Fair Hous. Ctr. of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 16-11248
| Decision Date | 15 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-11248,No. 16-16092,16-11248,16-16092 |
| Parties | FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Claimant - Cross Defendant-Appellant, M.R.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, LEANN CARR, A.M., By and through his parent, Golda Muselaire, N.N., By and through his Mother, Heather Abrams, JANET JACKSON, TA'JENAE WILLIAMS, J.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, BRENDA HILL-BLUNTSON, R.L., By and through his parent, Janet Jackson, MEGHAN GARDNER, Z.M., By and through his parent, Golda Muselaire, M.J.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, I.M., By and through his parent, Golda Muselaire, GOLDA MUSELAIRE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SONOMA BAY COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee, MARSH HARBOUR MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, PRESTIGE QUALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., KIMBERLY JACKSON, JAMES NYQUIST, Defendants-Appellees, JONATHAN MERRIGAN, individually, EMANUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, JEANNE KULICK, Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee, HI-TEK SECURITY SERVICES, INC. Defendant-Cross Claimant-Cross Defendant. FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Claimant - Cross Defendant-Appellant, M.R.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, LEANN CARR, A.M., By and through his parent, Golda Muselaire, N.N., By and through his Mother, Heather Abrams, JANET JACKSON, TA'JENAE WILLIAMS, J.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, BRENDA HILL-BLUNTSON, R.L., By and through his parent, Janet Jackson, MEGHAN GARDNER, Z.M., By and through her parent, Golda Muselaire, M.J.G., By and through his parent, Meghan Gardner, I.M., By and through his parent, Golda Muselaire, GOLDA MUSELAIRE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SONOMA BAY COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, et al., Defendants-Cross Defendants-Appellees, EMANUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, JONATHAN MERRIGAN, individually, MARSH HARBOUR MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, PRESTIGE QUALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, MARSH HARBOUR 1 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Defendants, JEANNE KULICK, Defendant-Cross Defendant, HI-TEK SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, Defendant-Cross Claimant-Cross Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80667-RLR Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of FloridaBefore HULL, MARTIN, and EBEL,* Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs are the Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. (the "Center") and a number of current or former residents of the Sonoma Bay and Marsh Harbour condominium developments (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Sonoma Bay HOA"), Marsh Harbour Maintenance Association, Inc. ("Marsh Harbour HOA") (together, the "Associations"), and other related parties (collectively, the "Defendants"). The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants discriminated against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Following a seven-day trial, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial, primarily challenging the verdict form and the district court's refusal to give a jury instruction the Plaintiffs requested. Because the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated prejudicial and reversible error in the trial, we affirm.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against families with children. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (); id. § 3602(k) ().
The Plaintiffs' operative complaint alleged familial status discrimination under two different provisions of the FHA: §§ 3604 (b) and (c).1 Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful "[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of . . . familial status." Section 3604(c) makes it unlawful to "make, print, or publish . . . any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on . . . familial status."
The Plaintiffs' suit alleged the two Defendant Associations had four policies that discriminated against families with children in violation of §§ 3604(b) and (c) and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.20 et seq. The parties refer to these four policies as the "Curfew Rule," the "Loitering Rule," the "Proper AttireRule," and the "Report Card Requirement" (collectively, the "Rules"). These Rules state as follows:
The Plaintiffs claimed that the Rules facially discriminated against children and that the Defendants wrongfully enforced them against only families with children, entitling the Plaintiffs to compensatory and punitive damages.
In 2014, Marsh Harbour amended its Curfew Rule and Report Card Requirement. By the time trial began in October 2015, both Marsh Harbour and Sonoma Bay had entirely eliminated the Loitering Rule, Curfew Rule, and Report Card Requirement.
As recounted in great detail below, the trial evidence focused on whether, during 2010 to 2015 (before the elimination of the Rules), the Defendants hadenforced these Rules against only children, or against all residents, or at times against no one at all.
Before reviewing the trial evidence, we first review a pre-trial ruling by the district court, which the Plaintiffs claim affected their trial presentation.
Before trial, the parties filed summary judgment motions. Of importance to this appeal, the Plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants' Liability Regarding Written Policies that Violate the Fair Housing Act." (Emphasis added). The Plaintiffs' motion contended that partial summary judgment was proper because "there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendants maintained discriminatory written policies in violation of the Fair Housing Act." (Emphasis added). In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs requested that the district court grant their "motion for partial summary judgment as to liability."
The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion as to both the Report Card Requirement and the Proper Attire Rule. The district court observed that the rental applications also required adults to submit to a background check, such that an ordinary reader could conclude that "the same type of vetting is being applied to both adults and children—a type of vetting related to the character of theapplicant." An ordinary reader could also conclude that the report card was used as a means of identification. The district court concluded that "this issue must be resolved by a trier of fact."
The district court also noted that there was "sufficient ambiguity in the meaning of the wording" of the Proper Attire Rule such that it was "unclear" whether the Plaintiffs had established a "prima facie case of familial discrimination." The district court later stated that the language of the Proper Attire Rule was "unclear" because, while one ordinary reader could conclude that the Rule's reference to "Boys" and "Girls" meant only male and female children, another ordinary reader could conclude that the Rule encompassed all males and all females. Therefore, the district court concluded that "this issue must be resolved by a trier of fact."
When analyzing the text of the Loitering and Curfew Rules and § 3604(b), the district court determined that:
Because [these Rules' restrictions] are limited to children and because the rules treat children differently than adults—children are essentially confined to their home after dark—Plaintiffs have, at a minimum, established a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under § 3604(b). The burden therefore shifts to Defendants to articulate "a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for the challenged policy."
Based on the record evidence, the district court found that "the primary motivations behind Defendants' Loitering Rule and Curfew Rule were safetyconcerns and crime prevention[.]" The district court also noted, however, that the Defendants did not provide evidence demonstrating that the children in the communities had a propensity to commit criminal acts or that the children's parents were incapable of supervising their outside activities.
The district court also found that, even if these justifications for the Loitering and Curfew Rules were satisfactory, "[t]he plain text of the rules confines children to their home for the duration of the night." The district court determined that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial