strengthen their records by photographing the unit, retaining move-in condition reports, saving repair requests, documenting key return, and requesting a detailed final ledger.
RPM Living Complaints and Reviews
Consumer reviews can help identify recurring areas of dissatisfaction, but they have important evidentiary limitations.
The BBB profile for RPM Living shows complaints across multiple categories, with service or repair issues and billing issues representing significant portions of the listed complaint types. The profile covers headquarters and corporate-owned locations as described by BBB.
Some complaints describe maintenance, communication, property conditions, fees, deposits, or move-out disputes. RPM Living has posted responses to numerous complaints, sometimes disputing a resident’s characterization of events and sometimes offering a credit, refund, lease-related resolution, or other response.
Reviews should therefore be treated as consumer experiences rather than court-established facts.
For legal research, a signed lease, dated maintenance record, payment ledger, government inspection, written company response, or court filing normally carries substantially more evidentiary value than an anonymous rating.
RPM Living Complaints on Reddit and Consumer Forums
Reddit and other discussion forums contain posts from people identifying themselves as residents of RPM-managed communities.
For example, a July 2026 Reddit discussion included allegations about communication and air-conditioning problems at a Houston-area property. These statements represent one user’s account and have not been independently established through a court finding.
Forums can still be useful for discovering questions worth investigating. Multiple renters discussing similar charges or maintenance practices may prompt someone to examine leases, account records, government databases, or court dockets more closely.
However, anonymous posts should not be used to conclude that a law was violated.
Readers should distinguish among three very different forms of information: a resident saying something happened, a lawsuit alleging unlawful conduct, and a court actually determining liability. They are not interchangeable.
RPM Living Response to Tenant Allegations
RPM Living’s responses vary according to the specific property and complaint.
Public BBB records show instances where the company has reviewed service histories, explained charges, disputed a complainant’s version of events, approved credits, addressed lease-termination requests, or stated that management had already taken corrective action.
For example, one 2026 complaint concerning allegedly nonfunctioning security equipment resulted in an approved credit, according to the BBB record. In another complaint involving early lease termination, RPM Living described an accommodation it said had been agreed upon with the resident.
Those outcomes should not be generalized to unrelated disputes.
A company’s decision to provide a credit or resolve a consumer complaint also does not necessarily constitute an admission of legal liability. Businesses frequently resolve customer disputes for practical reasons without conceding the underlying allegations.
Does RPM Living Have a Class Action Lawsuit?
Yes. Public court records confirm that a proposed class action has been filed against RPM Living in California.
Escareno et al. v. RPM Living, LLC was originally filed in San Diego County Superior Court on December 24, 2025. The plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and others they contend are similarly situated, alleging violations connected with the disclosure of rental-related fees.
RPM Living removed the matter to federal court in January 2026. The federal court subsequently granted the plaintiffs’ request for remand in April, returning the dispute to California state court.
The phrase “class action,” however, should not automatically be interpreted to mean that a court has certified a nationwide class or that every RPM Living tenant is included.
Class certification, class definitions, exclusions, applicable dates, affected properties, and legal claims determine who may ultimately be covered.
Has RPM Living Reached a Settlement?
No broad settlement resolving the California proposed class action or all tenant disputes involving RPM Living was identified in the publicly accessible sources reviewed for this article as of September 2026.
That means renters should be cautious with websites or social posts suggesting that a universal payout, settlement check, or claim form is already available.
A legitimate class settlement normally produces formal documentation explaining:
- The settlement amount
- Who qualifies as a class member
- Important deadlines
- How claims must be submitted
- Rights to object or opt out
- The court handling the proceeding
- Whether final approval has been granted
Individual consumer complaints may be resolved separately through refunds, credits, lease adjustments, or other arrangements. Those private or complaint-specific outcomes should not be confused with a court-approved class action settlement.
Settlement status can change, so checking the current docket remains important.
Can Current or Former Tenants Join a Lawsuit?
Possibly, but eligibility depends entirely on the lawsuit.
A renter cannot assume that living at an RPM-managed property automatically makes them part of the California proposed class action or any other proceeding.
Eligibility could depend on factors such as:
- The state and property where the person rented
- When the rental application occurred
- Which fees were charged or disclosed
- Whether the person paid the disputed charges
- The class definition ultimately approved by a court
- Whether the case reaches class certification or settlement
In many class actions, potential members do not formally “join” at the beginning. If a class is certified or a settlement receives preliminary approval, eligible people may later receive notice explaining their rights.
Anyone considering an individual claim should speak with a qualified attorney in the relevant jurisdiction rather than assuming an existing case covers their situation.
How to Report a Complaint Against RPM Living
Residents should generally begin by documenting the problem and reporting it through the property’s established communication channels.
Depending on the issue, practical steps may include:
- Submit the complaint in writing. Describe the problem, property, apartment, dates, and requested resolution.
- Save supporting records. Keep leases, photographs, videos, payment receipts, emails, notices, and maintenance requests.
- Escalate unresolved concerns. Contact property management and, where appropriate, RPM Living’s corporate contact channel.
- Check local enforcement options. Habitability, building-code, deposit, and housing complaints may fall under different state or local agencies.
- Consider consumer agencies. The appropriate attorney general, housing agency, or consumer-protection authority may accept certain complaints.
- Seek legal advice when necessary. An attorney can evaluate whether the facts support contractual, statutory, fair-housing, or other claims.
Emergency health or safety conditions may require a different and faster response than an ordinary billing disagreement.
RPM Living Corporate Office and Contact Information
RPM Living lists its corporate headquarters at 5508 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 320, Austin, TX 78731, with the telephone number 512-480-9886. Its official contact page also provides an online contact form.
The company lists corporate offices in Atlanta and Phoenix, along with regional offices in markets including Denver, Charleston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, West Palm Beach, Las Vegas, and Nashville.
RPM Living official contact page
When escalating a tenant dispute, include the property name, unit information when appropriate, dates of earlier communications, relevant work-order or account references, and a concise explanation of the requested resolution.
Keep copies of communications. If the dispute later develops into litigation, a clear chronological record may help establish what was reported and how each party responded.
What Evidence Is Important in Tenant Disputes?
Tenant disputes often turn less on what each side remembers and more on what can actually be documented.
Useful evidence can include:
- Signed leases and amendments
- Rental advertisements or quoted pricing
- Application screenshots
- Account ledgers and invoices
- Bank and payment records
- Emails and written notices
- Maintenance requests
- Dated photographs and videos
- Move-in and move-out inspection records
- Security-deposit statements
- Government inspection reports
The type of evidence needed depends on the claim. A fee-disclosure dispute may focus heavily on advertisements, application screens, and lease documents, while a habitability claim may depend more heavily on photographs, repair notices, inspection records, and the time management had to respond.
Records should generally be preserved in their original form rather than edited. Renters should also maintain a simple chronology showing when each important event occurred.
How Property Management Lawsuits Typically Develop
A property-management disagreement does not immediately become a lawsuit.
Many disputes begin with a maintenance request, billing question, security-deposit disagreement, rental application issue, or lease conflict. The tenant may first contact onsite management and later escalate the matter to regional or corporate representatives.
If the issue remains unresolved, the renter might file a complaint with a housing authority, consumer regulator, code-enforcement department, fair-housing agency, or other appropriate organization.
Litigation generally requires a legally recognized claim and supporting facts. A plaintiff then files a complaint describing the alleged conduct and requested relief. The defendant can respond, seek dismissal, dispute the facts, or raise legal defenses.
Class actions involve additional procedural questions, particularly whether the proposed group satisfies applicable class-certification requirements.
Cases can ultimately end through dismissal, settlement, summary judgment, trial, appeal, or other procedural resolutions.
What Renters Should Watch For
Renters should pay particular attention to documents and charges before signing a lease.
Advertised rent may not always represent every cost associated with occupying an apartment. Prospective residents should review mandatory recurring fees, utility arrangements, deposits, technology packages, parking charges, application costs, administrative fees, and other required payments.
During the tenancy, watch for inconsistencies between the lease and account ledger.
A resident should also document serious maintenance conditions as soon as possible. Written notice can be especially important because landlord obligations under state law often depend partly on whether management received adequate notice and had an appropriate opportunity to address the condition.
At move-out, obtain documentation showing when possession was surrendered and preserve photographs of the property’s condition. These records can become important if deductions, unpaid balances, or collection activity are later disputed.
Tenant Rights in Property Management Disputes
Tenant rights are primarily governed by state and local law, meaning the exact rules can differ significantly from one RPM Living property to another.
Depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, renters may have legal protections concerning habitability, repairs, security deposits, discrimination, lease disclosures, entry into a rental unit, retaliation, eviction procedures, and mandatory fees.
Federal protections may also apply in certain circumstances. The Fair Housing Act, for example, prohibits specified forms of housing discrimination.
However, renters should avoid taking major actions—such as withholding rent, deducting repair costs, or terminating a lease—solely because they believe the landlord violated the law. These remedies often have strict statutory conditions.
A local tenant-rights organization or licensed attorney can explain which rules apply to a specific property and dispute.
Does a Lawsuit Mean the Company Did Something Wrong?
No. Filing a lawsuit does not establish wrongdoing.
A civil complaint contains allegations made by a plaintiff. Those allegations can be disputed, narrowed, dismissed, settled without an admission, or eventually decided through court proceedings.
This distinction is particularly important when discussing the RPM Living Lawsuit because different proceedings involve different allegations. The existence of the California proposed class action does not establish that RPM Living unlawfully charged every tenant, just as an individual consumer complaint does not prove a company-wide practice.
Courts evaluate evidence and legal arguments before determining liability.
Similarly, procedural rulings should be interpreted carefully. The April 2026 remand in Escareno concerned federal jurisdiction; it was not a judgment finding RPM Living liable for the plaintiffs’ underlying fee allegations.
RPM Living Properties and Management Coverage
RPM Living operates on a substantial national scale.
The company’s management page states that it has more than 240,000 units under management, operates across more than 25 states and 50-plus submarkets, and maintains a workforce exceeding 5,000 professionals.
Its community directory identifies markets across Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other areas.
RPM Living community directory
Because of this scale, articles discussing “RPM Living properties” should not imply that an allegation concerning one community applies to the entire portfolio.
Property ownership can also differ from property management. Determining the legally responsible entity may therefore require reviewing the lease, property records, lawsuit pleadings, and other documents.
Where to Find Official RPM Living Lawsuit Information
Court records are generally more reliable than social-media posts when checking legal status.
For federal litigation, PACER is the primary official electronic system for federal court records. Public docket aggregators such as Justia can also help identify case numbers, filing dates, parties, and publicly indexed docket developments.
For the California dispute, readers should look for Escareno et al. v. RPM Living, LLC. The federal case number following removal was 3:26-cv-00597 in the Southern District of California. The federal court remanded the matter to state court on April 16, 2026.
For the South Carolina litigation, the publicly indexed federal case is Turbeville et al. v. RPM Living, LLC et al., case number 4:2025-cv-12579.
Readers should verify dates carefully. Older articles can remain indexed after a case has moved courts, settled, been dismissed, or otherwise changed status.
What the Future May Hold
The next developments will depend on how the pending litigation progresses.
In the California matter, important future developments could include amended pleadings, motions challenging claims, discovery, class-certification proceedings, settlement negotiations, or rulings by the state court.
Not every proposed class action becomes a certified class action. Likewise, the filing of litigation does not guarantee compensation.
The South Carolina fair housing matter has its own procedural path and should not be treated as part of the California fee case.
For renters, the most meaningful developments would include a substantive court ruling, formal class certification, settlement agreement, approved class notice, claims process, or final judgment.
Until such developments occur, claims about guaranteed payouts or universal eligibility should be treated cautiously.
Read: Vegamour Lawsuit
Read: Streamate Lawsuit
Read: QC Kinetix Lawsuit
Read: Dwayne Johnson Energy Drink Lawsuit
Read: Monday Shampoo Lawsuit
Read: McDonald’s 100% Beef Lawsuit
Read: HexClad Lawsuit
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there currently an RPM Living lawsuit?
Yes. Public records confirm litigation involving RPM Living, including a California proposed class action concerning alleged fee disclosures and separate federal fair housing litigation in South Carolina. The cases involve different facts and legal claims.
Is the California case a class action?
Yes, it was filed as a proposed class action. However, filing a case on behalf of similarly situated people does not by itself establish that every RPM tenant belongs to a certified class.
Has a settlement been announced?
No broad court-approved settlement covering the California proposed class action or RPM Living tenants generally was identified in the sources reviewed as of September 2026. Individual tenant disputes may have separate resolutions.
Can former RPM Living tenants receive compensation?
Potentially, but only if they have a valid individual claim or qualify under a future certified class or settlement. Eligibility depends on the specific facts, property, dates, charges, and applicable law.
Where can tenants check the latest case status?
Federal cases can be checked through official court records such as PACER, while state-court cases should be checked through the relevant state or county court system. Docket aggregators can provide useful secondary information.
Final Thoughts
The RPM Living Lawsuit search landscape currently involves more than one legal matter rather than a single nationwide case covering every resident. The California proposed class action concerns alleged rental fee disclosures, while separate South Carolina litigation involves fair housing issues. Consumer complaints add another layer, but those reports should remain distinct from proven legal findings.
At present, renters should not assume that a universal settlement, payout, or claims process exists. Anyone experiencing a dispute should preserve documentation, check the applicable lease and state law, use appropriate complaint channels, and monitor official court records. Ultimately, whether RPM Living or another party bears legal responsibility depends on the evidence, applicable law, defenses, and decisions made through the judicial process.
