Gorman v. Breeze Condominium Association, Inc, et al, No. 1:2023cv24513 - Document 27 (S.D. Fla. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER denying 20 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 6/3/2024. See attached document for full details. (dyg)

Download PDF
UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT COU RT FO R TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M iam iD ivision CaseN um ber:23-245J3-C157-M 014EN0 HAN NA H G ORM AN ,individually and on behalfofherm inorchild L.T.G ., Plaintiff, V S. BREEZE CON D OM INIUM A SSO CIATION , IN C .,N A U TICA M AN A GEM EN T,LCC,and RICH AR D M ULLER, D efendants. O RD ER DEN Y IN G DEFEND AN T S'M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS PLA IN TIFF'S FIR ST AM EN D ED CO M PLA INT This case is about a dispute between a form er tenant and her condominium , the condom inium 'sproperty managementfirm,and the condom inium 'sproperty m anager. Plaintiff allegesthatDefendantsdenied application forhçr and M r.Tom linson'sem otionalsupportdog, deniedrenewalofPlaintiff'slease,andthen interfered and deniedPlaintiff'scontractforadifferent lease w ithin the sam e condom inium . It is alleged that these actions nm otm ted to unlaw ful discrim ination under the Fair H ousing A ct. Plaintifffiled suitagainstD efendantsunder the Fair Housing Actfordiscrim ination,retaliation andinterference,and interferencewith acontract. Gorman v. Breeze Condominium Association, Inc, et al THIS CAU SE cnm e beforethe Courtupon D efendants'M otion to D ism issPlaintiff sFirst Doc. 27 Amended Complaint(D.E.20),tiledon Februarv 14.2024.THE COURT hasconsideredthe m otiop,the response in opposition,thereply,and pertinentportions ofthe record. Forthe reasons setfol'th below ,D efendants'M oticm to D ism issisD EM E D . l Dockets.Justia.com FA CTS The following facts f' rom Am ended Complaintare assum ed to be true for purposes of evaluatingtheM otiontoDismiss.lnearlyApril,PlaintiffHarmahGonnan (motherandguardian ofL.T.G.,aminor),andNicholasTomlinson (fatherofL.T.G.)submittedarentalapplication for Unit304 within Breeze Condo,including theinfonnation forM r.Tomlinson'sem otionalsupport animal. (ECF No.19)!! 6,12,17. Itisalleged thatM r.Tomlinson isan individualwith a disabilityunder42 U.S.C.j3602(h)and PlaintiffGorman wasiçassociated with aperson with a disability''and accordingly,coveredunder42 U.S.C.5360449.f#.!! 12-13. DefendantBreeze CondoisaGçperson''whoOperatesamultifamilydwelling,thesubjecthomeowner'sassociationat thecenterofthislitigation,andthesubjectpropertytothisaction.ld j 14. On or aboutApril12,2022,Plaintiffand M r.Tom linson entered into a one-year lease agreementwithJeffrey Cohen(ownerofUnit304),undertherulesand regulationsofDefendant BreezeCondo,and managedby DefendantNauticaM anagement.f#.! 19. DefendantNautica M tm agem ent is em ployed as the agent and property m anagem ent firm for D efendant Breeze Condo.Id ! 15.OnoraboutApril22,2022,PlaintiffandM r.Tomlinsonmovedintothesubject property.Id !20.OnM ay29,2022,Plaintiffsubmittedanemotionalsupportanimalapplication to DefendantNautica M anagem enton behalfofM r.Tomlinson thatincluded the requisite ttpet fonn.'' 1d.! 21. On June 14,DefendantRichard Mullerdenied the emotionalsupportanimal application because ofthe dog's size and breed. fJ.! 23. DefendantM ulleristhelicensed com m unity association m anager,agent for D efendant Breeze Condo,and m anager and CEO of DefendantNauticaM anagement.Id ! 10.Therewassomeback andforth betweenPlaintiffand Defendants about reconsideration of the denied application, which ultimately ended with DefendantM ullerreplyingtoPlaintiffthatS&thedecision hasnotbeen m adelightly,thematterwas discussedatlengthwiththeirattorney andassuchwouldnotbereconsidered.''Id !!25-26. Mr.Tomlinson movedoutofUnit304 onJanuary28,2023.Id !31.Even so,Plaintiff plannedtorenew theleaseforUnit304,evenrelayingtoherlandlord'srealestateagentthat(Ggijt willbejustmeandL.G.T.withNickbeingaregularvisiton''ld !32.However,onFebruary24, 2023,Plaintiffreceived an em ailfrom herrealestateagentadvising herthatthelease forUnit304 $twi11notberenewedwhenitexpiresonApril30,2023.'51d.!33.AfterPlaintiffmultipleattempts to speakwith herrealestateagent,shefinally told herthatGçthelaw doesnotrequireareason,and shewasnotawareofanyreason.''f#.!!34-35. On M arch 14,2023,Plaintiff signed a lease w ith Renata Oropallo for U nit 311 w ithin BreezeCondo.1d !36.M s.OropallosentacopyoftheleasetoDefendantNauticaM anagement forapproval.fJ.DefendantM ullerrespondedbyemailandsaidtoM s.Oropallothatttgaqllleases require approvalby theboard ofdirectors.'' 1d ! 37. On M arch 21,2023,DefendantM uller notifed both Plaintiffand M s.Oropallo with an officialletterthatstated: W eregretto inform you thatyourtenant'sapplication hasbeen considered by the board of directors and willnot be approved.The denial is based on grounds including but not limited to a m aterial representation on the tenant's initial application dated on oraboutApril13,2022,forleaseand thatofan ongoing legal m atterthe tenantand her com panion have filed againstthe association thatrem ains ongoing.The ongoing legal m atter has already costthe association thousands of dollars and has the propensity to cost thousands of m ore dollars along w ith increasingthealready expensiveinstlranceratesforthe association. 14 jg39.Plaintiffallegesthatnotonly didDefendantsdenyPlaintiffandMr.Tomlinson'srequest for reasonable accomm odations,but Defendants also willfully retaliated against Plaintiff by denyingherrentalapplicationforUnit311andtheopportunitytorenew Unit304.Id !!40-41. Plaintiffultim ately found a rentalproperty and on A pril25,2023,m oved outof Breeze Condo. Id.!43.AsaresultofDefendants'actions,Plaintiffsufferedandwillcontinuetosufferlossand injury including (butnotlimitedto)lossofahousing opportunity,humiliation,embarrassment, emotionaldistress,anddeprivationoftherighttoequalhousingopportunities.Id !45. Plaintiff(individually andon behalfofherminorchildL.T.G.)filedthislawsuitagainst Breeze Condo,Nautica M anagement,LLC.and Richard M uller. Plaintiff asserts three counts againstDefendantsfor:(l)Discriminationunder42 U.S.C.jj3601,etseq.;(11)Retaliation and Interferenceunder42 U.S.C.j3617;and (111)lnterference(with aContract)under42U.S.C.j 3617.Defendantssubsequently m oved to dism issCounts1,lI,and 111. LEGAL STANDARD:RULE 12(b)(6)M OTION TO DISM ISS In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,the Cotu't considers only the fourcorners ofthe com plaint. A courtm ustacceptastrue the facts as setforth in the com plaint. ç$To sulwive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than m erely state legal conclusionsy''instead plaintiffsm ustEsallege some specifc factualbasisforthose conclusionsor facedismissaloftheirclaims.''Jacksonv.Bellsouth Telecomms.,372F.3d 1250,1263(11thCir. 2004). W hen ruling on amotion to dismiss,acoul' tmustview thecomplaintin thelightmost favorabletotheplaintiffandaccepttheplaintiffswell-pleadedfactsastrue.SeeSt.Joseph'sHosp., lnc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,795F.2d 948,953 (11th Cir.1986). Thistenet,however,doesnot applytolegalconclusions.SeeAshcrojtv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,129S.Ct.1937,1949,173L.Ed. 2d 868(2009).M oreover,tllwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframework ofacomplaint, they mustbesupportedbyfactualallegations.''1d.at1950.Thoseçûltlactualallegationsmustbe 4 enough to raise a rightto relief above the speculative levelon the assumption that all ofthe com plaint'sallegationsare tnle.'' BellA tl.Corp.v.Twom bly,550 U .S.544,545,127 S.Ct.1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). ln short,thecomplaintmustnotmerely allegemisconduct,butmust dem onstrate thatthe pleaderis entitled to relief. See Iqbal,129 S.Ct.at 1950. D ISC U SSIO N As stated stvra,Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Am ended Complaint. First, Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to include a statement sufficiently explaining why Plaintiff was entitled to ' any relief against the Defendants nor against Defendant M uller, individually,and Plaintifffailed to includeadem andforany reliefsoughtagainsta11Defendants. Next,DefendantsstatethatDefendantM ullerisimm unefrom personalliabilityunderFloridalaw. Onto thecotmts,DefendantsarguethatCountlm ustbedismissed asthe Com plaintisdevoid of any allegationsto establish thatPlaintiffisdisabled asdefinedby the FairHousing Actorthatan em otionalsupportanim alisnecessary to am eliorate the effects ofher disability. On CountIl, DefepdantsarguethatPlaintiffsfailto stateaclaim forretaliatoryhousingdiscrimination.Lastly, on Count111,DefendantsstatethatPlaintiffisunableto m eetthefirstprong oftheelem entsfora violationof42U.S.C.j3617,thuswm antingdismissal.TheCourtdiscusses- andrejects--each argum entin tulm. ' 5 RULE 8(a)STANDARD & ANALYSIS Rule8(a)(2)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurerequiresthatacomplaintcontainçça shortand plain statementoftheclaim showing thatthepleaderisentitled to relief'' Fed.R.Civ. P.8(a)(2).Itiswithinçlthedistrictcourt'sinherentauthorityto controlitsdocketandensurethe promptresolution of lawsuits,which in som e circumstances includes the power to dism iss a complaintforfailuretocomplywithRule8(a)(2).''Davisv.Ft.LauderdalePoliceDep 'tlnt.W.#,k, No.23-10034,2024 U.S.App.LEXIS 3245 (11th Cir.Feb.12,2024)(citing Weilandv.Palm BeachCn@.Sherff' s0fJ' ,792F.3d 1313,1320(11thCir.2015)).A dismissalunderRule8(a)(2) Gçis appropriate where çitis virtually im possible to know which allegations offactare intended to suppol'twhichclaimts)fozrelief.'''1d at1325(emphasisin original)(quotingAndersonv.Dist. Bd.ofTrs.ofcent.Fla.Cv@.Coll.,77F.3d364,366(11th Cir.1996)). H ere, D efendants m 'ite that the Com plaint fails to state a claim for relief against D efendants. Specifically,D efendants state thatPlaintifffailed to include a statem entsufticiently explaining why Plaintiff was entitled to any relief againstthe Defendants nor againstM uller, individually. Plaintiff,in response,states thatshe haspled eightpagesof facm alallegations that sets outthe actions ofthe parties constituting violations ofthe FairH ousing A ct,and thzee pages ofdem andsforreliefagainsttheDefendants. TheCourtfindsthattheCom plaintstatesclaim supon which reliefm ay be granted against Defendants.W hiletheCourtrecognizesthatgenerally itisgoodpracticeto specify exactconduct each defendantengaged in as to each count,here the allegations are thatal1D efendants acted in unison.Plaintiffspecifically allegesthatdr efendantswerepersonally involved in,authorized and ratified each and every discriminatory actin retaliation herein.'' (ECF No.19q! 67. The Complaintgoes f'urtherto explain the role each Defendantplayed in the violationsathand and 6 causes of action. Breeze Condo operates the condom initlm building where Plaintiff resided, N autica M anagement m anages Breeze Condo,and M uller is an agent for Breeze Condo and managerand CEO forNautica M anagement. (ECF No.19q!! 8-10.Finally,(and contrary to Defendants'arguments),theComplaintwritesthatasaresultofDefendants'actionsineach role, Plaintiff tdsuffered and are continuing to sufferactualdamages''and thus lsdemand judgment againstDefendants,Breeze Condom inium Association,Inc.,Nautica M anagem ent,LLC,and RichardM uller.''Id !77.Atthisearlystageofthecase,Plaintiff'sallegationsaresuffcientto state a claim for individual liability under the FairH ousing A ct. The Coul' t denies D efendants' m otion to dism issPlaintiff'sA m ended Com plaintforfailure to state a claim . IM M UN ITY U N D ER FLO R IDA LA W - STAN DA R D & AN A LY SIS Defendants also move to dismiss the claims (specifically)againstDefendantM uller becauseççitiswell-settled 1aw in Floridathatofûcersand directorsofanot-for-profitcorporation (which includes condominium associations)are generally immune from personalliability or moneydamages.''SeeFla.Stat.j617.0834;seealsoFla.Stat.j718.111(1)(d).Defendantscite to the ThirdD istrictCourtofAppealin Perlow v.Goldberg,which affirm ed astateittrialcourt's dismissalwith prejudice ofallaction againstcondominium association directorsrelying on the longstanding proposition that condominium association directors are im mune from individual liability,absentcrime,fraud,self-dealing,orunjustenricbment.''700So.3d 148,149-50(Fla.3d DCA 1997).TheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealinRaphaelv.Silvermanruledsimilarly.22 So. 3d 837,838-39. There,the courtalso çsaffinned dism issalof a plaintiff unit owner's com plaint againsttheindividualcondom inium directors.''Id The courtreasoned thatiçtheboard'sdecision tom odify certain com mon elem entsdidnotrisetolevelofçself-dealing'on thepartofthedirector beforeindividualliability may beImposed.''1d. This exact legal question w as addressed recently by Judge A ltm an in Portnoy v.M ei Condo.Ass' n,NO.23-cv-23475,2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 34877,at*6(S.D.Fla.Feb.28,2024). ThePortnoy defendantsalso argued chiefly with the sam e state casesPerlow and Raphael.ftf at 6-7. However,the Portnoy courtstruck the im munity argumentfortwo reasons. 1d. First,the statecasescited havenothingtodo withtheFairHousingAct- afederalstatute.f#.at7.Second, courtsinourdistricthaverepeatedlyrejectedtheargumentthatanindividualcandeployFla.Stat. j617.0834 to shieldliability from theFairHousingAct.Id InHous.OpportunitiesProjectfor Excellence,Inc.v.Key Colony No.4 Condo.Assoc.,510 F.Supp.2d 1003,1013-14 (S.D.Fla. 2007),JudgeM artinezencounteredthisidenticalimmunityargument.There,thecourtruledthat Gsgilt is clear that the Fair Housing Act allows for claims to be brought against individual Edqefendants.''16L JudgeScolainSabalPalm Condos.OfpineIslandRidgeAss'nInc.v.Fischer, W L 988767,at *4 (S.D.Fla.M ar. 13,2014) found similarly,writing thatEigsectionj 617.0834,a state statute,carmotbara claim underthe gFairHousing Actj,a federalcause of action.'' State law is naturally preem pted to the extentofa conflictw ith a federalstatute. Thus, the Courtsim ilarly finds that Defendant M uller cnnnotbe imm une to liability under the Fair Housing Actby relying on eitherFloridastatute. TheCourtagreeswith both Plaintiffandtheprecedentin ourdistrict.Defendants'motion to dismissthe ComplaintagainstDefendantM ulleron Florida1aw imm unity groundsisdenied. COUNT 1:DISCRIM INATION,FAIR H OUSING ACT - STANDARD & ANALYSIS The FairHousing Actstatesthatitisunlawfulto discrim inate in the sale orrental,orto otherwisem ake unavailable ordeny,a dwelling to any buyerorrenterbecause ofa handicap of thatbuyerorrenter,oranypersonassociatedwiththatbuyerorrenter.See42U.S.C.j3604(9(1). Discrim ination under the Fair Housing Act includes ç1a refusal to m ake reasonable accomm odations in rules,policies,practices,or services,when such accom modationsm ay be necessaly to afford such person equalopportunity to useand enjoy a dwellingg.q'' 42 U.S.C.j 3604(t)(3)(B).Toprevailonafailure-to-accommodateclaim,aplaintiffmustestablishthat:çç(1) he/she is disabled or handicapped within the meaning of the FHA,(2) he/she requested a reasonable accommodation, (3) such accommodation was necessary to afford him/her an opportunitytouseandenjoyhis/herdwelling,and(4)thedefendantsrefusedtomaketherequested accomm odation.'' SeeH awn v.Shoreline Towers Phase 1 Condo.Ass'n,Inc.,347 Fed.App'x. 464,467 (11th Cir.2009)(citing Schwarzv.City of TreasureIsland,544 F.3d 1201,1218-19 (11thCir.2008)). Defendants' argum ent hinges on whether Plaintiff is disabled as defned by the Fair H ousing Act.D efendantsarguethatbecause there areno allegationsin the Com plaintthatPlaintiff is disabled orhandicapped,there can be no discrim ination againstPlaintiff. ln return,'Plaintiff does notargue thatshe is disabled orhandicapped,butthattmder the Fair Housing Act,she is classified as an CGaggrieved'' and çsassociated''person w ith standing to bring Fair H ousing A ct claims. TheFairHousingActdefinesan aggrievedperson asCiany personwho- (1)claimsto have been injured by adiscriminatory housingpractice;or(2)believesthatsuchpersonwillbe injuredbyadiscriminatozyhousingpracticethatisabouttooccun''42U,S.C,j3602(i).TheFair HousingActalso specifically includrsS<any person associated withthatperson''when itcom esto bringingclaimsofdiscrimination.See42U.S.C.j3604(t)(1)(C). TheCourtdisagreeswith Defendants'argum ents.DefendantsstatethattltheComplaintis devoid ofany allegationsto establish thatPlaintiffisdisabled asdeûned by theFFHA I. . .'' That factis nothidden. The Com plaint explicitly alleges thatM r.Tom linson is the individualwith a disability under42U.S.C.j 3604(h)andthatPlaintiffwasassociatedwith him andaccordingly coveredunder42U.S.C.j3604(9.See EECF No.19j!! 12-13. Defendantsstatethatthereaze ççno allegations thatPlaintiffrequested an accom m odation,''butthe Com plaintspecifcally states that Plaintiff subm itted an application including the pet form , photographs, and letter from psychiatrist.See(ECFNo.19j!21.Defendantsdonotdiscussanythingabouttheclassification of an çtaggrieved''or SGassociated''person,w hich the Fair H ousing A ctplainly m akes unlaw ful discriminationagainstpersonsassociatedwiththedisabledperson.See42U.S.C.j36ù4(t)(2)(C). Wasserman v.Three SeasonsAss' n No.1,Inc.,also provides som e clarity. 998 F.Supp.1445, 1447 (S.D.Fla.1998).There,thecourtcited theSupremeCourt'snzlethat(tbecausethe Fair Housing Actj gives standing to taggrieved persons,' itdoes notrequire membership in the protectedclassforstanding.1d.(citing Gladàtone,Realtorsv.VillageofBellwood,441U.S.91, 103,60L.Ed.2d66,99S.Ct.1601(1979)).Assuch,afailuretoaccommodateclaim isavailable to Plaintiff as she is associated w ith M r.Tom linson. Thus,m oving pastthe standing issue,w hat iscriticaliswhetherPlaintiffalleged aninjury.See42U.S.C.j3602(i).Plaintiffhasdonejust that:lçgaqs a result of Defendants'actions described above,Plaintiffshave suffered and will continue to sufferirreparable loss and injury including,butnotlimited to lossofa housing oppolunity,hum iliation,em barrassment,emotionaldistress,anddeprivationoftheirrighttoequal 1Typographicalerrorby Defendants. 10 housingopportunities.''(ECF No.19j!46.Accordingly,Defendants'motiontodismissCountI is denied. COUNT II:RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE,FAIR HO USING ACT STANDARD & ANALYSIS UndertheFairHousingAct,itistiunlawfulto coerce,intimidate,threaten,orinterferewith any person intheexerciseof,oron accountofhishaving exercisedorenjoyed,oron accountof hishavingaidedorencouragedanyOtherpersonintheexerciseorenjoymentofanyrightgranted orprotected bysection3603,3604,3605,or3606ofthistitle.''42U.S.C.j3617.Section 3617 prohibitsretaliationfortheexerciseofarightprotectedby theFairHousingAct.SeeHous.Opps. ProjectforExcellence,Inc.v.KeyColonyNo.4Condo.Assoc.,510F.Supp.2d1003,1013(S.D. Fla.2007).TostateacauseofactionforretaliationinviolationoftheFairHousingAct,aplaintiff mustallege(1)thatheorsheengaged in protected activity,(2)thatheorshe suffered adverse actions,and (3)thattheadverseaction wascausally relatedto theprotectedactivity.JJ.(citing Shotzv.City ofplantation,Fla.,344F.3d 1161(11th Cir.2003( 9. Defendantsdispute retaliation in two ways.First,Defendants statethatPlaintiffhasnot participated in protected activity. Second,Defendants argue thatPlaintiffcannotpointto any tçadverseaction''thatgivesriseto thelevelofcoercion orintim idation necessary to state a claim for retaliation underthe FairH ousing A ct. W ith respectto D efendants'firstargum ent,the Com plaintstatesthatthe rentalapplication for U nit 311 w as denied in retaliation due to M r. Tom linson ithaving filed a H ousing Discrimination Complaint with HUD , because of Defendants denial 'of reasonable accommodation.''(ECFNo.19j!(64.ItisclearthatfilingacomplaintforaviolationoftheFair HousingActisconstitutedasprotectedactivity.SeeHous.Opps.ProjectforExcellence,Inc.,510 F.Supp.2d at1013;sèe also Alley v.fes Chateaux Condo.Ass'n,No.8:10-cv-760-T-33TGW , 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 121200,at*15 (M .D.Fla.Nov.16,2010). Defendantsarguethatthe protected activity w as purportedly done by a non-party to this action. This argum ent is again, unpersuasive.Section 3617statesspecifically,Stofany rightgrantedorprotected by section 3603, 3604,3605,or3606ofthistitle.'' Section 3604(9 specifically includes,çtany person associated with thatperson.'' See42 U.S.C.j 3604(9. Thus,the FairHousing Actexplicitly allowsfor Plaintiffhere,andthustheççprotected activity''prong ism et. The Courtalso finds D efendants'second argum ent unpersuasive. D efendants w rite that Plaintiffcannotpointto any lGadverse action''thatwould (tgive rise to the levelofcoercion or intim idation necessary to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act,but do not provide any case law thatprovidesaçsstandard''orçslevel''ofcoercion orintimidation necessary to state a clairn for retaliation. At this stage of the litigation,Plaintiff s allegations of adverse action are sufficient get over the m otion to dism iss hump. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered withherenjoymentofherprotectedrightswhentheywrotetoPlaintiff'snew landlord denying approvalofthelease.See EECF No.19j!39. Defendantswrote speciticallythatthey w ould notapprove ofthe second unitGçbecause of an ongoing legalm atterthatthe tenantand her . com panion have filed againsttheassociation and rem ainsongoing.''1d A ccordingly,Defendr ts' m otion to dism iss Count11isdenied. COUNT 111:INTERFERENCE (W ITH CONTRACT),FAIR HOUSING ACT STAN DA R D & A N A LY SIS Plaintiffsthird count(interferencewith contract)isalso broughtasaviolation of42 U.S.C.j 3617. A Section 3617 interference claim requiresproofofthree elements:(1)thattheplaintiff exercised or enjoyed tsany rightgranted or protected by''Sections 3603-3606; (2) thatthe defendant's conductconstituted interference;and (3)a causalconnection existed between the exerciseorenjoymentoftherightandthedefendant'sconduct.Moorev.CamdenProp.Fr.,816 F.App'x324,335(11thCir.2020). Defendants arguethatPlaintiffisunable to m eetthe firstprong because CountII1is an alleged interference with a contraètforUnit311,a unitthatPlaintiffwaslooking to rentwithout M r.Tomlinson.Further,Defendantsstatethatwhen PlaintiffsignedthecontractforUnit311,she wasnotçtassociated''withM r.Tom linson,aperson with disability.However,thatdistinction does notmatter.LookingattheplaintextofSection3604(f)(1)(A)-(C),itstatesthatSçgtlodiscriminate in the sale orrental,orto othem ise m ake unavailable ordeny,a dw elling to any buyerorrenter becauseofa handicap ofthatbuyerorrenter,orany person associated with thatbuyerorrenten'' Here,theComplaint'sallegationsfitsquarelywithin section 3604(t)(1)(C).Plaintiffallegesthat her contractforUnit311 was interfered with by Defendantsbecause ofthe denialand ongoing legalm atler regarding the denialofM r.Tom linson's em otionalsupportanim alin U nit304. See (E/FNo.19)!IJ40-41.Theseallegationsareenoughtoshow discriminationindenyingadwelling toarenter(Plaintiftlbecauseofahandicapofaperson(M r.Tomlinson)associatedwiththatrenter (Plaintiff).Defendants'motiontodismissCountI1Iisdenied. C O N CLU SIO N After carefulreview ,therefore,it is O R D ERE D AN D A DJUD G ED that D efendants' MotiontoDismisstheAmendedComplaintEECFNo20)isDENIED. . D O N E A N D O R D ERE D in Cham bers at M iam i,Florida,this FED E / of June 2024. O A .M OREN O U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE Copiesf' urnished to: CounselofRecord

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.