Millwee v. New Tianping Investments, L.L.C., 060220 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CV 19-0681

Docket Nº:1 CA-CV 19-0681
Opinion Judge:CATTANI, JUDGE.
Party Name:TIMOTHY MILLWEE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NEW TIANPING INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants/Appellees.
Attorney:Timothy Millwee, Mesa Plaintiff/Appellant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix By Michael E. Hensley, David C. Potts, Jonathan P. Barnes Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Judge Panel:Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
Case Date:June 02, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

TIMOTHY MILLWEE, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

NEW TIANPING INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0681

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

June 2, 2020

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2019-090734 The Honorable Tracey Westerhausen, Judge.

Timothy Millwee, Mesa Plaintiff/Appellant

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix By Michael E. Hensley, David C. Potts, Jonathan P. Barnes Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CATTANI, JUDGE.

¶1 Timothy Millwee appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of New Tianping Investments, LLC ("NTI") and Jim Hilleary (collectively, "Appellees") on Millwee's claims alleging housing discrimination. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Millwee lived in a mobile home park owned by NTI and managed by Hilleary. When Hilleary learned that Millwee owned two pit bulls, he informed Millwee that pit bulls were prohibited at the park. After Millwee explained that the dogs were service animals, Hilleary provided Millwee with a verification form for Millwee's doctor to fill out to confirm that the dogs were in fact service animals. Millwee took the form to his Veterans Affairs ("VA") healthcare provider who declined to complete it because to do so was not authorized by VA policy. When Millwee informed Hilleary that he was unable to get a VA provider to fill out the form, Hilleary suggested that he ask a non-VA provider.

¶3 After Millwee stated that he would not contact a non-VA provider, Hilleary gave Millwee notice that his rental agreement would be terminated unless the pit bulls were removed from the premises. The notice instructed Millwee to either "remove [the] unauthorized dogs from the park" or "vacate [the] space within thirty (30) days after [the] receipt of this notice."

¶4 Millwee then filed a complaint in superior court, alleging that Hilleary violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and that he disrupted Millwee's mental health treatment for PTSD and anxiety, while also alleging that NTI was subject to vicarious liability.

¶5 After the 30-day cure period had...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP