Gorman v. Breeze Condominium Association, Inc, et al

Filing 27

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)

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.
THIS CAU SE cnm e beforethe Courtupon D efendants'M otion to D ism issPlaintiff sFirst

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

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