Desouza v. Park W. Apartments, Inc., 3:15-CV-01668 (MPS)

• Decision Date: 14 June 2018
• Docket Number: No. 3:15-CV-01668 (MPS),3:15-CV-01668 (MPS)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: HAILEE R. DESOUZA, Plaintiff, v. PARK WEST APARTMENTS, INC. et al. Defendant.

HAILEE R. DESOUZA, Plaintiff, v. PARK WEST APARTMENTS, INC. et al. Defendant.

No. 3:15-CV-01668 (MPS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

June 14, 2018

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

Hailee R. DeSouza ("DeSouza") brings this suit¹ against his landlord, Park West Apartments, Inc., and The Community Builders, Inc., the nonprofit corporation that controls it (collectively "Park West").² DeSouza chiefly claims that Park West racially discriminated and retaliated against him by repeatedly attempting to evict him. He also claims that Park West violated his privacy rights by informing other tenants of the eviction proceedings and that Park West's former property manager, Kim Doughtie, falsely accused him of sexually assaulting her daughter and granddaughter. He sets out claims against Park West for: (i) race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") (Counts 1, 2, and 3); (ii) violation of the First Amendment (Count 4); (iii) violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count 5); (iv)interference, coercion or intimidation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 of the FHA (Count 6); (v) discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 7); (vi) violation of the Privacy Rights Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a ("Privacy Act") (Count 8); and (vii) common law slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress for Ms. Doughtie's alleged false sexual assault allegation³ (Count 9). (See ECF No. 100-2 at 17-19).

Park West now moves for summary judgment on all counts. (ECF No. 128). For the reasons set forth below, Park West's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied with respect to the portion of DeSouza's retaliation claims under the FHA concerning Park West's filing of an affidavit of noncompliance in March of 2015 (Counts 1, 2, 3, 6), and granted with respect to the remainder of his claims.

II. Factual Background

a. Eviction Proceedings

The following facts, which are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements and the exhibits, are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. DeSouza applied to rent and received a "Section 8 assisted two bedroom apartment with a basement at Park West" "approximately [thirteen] years ago." (ECF No. 130, Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement ("Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt.") at ¶ 4); ECF No. 151-1, Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement ("Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt.") at ¶ 4.) Although DeSouza received several "KAPA letters"—i.e., pre-termination notices provided in cases of lease violations— and notices to quit prior to the eventsunderlying this case, he remained in his apartment continuously through the beginning of 2014. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶¶ 9-10, 13, 41; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶¶ 9-10, 13, 41.)⁴

In January of 2014, DeSouza attained a position with "Swift Worldwide as a senior project engineer." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 6; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 6.) He retained this position until April of 2014. (Id.) Given his change in income upon attaining this position, DeSouza had to "complete an interim recertification" to retain his Section 8 subsidy. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 7; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 7.) Here, the parties' accounts diverge. Park West contends that DeSouza did not complete the interim recertification process, and that it issued a KAPA letter to him "on or about March 3, 2014 advising him that he had to recertify in accordance with his lease requirements within 35 days" to prevent the termination of his rental agreement. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 8.) DeSouza avers that the interim recertification process "only require[d] him to report his new income" and that he performed this obligation. (Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 8.) DeSouza did not take any further steps to complete the recertification in accordance with Park West's directives within the thirty-five day period; Park West subsequently issued him a Notice to Quit on April 22, 2014. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶¶ 11-12; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

On June 12, 2014, DeSouza received an eviction notice for failing to complete the recertification process in violation of his lease. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 14; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 14.) He retained a lawyer, Edward Taiman, to represent him in the eviction action. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 15; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 15.) The parties' accounts once again split off regarding the subsequent eviction proceedings. Park West avers that theparties successfully mediated the matter with a housing court mediator on August 29, 2014, resulting in the execution of an Agreement providing, among other things, that DeSouza agreed to "complete the recertification process." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶¶ 17-18.) DeSouza recounts a more complex version of events, averring that Park West conspired with the housing mediator—who falsely posed as the Superior Court judge's secretary—in coercing DeSouza to sign the stipulated agreement. (Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶¶ 17-18 (averring that DeSouza "was acting on coerced-induced-made-to-believe orders as coming from defendants [sic] criminally and [falsely] imaginary created non-existent UFO eviction court judge with unlawful fabricated inducted [sic] orders, with already falsely made-up crafted instructions, already falsely made-up crafted directives, of defendants['] purported stipulation agreement" (emphases omitted) (some internal quotation marks omitted).)⁵ In any event, the Stipulated Agreement—which was signed by each of the parties—provided in relevant part that DeSouza "agrees to complete the recertification process" on "September 3, 2014" and that "[b]oth parties shall be respectful and courteous to one another." (See ECF No. 130-8, Exhibit H, at 2 ("Stipulated Agreement").) The latter language was added based on DeSouza's recommendation. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 19; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 19.)

The parties' September 3, 2014 recertification meeting went poorly. During the meeting, Park West staff asked several times whether DeSouza was recording them. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 21; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 21.) DeSouza responded several times that "I do notanswer to you" and refused to confirm one way or another whether he was recording the meeting.⁶ (Id.; see also ECF No. 130-9 at 1, Exhibit I ("Exhibit I") (audio recording of the proceeding filed manually with the Court).) Park West subsequently filed with the Superior Court "an Affidavit of non-compliance with the stipulation on September 4, 2014." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 22; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 22.) The affidavit noted as follows:

On August 27, 2014⁷ [the] parties entered into a stipulated agreement. The parties agreed that a recertification will [sic] take place on Wednesday, September 3, 2014 between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Both parties shall be respectful and courteous to one another. The defendant came to the plaintiff's office for recertification at the time stated in paragraph 4 [of the Stipulated Agreement]. It was noticed that recording devices were being used by him and his son. We asked if we were being recorded. Mr. [DeSouza] son [sic] nodded his head yes but Mr. [DeSouza] [sic] refused to tell us. He said I do not answer to you over and over. He became loud, volatile and scary. We fear him [sic] and asked him to leave.

(ECF No. 130-10, Exhibit J at 2 ("First Affidavit of Noncompliance").) A "hearing was held [on the matter] before Superior Court Judge Rupal Shah on September 12, 2014." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 23; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 23.) Judge Shah reserved decision at the conclusion of the hearing and never issued an order. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 25; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 26.)

On December 16, 2014, "as [DeSouza] still had not completed his recertification, . . . he was served with a Notice of Intent to Remove Subsidy, which notified [DeSouza] that he wouldbe required to pay a [Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")] approved market rent for his unit." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 26; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 26.; see also ECF No. 130-12, Exhibit L at 2 ("Notice of Intent to Remove Subsidy").) Temporary Staffing Resources ("TSR"), which had helped DeSouza obtain employment in November of 2014, "ultimately verified his income on or about December 29, 2014 via [an] Employment Verification form sent by Park West to TSR."⁸ (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 28; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 28.) Since the information supplied by TSR demonstrated that DeSouza "was earning $69 per hour, Park West advised [him] on January 14, 2015, that his HUD subsidy had been terminated effective December 1, 2014, and [that] his new rent would be $1352.00 per month." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 29; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 29.) While Park West contends that the "HUD rent schedule indicates that the unsubsidized rent for a two-bedroom unit with a basement is $1352.00 per month" (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 30 (citing ECF No. 130-15, Exhibit O at 2(HUD rent schedule for low income housing indicating that the "Rent Per Unit" for a "2 Bedroom, w/ Basement" apartment was $1,352))), DeSouza argues that he should have been able to rent the unit for $989 per month—the rate that he contends was advertised to the general public. (See Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 30 (citing ECF No. 151-8, Plaintiff's Exhibit ("Pl.'s Exh.") 54 at 12 (advertising "2 BR Market With Basement $989/month H/HW Included")).)

After DeSouza refused to pay the $1,352 rent, Park West subsequently "filed a second Affidavit of noncompliance with the [Stipulated Agreement] on March 11, 2015" "[d]ue to hisfailure to pay the increased rent, and because he had repeatedly referred to Ms. Doughtie in grossly disparaging terms. . . ."⁹ (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶¶ 31-32; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶¶ 31-32.)¹⁰ In the affidavit, Park West avers that DeSouza's use...