Maletta v. Woodle

• Decision Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-1004-JES-MRM
• Parties: ANDREW C. MALETTA and POLLY MALETTA, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID WOODLE and FREDERICK J. LANGDON, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

ANDREW C. MALETTA and POLLY MALETTA, Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID WOODLE and FREDERICK J. LANGDON, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-1004-JES-MRM

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

July 19, 2022

ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE SBNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case comes before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. (Docs. ## 68,^[1] 77.) Responses and replies were filed. (Docs. ## 76, 79, 81, 83.) For the reasons set forth, both motions are DENIED.

I.

Motions for summary judgment should only be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex

1

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “An issue of fact is ‘genuine' if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). A fact is “material” if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) . The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then ‘go beyond the pleadings,' and by its own affidavits, or by ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324) . “A court must decide ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'” Hickson, 357 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Tana v.

2

Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 772 (11th Cir. 2010) . However, “if reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then the court should deny summary judgment.” St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815, 819 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 1983)) (finding summary judgment “may be inappropriate even where the parties agree on the basic facts, but disagree about the factual inferences that should be drawn from these facts.”)).

Cross motions for summary judgment do not change the standard. See Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005). Cross motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of another; and summary judgment is inappropriate if disputes remain as to material facts. Id.; United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir. 1984).

II.

The following facts are undisputed.^[2] The parties in the lawsuit - Plaintiff Andrew Maletta (plaintiff or Maletta), Defendant David

3

Woodle (Woodle), and Defendant Frederick Langdon (Langdon) (collectively, defendants) - are or were members of an RV community at Riverbend Motorcoach Resort (Riverbend) in LaBelle, Florida. (Doc. #76 ¶ 1; Doc. #33, ¶ 7, 9.) Riverbend consists of 315 lots. (Doc. #76, ¶ 2; Doc. #33, ¶ 8.)

Since Maletta purchased a lot in Riverbend, Maletta has been politically involved and active in governance, legal compliance, and fiscal issues within Riverbend. (Doc. #76 ¶¶ 5, 6.) Maletta has served in a variety of roles within the official governance structure of Riverbend, including being a member of the Coach House Committee. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.)

Sometime in 2020, Woodle posted a letter titled, “A Cancer on our Resort and the Company you Keep” (the “Letter”), on a closed Facebook group consisting of Riverbend owners. (Doc. #76, ¶ 7; Doc. # 77, ¶ 32; Doc. #1-1.) The Letter includes two-and-a-half pages of approximately 100 signatures that were solicited by Woodle before the document was posted. (Doc. #1-1; Doc. #77, ¶ 31.) After the Letter was posted, Maletta asked Langdon, an administrator of the Facebook page, to remove the posting. (Doc. #77, ¶ 34.) Langdon did not remove the posting. (Id. ¶¶ 35.)

The Letter reads as follows:

4

A Cancer on our Resort and the Company you Keep

To Whom It May Concern:

Since 2014 (the year the owner in question arrived) Riverbend Motorcoach Resort has had many operational issues, many of which have been resolved or improved. Some that continue to distract and consume the time of our elected board a fl lead back to one owner that has fermented discord and dissent by many means.

A careful review based on discussions with Owners, board members and others has led to this compilation (by DO means complete, but certainly indicative) of the following list of behavioral issues:

1 Originally in 2014 the welcome center/office was required to bo invoked due of rude and profanity faced behavior of the owner and friends at the community pool shortly after the purchase of their lot.

2 Threatening another owner with bodily harm by another friend of the owner during a run for a board office by the owner.

3, Legal threats against the board for allowing Dave Horton to run for another term In 2014-2015. This led to the board removing Horton after he was elected [beating the owner in question) from office until an arbitrator decided in Horton's favor at an overall legal cost to the association of $10,000.

4. Legal threat and demands for book records over the work camper program and resulting 1099s issued. Compensation to workcampers increased due to change is procedures that continually costour association annually compared to prior procedures. Unknown legal costs to association on this issue as it lingered for some time.

5. Legal threats and bookkeeping record demands against owner Jack Kerfoot for DJ services and workcamper rentals of his lot. Unknown legal costs to association.

6. Legal threats and bookkeeping demands against the resort concerning Lee Conwell's compensation package. Unknown legal costs to association.

7. Legal threats against resort for allowing a "Reunion gathering" of prior owners at the RCH in 2019 if the event was not cancelled.

8. Instigated meeting and movement to replace Dakota Landscaping with another vendor due to hrs dissatisfaction with Dakota on a job issue on his personal lot. We now have 4-5 companies doing what Dakota didst considerable additional expense annually to the association.

9 Confronting Leia nd J on es p ublicly in 20 IS at th e a n n ua I meeting a f ter Le Ian d accused him of fermenting trouble since day one. Leland publicly offered to buy him Out of his lot and allow him to move along.

10. Accusation against owner of putting water in his boat diesel tanks without evidence in approximately 2918, 11. Accusation against another owner of cutting his coach sewer fine.

12. Accusation against another owner of slicing a car tire of a friend of his who was also an owner

13. Calling the gate agent during the RV show in 2019 to vehemently complain he was not called to give tours to prospective renters/buyers (he had two lots for sale/rent so no conflict?).

14. Continuous com plaints of tour assignments given to Dave Horton as

...