Fair Hous. Ctr. of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.

Decision Date24 February 2016
Docket NumberCase No. 9:14-CV-80667-ROSENBERG/BRANNON
Citation164 F.Supp.3d 1375
Parties Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Cyrus Mehri, Ellen Eardley, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Pia M. Winston, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Washington, DC, Neil L. Henrichsen, Henrichsen Siegel, Jacksonville, FL, Ayesa Phillips, Ford and Phillips, PL, Hollywood, FL, Theodore Charles Miloch, II, Infante Zumpano Hudson & Miloch LLC, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Julia Dawn Kornfield, Cole Scott & Kissane, Ron Martin Campbell, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Ron Martin Campbell, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Bonita Springs, FL, James Knight Parker, Jr., Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, Kyle Thomas Berglin, Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., Miami, FL, Karen M. Nissen, Vernis & Bowling, Stephanie Moran Showe, Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach, P.A., North Palm Beach, FL, Geralyn Marie Passaro, Litchfield Cavo LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Brett Jason Horowitz, Laurie Ann Thompson, Weiner, Lynne & Thompson, P.A., Delray Beach, FL, for Defendants.

OMNIBUS ORDER ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beach's (the Center) Motion for New Trial Limited to Diversion of Resources and Frustration of Mission [DE 460], the Center's Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief [DE 457], the Center's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Property Managers [DE 461], and Defendant Emanuel Management Service's Motion for Judgment [DE 459]. Each motion has been fully briefed. The Court has reviewed the documents in the case file and is fully advised in the premises. After a review of the facts of this case, each motion is addressed in turn.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs initiated this suit by alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status in the rental of housing in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ,

and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.20 et seq. The Plaintiffs are the Center and a number of current and former residents of the Sonoma Bay and Marsh Harbour condominium developments, both of which are located in Riviera Beach, Florida and are Defendants in this case.

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged violations of three provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act and three nearly identical provisions of the Florida Fair Housing Act.1 See DE 93. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' policies and practices constituted discrimination against families with children in violation of these statutory provisions. See DE 93.

The following facts are undisputed in this case: beginning sometime in 2010 or later, rental applications for both the Sonoma Bay and Marsh Harbour condominium developments included a requirement that prospective tenants provide copies of report cards for persons under the age of 18 (the “Report Card Requirement”). Beginning sometime in 2010 or later, the Rules and Regulations for both the Sonoma Bay and Marsh Harbour condominium developments required (1) that all residents wear proper attire when walking on the streets of the development, no boys should be shirtless, and girls must wear a cover up over a bathing suit when walking to the pool (the “Proper Attire Rule”), (2) that there would be no loitering—congregating on the streets of the development—at any time (the “Loitering Rule”), and (3) that persons under the age of 18 must be in their home or on their patio after sunset (the “Curfew Rule”).2

In addition to monetary damages and other forms of relief, Plaintiffs requested entry of a declaratory judgment finding that Defendants are in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and the Florida Fair Housing Act; entry of an Order requiring each Defendant to take appropriate actions to ensure that the activities complained of are completely stopped immediately and not engaged in again by it or any of its agents; and entry of a permanent injunction directing Defendants and their directors, officers, agents, and employees to take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct described in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, including but not limited to prominent notice to all tenants and homeowners correcting any and all related unlawful provisions in their leases and ownership documents, and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.3 See DE 93 at 27-28.

A jury trial was conducted on Plaintiffs' claims between October 14, 2015 and October 15, 2015, and between October 19, 2015 and October 23, 2015. The jury entered a verdict wholly absolving Defendants from liability and awarded Plaintiffs no damages.

II. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Presently before the Court is the Center's Motion for New Trial Limited to Diversion of Resources and Frustration of Mission, the Center's Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief, the Center's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Property Managers, and Defendant Emanuel Management Service's Motion for Judgment.

On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. DE 358. In that order, the Court held that only a trier of fact could determine whether Defendants' Report Card Requirement and Proper Attire Rule violated the Fair Housing Act. Id. The Court did find, however, that the text of the Curfew Rule and the Loitering Rule violated the Fair Housing Act. Id. Notwithstanding the Court's conclusion that the text of those rules violated the Fair Housing Act, the Court left the ultimate determination of liability and damages to the trier of fact. Id. The Court's decision on this matter is the impetus for many of the motions presently pending before the Court and, as a result, the Court reviews its decision in greater detail in Section (A), infra . Following this review the Court considers: (B) the Center's Motion for a New Trial, (C) the Center's Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief, (D) the Center's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and (E) Emmanuel Management's Motion for Judgment.

A. The Court's Order at Summary Judgment

At trial, the Center argued that the Court's prior rulings at summary judgment established that the Center was entitled to damages (with respect to two of the rules at issue in this case) and that the jury's role was to determine the amount of those damages. The Center misconstrued the Court's rulings. While the Court had previously held that the text of certain rules, the Loitering Rule and the Curfew Rule, did violate the FHA, this violation is not equivalent to a finding of liability under the FHA.

The Center's position and apparent confusion in this matter stems from a certain disconnect in its motion for partial summary judgment. While the argument in the Center's motion focused on whether the text of Defendants' rules violated the FHA,4 the Center's prayer for relief sought a determination of liability. The disconnect, then, was causation. Implicit in the Center's reasoning was (i) if a rule violates the FHA, and (ii) that rule was published by a Defendant, then (iii) the publishing Defendant is liable to a fair housing center. Not so. The statute governing remedies under the FHA5 merely states that certain remedies “may” flow from a violation and, moreover, case law establishes (as detailed below) that the existence of a rule that violates the FHA is not, by itself and without more, sufficient to impose liability.

While there were no disputed material facts at summary judgment as to whether Defendants' rules were published, there was a dispute of material fact as to what impact those rules had on Plaintiffs and on the community as a whole.6 Indeed, Defendants' enforcement of the rules was a hotly and vigorously contested issue that resulted in extensive testimony at trial. The impact of Defendants' rules on the community was a hotly contested issue also. To the extent the Center takes the position that, independent of any dispute of material fact pertaining to causation, the existence of certain rules caused it damages as a matter of law at summary judgment, or, alternatively, that the Center was not required to prove causation at summary judgment, these positions contravene the law.

In Martin v. Palm Beach Atlantic Association, Inc. , 696 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997)

, an apartment complex maintained a rule that prohibited occupancy of any child under the age of twelve. The defendant in that case argued that the rule was not enforced. Id. Like the instant case, the trial court in Martin concluded at summary judgment that the text of the rule violated the FHA. Id. at 922. In light of the defendant's defense of non-enforcement, the appellate court in Martin held that such a defense could be considered by a jury on the issue of damages and the issue of causation:

The rules of appellee condominium prohibiting children are discriminatory on their face under the “familial status” section of the FHA. Their publication is a statutory violation. In the instant case, the association may not have enforced the restrictions in question, but it neither took steps to remove the offending restrictions prior to appellant's occupancy nor communicated their unenforceability to appellant. On the other hand, appellee's contention that it did not demonstrate an intent to discriminate may be considered by the jury as to the issues of damages and their causation.
Id. at 922–23

. Thus, the mere fact that the rule in Martin violated the FHA was insufficient to establish liability—causation remained in question. Id.

Similarly, in Blomgren v. Ogle , 850 F.Supp. 1427, 1430 (E.D.Wash.1993)

, an apartment maintained a rule that prohibited occupancy by children. The defendant argued the rule was not enforced. Id. On summary judgment, the Blom...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Barber v. Hood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 23 Agosto 2019
    ...violation, but still conclude he had suffered no compensable damages. See Fair Hous. Ctr. of Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1390 (S.D. Fla. 2016), aff'd sub nom. Fair Hous. Ctr. of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Cmt......
  • Fair Hous. Ctr. of Wash. v. Breier-Scheetz Props., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 11 Mayo 2017
    ...damage in the form of diverted resources to combat the violation. See Fair Hous. Center of Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1382 (S.D. Fl. 2016); see also Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2002)......
  • Siler v. Abbott House Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Noviembre 2017
    ...in the future and to remove any lingering effects of past discrimination." Fair Hous. Ctr. of Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1389 (S.D. Fla. 2016). Defendants are correct that Siler cannot seek an injunction that simply compels t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT