Fair Hous. Ctr. of Cent. Ind. v. Rainbow Realty Grp.

• Decision Date: 07 October 2022
• Docket Number: 1:17-cv-01782-JMS-TAB
• Parties: FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC., MORY KAMANO, NORMA TEJEDA, CORDELL SPENCER, MARIA GASPAR, and FRANKLIN PAZ,, v. RAINBOW REALTY GROUP, INC., EMPIRE HOLDING CORP., JAMES R. HOTKA, SUNSHINE TRUST, REDSKINS TRUST, SPORTING TRUST, ALLEY CAT TRUST, SHORE WATERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and SUNFLOWER TRUST, .
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC., MORY KAMANO, NORMA TEJEDA, CORDELL SPENCER, MARIA GASPAR, and FRANKLIN PAZ,,
v.
RAINBOW REALTY GROUP, INC., EMPIRE HOLDING CORP., JAMES R. HOTKA, SUNSHINE TRUST, REDSKINS TRUST, SPORTING TRUST, ALLEY CAT TRUST, SHORE WATERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and SUNFLOWER TRUST, .

No. 1:17-cv-01782-JMS-TAB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

October 7, 2022

ORDER

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Plaintiffs Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, Inc. ("Fair Housing"), Mory Kamano, Norma Tejeda, Cordell Spencer, Maria Gaspar, and Franklin Paz have asserted various claims against Defendants Rainbow Realty Group, Inc. ("Rainbow"), Empire Holding Corp. ("Empire"), Shore Waters Development, LLC ("Shore Waters"), James Hotka, Sunshine Trust, Redskins Trust, Sporting Trust, and Alley Cat Trust related to agreements they entered into with Rainbow and other non-party entities to rent to buy properties in Indianapolis, Indiana ("the RTB Agreements"). Specifically, Plaintiffs have asserted various claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq. ("ECOA"), the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. ("FHA"), the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639 ("TILA"), and Indiana statutes.

The parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 308; Filing No. 314], and, after wading through 180 pages of briefs and over 1,000 pages of exhibits, the Court issued an Order on August 12, 2022 denying Plaintiffs' Motion and granting Defendants' Cross-Motion,

1

[Filing No. 332]. Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion to Clarify the Court's Summary Judgment Order ("Motion to Clarify"), [Filing No. 337], a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order on the Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment ("Motion to Reconsider"), [Filing No. 338], and a Motion Requesting Oral Argument, [Filing No. 340], and the United States, also a non-party, has filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 349]. Plaintiffs' motions and the Government's Statement of Interest are ripe for the Court's review and are discussed below.^[1]

I.

The Court's Expectations

Before considering the pending motions, the Court finds it prudent to set out several expectations it has of the parties to this lawsuit, and to all lawsuits over which it presides.

First, the Court stresses the importance of party presentation. This case presents numerous complicated legal issues and the Court relies upon the parties to present their claims, defenses, and arguments in a coherent and complete fashion. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]n our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation, [which is] designed around the premise that parties represented by competent counsel know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief." United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S.Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020) (quotations and citations omitted). The Court will not make arguments for the parties, nor should the parties expect that the Court will

2

consider arguments that the parties could have made, but did not. Further, federal judges are "busy generalists" who may not know counsels' "corner of the law." Seventh Circuit Bar Association EMentoring Project, Judge Easterbrook - What is the Best Advice for Young Lawyers? https://vimeo.com/channels/usca7/23815036. The parties should write their briefs with that fact in mind, and should assume that the Court will thoroughly read their briefs "from beginning to end, once" - not multiple times in order to "disambiguate any complications [the parties] leave them." Id.; see also Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Independent)Pension Fund v. CPC Logistics, Inc., 698 F.3d 346, 350 (7th Cir. 2012) ("Federal judges are generalists.").

Relatedly, "[a] litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point." Mwangangi v. Nielsen, --- F.4th ----, 2022 WL 4244594, at *12 (Sept. 15, 2022) (quotation and citation omitted). And when a party does not respond to the other side's argument, it has waived that argument. Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 466 (7th Cir. 2010) ("Failure to respond to an argument.. .results in waiver."). Further, arguments made in a motion to reconsider that were not raised in connection with the underlying motion will not be considered. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 683 F.3d 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012) (motions to reconsider are "not appropriately used to advance arguments or theories that could and should have been made before the district court rendered a judgment, or to present evidence that was available earlier") (quotation and citation omitted).

The Court's reliance on party presentation and the concept of waiver both serve to make the Court's consideration of pending motions more focused and efficient. Focus and efficiency are critical to judges in the Southern District of Indiana. As of March 2022, per judgeship, the United

3

States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana had the fourth highest number of pending cases in the country and the ninth highest number of weighted filings. http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-management-statistics-march-2022 (United States District Courts - National Judicial Caseload Profile). In both of those categories, this District ranks the highest out of all District Courts within the Seventh Circuit. Id. It has more than three times as many pending cases per judgeship as other Districts within the Seventh Circuit and, in some cases, five times as many. Id. The undersigned is currently presiding over 401 civil cases and 68 criminal cases with 97 defendants. In those cases, 345 motions are currently pending. All this to emphasize that the parties only get one chance to present their motions and supporting arguments, or opposition to motions, to the Court. See Standards for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, Lawyers' Duties to the Court ("We will be considerate of the time constraints and pressures on the court and court staff inherent in their efforts to administer justice."). When a party seeks additional chances, parties in other cases who may have adequately briefed their motions on the first go-round may be left to wait, which is unfair.

And finally, the Court notes that the Standards for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit provide that counsel "will speak and write civilly and respectfully in all communications with the court." Some of the statements in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider come close to the line of violating that standard. [See, e.g., Filing No. 339 at 10 (arguing that the Court's conclusion that Rainbow is not a creditor under the ECOA is "clearly incorrect" and then presenting legal authority which was never cited in summary judgment briefs); Filing No. 339 at 13 (arguing that "[t]he Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims has precisely the opposite effect, rewarding and enabling Hotka's attempts to avoid liability and thwart valid attempts to hold him accountable for legal violations").] Counsel should keep in mind that the

4

Court is rendering decisions to the best of its ability, based on the facts and law presented by the parties' arguments. If an argument - or the omission of an argument - compels the Court to reach a finding foreclosing liability, that finding is legally proper.

The Court now considers the pending motions with these expectations in mind.

II.

Standard of Review

Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a mechanism for filing a "Motion to Clarify," the Court treats Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify as a Motion to Reconsider along with Plaintiffs' other Motion to Reconsider. Motions to reconsider orders other than final judgments are governed by Rule 54(b). SeeSelective Ins. Co. of S.C. v. City of Paris, 769 F.3d 501, 507 (7th Cir. 2014). "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that non-final orders 'may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.'" Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581, 587 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)).

"Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used 'where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Davis v. Carmel ClaySchs., 286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)) (additional quotations omitted). A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact; however, a motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments. Granite St. Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).

In other words, "[m]otions to reconsider 'are not replays of the main event.'" Dominguezv. Lynch, 612 Fed.Appx. 388, 390 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Khan v. Holder, 766 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2014)). A motion to reconsider "is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously

5

rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996).

III.

Discussion^[2]

Plaintiffs raise eight issues in connection with the Court's Order on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Court: (1) did not address the ECOA claims of class members whose RTB...