Treece v. Perrier Condo. Owners Ass'n

• Decision Date: 14 February 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-10153 SECTION: "E"
• Parties: DWAYNE TREECE, ET AL. Plaintiffs v. PERRIER CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

DWAYNE TREECE, ET AL. Plaintiffs v. PERRIER CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-10153 SECTION: "E"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

February 14, 2020

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions for partial summary judgment, one filed by Defendants Katherine Acuff, Chris Jablonowski, Hanna Haile, and the Perrier Condominium Owners Association, Inc (PCOA),¹ and one filed by Plaintiffs Dwayne and Phallon Treece and Clifford Harlan.² Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion,³ and Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motion.⁴ Plaintiffs and Defendants both filed replies in support of their respective motions.⁵ Plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition to Defendants' motion.⁶ For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED, and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART, DEFERRED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.

Also before the Court, are two motions in limine. Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Russell Robins.⁷ Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Calvin P. Bradford.⁸ Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs'motion,⁹ and Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants' motion.¹⁰ Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion.¹¹ For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Russell Robins is GRANTED, and Defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Calvin P. Bradford is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

In August 2017, Plaintiffs Dwayne and Phallon Treece, along with their four children, rented a condominium unit in a four-unit building located at 6032-6038 Perrier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana ("the Perrier Condominium").¹² Plaintiff Clifford Harlan owns the unit the Treeces rented.¹³ Defendants Acuff, Jablonowski, and Haile individually own the other three units.¹⁴ The four unit owners are the sole members of the Perrier Condominium Owner's Association (PCOA), which governs the Perrier Condominium regime.¹⁵

Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by enacting and enforcing an occupancy limit on the Perrier Condominium that has a disparate impact on families with children, discriminating against the Treeces based on their familial status, attempting to evict the Treeces based on their familial status, and attempting to force Harlan to evict the Treeces based on their familial status.¹⁶ Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages for these alleged violations.¹⁷ The parties now, in effect, cross move for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' disparate impact claimunder 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' § 3617 claim.¹⁸ The parties also seek to exclude each other's expert witnesses.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."¹⁹ "An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action."²⁰ When assessing whether a material factual dispute exists, the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."²¹ All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.²² There is no genuine issue of material fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.²³

"[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."²⁴ If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden of production by either (1)submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmovant's claim, or (2) demonstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential element of the nonmovant's claim.²⁵

When proceeding under the first option, if the nonmoving party cannot muster sufficient evidence to dispute the movant's contention that there are no disputed facts, a trial would be useless, and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.²⁶ When proceeding under the second option, the nonmoving party may defeat a motion for summary judgment by "calling the Court's attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party."²⁷ The burden then shifts back to the movant to demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidence relied upon by the nonmovant.²⁸ If the movant meets this burden, "the burden of production shifts [back again] to the nonmoving party, who must either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the moving party's papers, (2) produce additional evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) submit an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f)."²⁹ "Summary judgment should be granted if the nonmoving party fails to respond in one or more of these ways, or if, after the nonmoving party responds, the court determines that themoving party has met its ultimate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial."³⁰

"[U]nsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence."³¹ The opposing party must "identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his or her claim. 'Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.'"³²

FACTS

I. Undisputed Facts³³

The Perrier Condominium contains four units.³⁴ Plaintiff Harlan and Defendants Acuff, Jablonowski, and Haile each own one of the units.³⁵ The four unit owners are the sole members of the Perrier Condominium Owners Association (PCOA), which governs the Perrier Condominium regime.³⁶ In August 2017, the Treeces, a family of six, rented Unit 6036 from Plaintiff Harlan.³⁷

The Perrier Condominium is subject to a facially neutral use and occupancy rule stated in the Condominium Declaration.³⁸ The occupancy rule states "no unit shall be occupied, even for permitted use, by more than one (1) person making such Unit his or her residence for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area within the Unit."³⁹The occupancy rule allows up to five people to occupy Unit 6036.⁴⁰ The Treece family exceeds the occupancy limit as applied to Unit 6036.⁴¹

The PCOA, in part, justifies the occupancy limit as necessary to reduce wear and tear on the Perrier Condominium and its infrastructure.⁴² PCOA governing documents empower the PCOA to make repairs to units at the expense of the unit owners.⁴³ The PCOA has not computed the maximum number of residents that the Perrier Condominium's infrastructure can handle.⁴⁴

The PCOA also justifies its occupancy rule based on "quality of life" concerns such as street parking, backyard space, garbage can management, laundry use, and noise.⁴⁵ The Perrier Condominium does not have a parking lot.⁴⁶ The Perrier Condominium has four garbage cans.⁴⁷ The PCOA rules include a rule governing noise and nuisance.⁴⁸ Harlan's unit could be modified to ameliorate noise concerns.⁴⁹

On August 16, 2017, Harlan informed Acuff, Jablonowski, and Haile by email that he had rented his unit to the Treeces.⁵⁰ Acuff, whose unit abuts Harlan's unit, responded by email asking, "How long is their lease? And how many children do they have? They are moving in as I write this and I am listening to a kid screaming through the wall and running all over the floors."⁵¹ Haile responded to Harlan's email and stated, "[t]his renter,Dwayne, had actually contact me in regards to renting my unit the very first week I posted it. He came to look with his youngest child. He is a nice guy but I decided the condo was not the best fit as they have 3 small children."⁵² Acuff responded by stating "this could be a serious issue. Reasonable limitations on occupancy are 2 people per bedroom. I don't even know that the systems in this building can handle that many people in one unit."⁵³

The next day, Acuff emailed the unit owners and stated she had conducted a social media search confirming the Treeces had three children, maybe four.⁵⁴ Acuff then texted Haile and Jablonowski a picture of the Treeces' stroller parked in a common area of the Perrier Condominium.⁵⁵ Haile responded, "This is completely unacceptable, they will not be storing strollers like that."⁵⁶ Soon after, Acuff shared with Haile that she had suggested to Harlan he could evict the Treeces for lying on their application by not listing all of their children.⁵⁷ Haile said Harlan needed to get this "sorted out" and that he should be able to break the lease.⁵⁸ An hour later, Acuff texted Harlan and Haile that "the bylaws also require 250 per square feet, which means you need 1500" square feet to accommodate six people.⁵⁹

The next day, on August 18, 2017, Acuff texted Haile that she was going to propose a change to the bylaws to limit occupancy to three people per unit.⁶⁰ Five days later, on August 21, 2017, Acuff emailed the other three owners to say she would like to have a condominium association meeting "to discuss possible amendments to our bylaws in lightof recent events. In that same vein, I think we need to have our bylaws reviewed and updated by an attorney."⁶¹ Acuff also emailed Harlan suggesting various bases on which Harlan could seek to terminate the Treeces' lease, including violations of noise restrictions and the...