Hernandez v. Golf Course Estates Home Owners Ass'n

• Decision Date: 10 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 6:18-cv-00932-AA
• Citation: 454 F.Supp.3d 1029
• Parties: Erika HERNANDEZ and Paulo Regalado, as Guardians for their minor child, A.R.; Erika Hernandez, individually; and Paulo Regalado, individually, Plaintiffs, v. GOLF COURSE ESTATES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; Lee Edwards, individually; Lori Gibson, individually; and Jackie Winters, individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

454 F.Supp.3d 1029

Erika HERNANDEZ and Paulo Regalado, as Guardians for their minor child, A.R.; Erika Hernandez, individually; and Paulo Regalado, individually, Plaintiffs,

v.GOLF COURSE ESTATES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; Lee Edwards, individually; Lori Gibson, individually; and Jackie Winters, individually, Defendants.

Case No. 6:18-cv-00932-AA

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division.

Signed April 10, 2020

Dennis Steinman, Scott J. Aldworth, Kell, Alterman & Runstein, L.L.P., Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.

Carl R. Rodrigues, Hilary A. Boyd, Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

AIKEN, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Erika Hernandez and Paulo Regalado, individually and as guardians for their minor child, A.R., bring this action against defendant Golf Course Estates Homeowners Association ("HOA") and its board members, Lee Edwards, Lori Gibson, and Jackie Winters, for violations of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA") and the Oregon Fair Housing Act ("OHFA"), as well as a claim for negligence. Now before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability (doc. 20) and defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the individual board members (doc. 23). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' daughter, A.R., has developmental disabilities and attends a special needs elementary school. A.R.'s disability prevents her from assessing dangers, and she is prone to running into the street. A.R.'s Individualized Education Program ("IEP") provides her with specialized transportation to school that includes pick-up and drop-off directly in front of her house.

In February 2017, plaintiffs began renting a home in Golf Course Estates, a housing development overseen by defendant HOA, located in Marion County, Oregon. Individually named defendants Lee Edwards, Lori Gibson, and Jackie Winters serve as the board of the HOA ("the Board"). At all times material to this suit, defendant Edwards acted as the Chairman of the Board.

A.R.'s school bus picked her up and dropped her off in front of her home without incident from February 2017 until October 2017, when Hernandez learned that bus service would be discontinued. This policy change was instigated by Sharon Bowker, the HOA Board's secretary and manager, who complained to the Salem-Keizer School Transportation office that school buses were speeding on private streets. Ms. Bowker claimed that she and the Board were concerned for the safety of residents: the development has no sidewalks, so residents often walk in the narrow streets. The Board claims that three to four bus ran each morning and afternoon, at the same times that other students were walking to the development's designated bus stop, presenting a safety risk and liability. The Board also noted the buses contributed to "heavy wear and tear on the streets" that "are privately maintained and paid for by homeowners." Aldworth Decl. Ex. 24 at 1. Ms. Bowker requested that the buses use the designated River Road stop unless they were picking up students with special needs.

After Bowker requested a vote on the bus issue on September 30, 2017, the Board voted to not allow school buses on the HOA roads. Bowker then sent e-mail to the school district's director of transportation, informing him that the roads were private and instructing the district stop routing school buses on the HOA roads. The district replied by noting that it would need to notify parents of students receiving specialized services, would stop bus service later in the month. On October 24, 2017, Hernandez learned from A.R.'s bus driver that the HOA had disallowed school buses on HOA streets and that A.R. would need to begin using the designated bus stop the following day.

On October 25, 2017, Hernandez wrote a letter to the Board explaining the nature of A.R.'s disability and the provision in her IEP calling for special transportation. Hernandez expressed concerns for A.R.'s safety if she had to use the River Road bus stop, which was located on a busier public street. She requested that the Board permit A.R.'s bus to continue door-to-door transportation as an accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. She also asked that the Board provide her a written explanation if they chose to deny her request. Later that day, Hernandez received an email from Ms. Bowker stating that the Board voted to reinstate bus service as long as bus drivers adhered to speed limits. Hernandez requested written confirmation of the Board's decision from Ms. Bowker.

Ms. Bowker then emailed Salem-Keizer Public Schools' Director of Transportation Michael Shields, instructing him to temporarily continue bus service in the community. She explained that the Board received complaints from three HOA residents whose children were affected by the change and had elected to delay its final decision pending review in January. Ms. Bowker's email stated, "[i]t was not the HOA's intention to change any pick-up/drop off schedules for special needs children who were entitled to that service." Aldworth Decl. Ex 12 at 2. Mr. Shields responded, confirming that the only students receiving bus service in the community were those "requiring special assistance." Aldworth Decl. Ex. 12. He also explained that while school personnel could provide general bus information to the board, he could not provide any information about particular students and their needs due to HIPAA rules.¹

On November 2, 2017, Mr. Shields received a formal letter from the Board, stating that the approval of bus services was temporary and that the Board was not required to allow the buses on Golf Course Estates' private streets. The letter stated that the Board would be reconsidering the issue in early January 2018 and requested that Mr. Shields provide information about why door-to-door bus service was initiated and whether special program students had mobility issues. The letter also requested that Mr. Shield's send the Board the latest relevant city and state transportation regulations. Plaintiff Hernandez received a copy of this letter.

On January 26, 2018, the Board voted unanimously to disallow school buses from entering Golf Coast Estates' private streets. The Board sent a letter relaying that information to Mr. Shields on February 1, 2018. The letter stated that the Board had requested information about the HOA's legal obligations in allowing bus service and said that if Mr. Shields did not comply by February 23, 2018, the buses would not be permitted to enter the private streets. On February 20, 2018, Mr. Shields notified Plaintiff Hernandez that the Board directed him to stop bus service in the community. Other than this notice from Mr. Shields, Plaintiff Hernandez did not receive an explanation from the Board regarding its denial of her October 25 request.

After receiving Mr. Shields' notice, Hernandez notified her landlord, Nancy Buck, about the busing issue. Ms. Buck emailed Ms. Bowker on February 21, 2018, stating that the HOA's refusal to allow bus transportation for A.R. was unacceptable. Ms. Buck noted that the school district provided a letter for A.R. and said that transportation is "governmentally allowed." Ex. 20 to Aldworth Decl. at 2. Ms. Buck demanded "a reasonable explanation" as soon as possible. Id. Ms. Bowker forwarded the email to the Board the next day. Ms. Buck never received a response from the Board.

On February 23, 2018, Defendant Winters emailed Defendants Edwards and Gibson about a conversation she had with the District Superintendent where she "expressed that if we make a special exception, we could be setting ourselves up to discriminate against other students who reside here." Aldworth Decl. Ex. 21 at 1. Defendant Winters noted that the school district had a similar problem with another HOA and opined that the district was "trying to implement a new State initiative without doing all of their due diligence." Id. Ms. Bowker also emailed the Board to ask, "if the Association granted access to the 3 particular students ... then would it have to grant access to school buses for all of the kids in the community?" Aldworth Decl. Ex. 22 at 2.

On February 26, A.R.'s door-to-door transportation was discontinued. The nearest designated school bus stop was on River Road, which defendants allege is a three-minute walk from plaintiffs' residence. Given A.R.'s disability, plaintiffs Hernandez and Regalado elected to drive A.R. to and from school every day after February 26.

In April 2018, Defendant Winters set up a meeting with the District Superintendent and the Board. The Board members had requested additional information about the three children's medical needs for door-to-door transportation. The Superintendent said the District could not provide students' medical information and told the Board that such information must be requested directly from the students' parents. The Board did not contact plaintiffs for A.R.'s medical information, and the ban remained in effect.

On April 18, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel sent a demand letter to defendants explaining the Board's legal requirements to provide reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The Board did not respond to plaintiffs' demands. and this lawsuit was filed on May 29, 2018. Two days later, on May 31, the Board reversed its policy to allow buses back into the community. The school year was nearly over, so plaintiffs determined it would not be worth changing A.R.'s routine for only a few days and notified the District that plaintiffs would continue driving A.R. for the remainder of the year. Plaintiffs resumed door-to-door pick up at the beginning of the following school year.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FRCP 56(a). As applied here, where the moving party bears the burden of proof...