Justice v. Pendleton Place Apartments

• Decision Date: 17 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-5640,93-5640
• Citation: 40 F.3d 139
• Parties: , 5 NDLR P 455 Judy JUSTICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENDLETON PLACE APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 139

40 F.3d 139

30 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1056, 5 NDLR P 455

Judy JUSTICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENDLETON PLACE APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-5640.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 28, 1994.

Decided Nov. 17, 1994.

Wanda Turner Lee (argued and briefed), Memphis, TN, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert L. Moore (argued and briefed), Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, Memphis, TN, for defendants-appellees.

Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; and MILBURN and SILER, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Chief Judge.

The basic question certified to us on appeal by the district court is whether the handicap discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act permit recovery of damages for personal injury, but the question is presented in a round-about way through the district court's handling of plaintiff's state law negligence per se claim.

Plaintiff brought suit for handicap discrimination on three legal theories, two federal and one state, against owners and managers of her federally-subsidized apartment complex for refusing to transfer her to a downstairs apartment. She sues for violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act ¹ and also presents a pendent state law theory of negligence per se which uses these two federal laws as the source of the state standard of liability. ² She seeks damages for injuries she received after falling down the stairs in her building.

In an unusual decision, the district court dismissed plaintiff's negligence per se claim based on the violation of the standard of conduct created by the Fair Housing and Rehabilitation Acts and certified its order as final pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). ³ The district court assumed without discussion that Tennessee negligence law would incorporate the two federal statutes under the negligence per se doctrine but reasoned that the Fair Housing and Rehabilitation Acts do not allow recovery of damages for physical injury and then held that recovery of damages for personal injury under the negligence per se theory must fail because it is dependent on the remedies available under the two Acts. But the court denied defendants' summary judgment motions as to the substantive Fair Housing and Rehabilitation Act claims (Counts I and II) and granted a motion to stay the trial pending this appeal. Thus, this appeal requests an advisory opinion. It is an appeal of a purely state law question being used to determine whether damages for physical injury are allowed under the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act, a federal question of first impression.

I.

Though not raised by the parties, a substantial question exists about the propriety of using Rule 54(b) to present this issue to the Court. "[B]ecause it involves the scope of our appellate jurisdiction, we are compelled to raise sua sponte the issue of whether the district court's entry of final judgment was warranted." Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1336 (4th Cir.1993). The "decision to certify a claim for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) merits substantial deference," Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 61 (6th Cir.1986), and we review the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. Braswell, 2 F.3d at 1336.

Several factors have emerged from case law to determine whether an order is properly certifiable as a final order. See 10 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2659 (1983) ("Wright & Miller"); Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Environmental Systems, Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir.1986); Solomon, 782 F.2d at 61 n. 2. First is the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims--they should generally be separate and independent so that the appellate court will not have to consider the same issues again if a second appeal is brought. Wright & Miller Sec. 2659. Similarly, a court of appeals should not entertain appeals on issues that are still before the trial court "because questions the appellate court might want to consider have not been adjudicated at the trial level." Id. This is true both because of the need for a fully-developed record and because future proceedings in the district court might moot the issues. Another "requirement" under Rule 54(b) is that the district court articulate its reasons for certifying a final order. Solomon, 782 F.2d at 61 (failure to provide grounds for certification an abuse of discretion). The court must "weigh and examine the competing factors ... [and] do more than just recite the 54(b) formula of 'no just reason for delay.' " Id. The district court below merely concludes that the relevant factors are met with little discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, the only substantive point made by the district court, that a decision "may provide guidance to the court in determining the damages available to plaintiff ... with respect to her statutory claims," actually militates against appellate review in this case. Specifically, the district court dismissed plaintiff's negligence per se claim

because it concluded that the purpose of the Fair Housing and Rehabilitation Acts was to compensate plaintiffs for discrimination not physical injury. In reaching that conclusion, the court looked to the type of damages available under each Act. Because the Sixth Circuit may conclude that the court erred with respect to the type of damages available under each Act, review of the negligence per se claim could affect resolution of plaintiff's statutory claims, at least with respect to the issue of damages. This relationship between the negligence per se claim and the statutory claims weighs in favor of certification.

Joint Appendix at 237. We disagree.

The negligence per se claim depends entirely on the remaining federal claims and the district court's decision was based on its interpretation of what damages are recoverable under the Acts. We are unable to decide this appeal without reference to the Rehabilitation and Fair Housing Acts, but doing so violates most if not all of the Rule 54(b) factors set forth above. The district court's own words indicate that the claims are not "separate and independent" but instead are "inextricably intertwined." Ginett v. Computer Task Group, Inc., 962 F.2d 1085, 1096 (2d Cir.1992) ("those claims 'inherently inseparable' from or 'inextricably interrelated' to each other are inappropriate for Rule 54(b) certification"). The district court still must rule on the availability of damages for the remaining substantive counts so that it is possible (and even likely) that this issue will come up again before another panel after the rest of this case is decided. Furthermore, subsequent events in the district court could conceivably moot the issues in the instant appeal. If the trier of fact decides that plaintiff was not handicapped, no damages issue would remain and any decision rendered here would become an advisory opinion. Ginett, 962 F.2d at 1095. Judicial economy generally is served best when appeals are presented in a unified package. Here, the "similarity of legal or factual issues ... weigh[s] heavily against entry of judgment" under Rule 54(b). Solomon, 782 F.2d at 62 (citations omitted).

II.

A brief analysis of the issues presented further demonstrates why this appeal should not be heard. As has been noted, the thrust of the district court's decision is that damages are unavailable under the Fair Housing and Rehabilitation Acts. Yet the district court made this holding in the context of plaintiff's negligence per se claim while hardly discussing the complicated area of damages and remedies under federal law.

We make no effort to decide the issue but simply point out that the district court's summary judgment order never analyzes the most recent Supreme Court case on the issue of damages under federal statutes, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Gwinnett held that monetary damages are available under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Its language and reasoning, however, may apply with equal force to other federal statutes:

The general rule, therefore, is that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.

Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1035.

Gwinnett seems to clarify the analysis courts must utilize to determine what remedies are available under federal statutes. "[A]bsent any contrary indication in the text or history of the statute, ... the traditional presumption in favor of any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right" will apply. Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1036. Before Gwinnett some courts interpreting the Rehabilitation Act had required plaintiffs to demonstrate that Congress intended monetary damages and had found that there "is scant evidence of a legislative intent to authorize all sorts of monetary damages in discrimination cases." Eastman v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State University, 939 F.2d 204, 207 n. 4 (4th Cir.1991). It may be that Eastman and other courts were asking the wrong question. Gwinnett suggests that all appropriate damages be presumed "absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress," Gwinnett, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1035, and the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that Congress did not intend such relief. The apparent switch of the burden from the plaintiff to the defendant limits the applicability of the pre-Gwinnett cases which disallowed such damages. Pandazides v. Virginia Board of Education, 13 F.3d 823, 830-32 (4th Cir.1994). Recently, some courts interpreting Gwinnett have found that compensatory damages are available under the Rehabilitation Act. Kraft v. Memorial Medical Center, 807 F.Supp. 785 (S.D.Ga.1992); Ali v. City of Clearwater, 807 F.Supp. 701 (M.D.Fla.1992...