Morgan et al v. Fairway Nine II Condominium Association, Inc. et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER It is hereby Ordered that: Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affidavits of Jack Haase, Daniel Feldman, Thomas Grohmann, Howard Banchik, Ken Downie, Eileen Juddell, and Dave Town (Docket No. 56 ) is DENIED; Defendants ' Motion to Amend Answer to Include Verified Counterclaim (DocketNo. 68 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Strike (Docket No. 73 ) is DENIED as moot; and Defendants' Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Marilyn Morgan (Docket No. 75 ) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BERNARD L. MORGAN and MARILYN L.
MORGAN, husband and wife,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FAIRWAY NINE II CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho corporation;
PIONEER WEST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; JOHN
HAASE, an individual; STEVE MORELAND, an
individual; HARVEY HEINRICHS, an individual;
KAREN PEDERSON, an individual; PHIL
SYRDAL, an individual; and ANNE JACOBI, an
individual

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00481-EJL-REB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 54)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 58)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND/OR STRIKE DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIM
(Docket No. 60)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIDAVITS OF JACK HAASE,
DANIEL FELDMAN, THOMAS
GROHMANN, HOWARD BANCHIK,
KEN DOWNIE, EILEEN JUDDELL,
AND DAVE TOWN
(Docket No. 56)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND
ANSWER TO INCLUDE VERIFIED
COUNTERCLAIM
(Docket No. 68)
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION TO
STRIKE
(Docket No. 73)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
THE AFFIDAVIT OF MARILYN
MORGAN
(Docket No. 75)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Now pending before the Court are the following seven motions: (1) Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 54); (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affidavits of Jack Haase,
Daniel Feldman, Thomas Grohmann, Howard Banchik, Ken Downie, Eileen Juddell, and Dave
Town (Docket No. 56); (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 58);
(4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike Defendants’ Counterclaim (Docket No.
60); (5) Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer to Include Verified Counterclaim (Docket No.
68); (6) Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Strike (Docket No. 73); and (7) Defendants’ Motion to
Strike the Affidavit of Marilyn Morgan (Docket No. 75).
After careful consideration of the record and oral argument of counsel, the Court is fully
advised and enters the following Report and Recommendation and Memorandum Decision and
Order:
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Bernard and Marilyn Morgan are long-time owners of a condominium residence
in Sun Valley, Idaho. They allege to suffer from disabilities requiring that their home have cool,
filtered air in a climate-controlled environment, and because of such disabilities, they installed
an outside, refrigerated air conditioning unit on August 21, 2013 to regulate the temperature
within their condominium residence. Doing so, however, violated the covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (“CCRs”) of the condominium development, which required that “[n]o . . .
installation of air conditioning or other machines shall be installed on the exterior of the building
or be allowed to protrude through the walls, the windows, or the roof of the building, unless the
prior written approval of the Board of Directors [of the homeowners’ association (“HOA”)] is
secured.”

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 2

According to Plaintiffs, they had no choice but to install the air conditioning unit because
Defendants refused to consider their repeated requests to address their medical issues and needs.
Defendants disagree, and argue the Plaintiffs’ alleged disabilities, even if accepted to exist, did
not require the installation of an air conditioning unit of the sort selected by Plaintiffs. In any
event, due to the air conditioning unit’s installation, Defendants assessed (or at least threatened
to assess) fines against Plaintiffs for violating the CCRs and, later, recorded a lien upon their
condominium.
This ongoing contretemps ultimately led to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Amended Verified
Complaint, which asserts six claims – three claims premised upon provisions of the federal Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), alongside a claim for negligence, a claim for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Defendants seek to have the case dismissed through their Motion for Summary
Judgment, which contains arguments that Plaintiffs have no claim under the FHA and, by
extension, no support as a matter of law for their related state law claims. Specifically,
Defendants contend (1) that Plaintiffs have never been denied an FHA required
“accommodation” involving cool, filtered air; (2) that the as-installed air conditioning unit
(outside refrigerated) is not “necessary” to provide the requested accommodation, and relatedly
that the HOA-approved air conditioning systems (water-cooled and inside room-based) are
reasonable options for providing the allegedly necessary accommodation; and (4) that Plaintiffs
cannot prove they actually suffer from a “handicap” entitling them to an accommodation as to
such concerns in any event.1

1

Separately, Defendants argue that the individually-named Defendants have been
improperly named and should be dismissed.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 3

In opposition, and in support of their own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs
reject in toto Defendants’ arguments, responding (1) that they are handicapped and that
Defendants were aware of this fact; (2) that their request for an accommodation was reasonable
and necessary to allow an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home; and (3) that Defendants
refused their requested accommodation in violation of the FHA.
II. REPORT/DISCUSSION
A.

The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
1.

The Standard

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material
fact remain, and when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,
the movant is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that
there is no material factual dispute, and the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the party against whom summary judgment is sought. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Material
facts which would preclude summary judgment are those which may affect the outcome of the
case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The relevant substantive
law will determine which facts are material for purposes of summary judgment. See id.
Where, as here, both parties move for summary judgment, the summary judgment standard
does not change, and the court must evaluate each party’s motion on the merits. See, e.g., Farm
Bureau Ins. Co. of Idaho v. Kinsey, 234 P.3d 739, 742 (Idaho 2010) (citation omitted); see also
Nolan v. Heald College, 551 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying traditional summary
judgment standards to cross-motions for summary judgment in ERISA benefits denial case).

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the moving party
may discharge its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact by demonstrating
an “absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If
the moving party establishes an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case, the
burden then shifts to the opposing party to produce “specific evidence, through affidavits or
admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists.” Bhan v. NME Hosp. Inc., 929
F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991). A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of
the non-moving party’s case renders all other facts immaterial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Where the moving party instead bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, “it must, in
order to discharge its burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains, make a
prima facie showing in support of its position on that issue. That is, the moving party must
present evidence that, if uncontroverted at trial, would entitle it to prevail on that issue. Once it
has done so, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts controverting the moving party’s
prima facie case.” Sabatino v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1229
(N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing UA Local 343 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir.
1994)).
2.

The Fair Housing Act and Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Defendants

Section 3604 of the FHA deals with discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, and
section 3604(f) deals with discrimination against people with handicaps in particular. In
pertinent part, “discrimination” includes:
a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises
. . . . [or] a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 5

or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person
equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) & (B). Therefore, the FHA “imposes an affirmative duty upon
landlords reasonably to accommodate the needs of handicapped persons,” as to both physical
accommodations and administrative policies/rules governing a dwelling and its environs. United
States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir. 1994).
With this statutory backdrop in mind, to make out a discrimination claim under the FHA for
failure to reasonably accommodate, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) they suffer from a
handicap as defined by the FHA; (2) Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the
Plaintiffs’ handicap; (3) an accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford Plaintiffs
an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling; (4) the accommodation is reasonable; and
(5) Defendants refused to make the requested accommodation. See Hayden Lake Recreational
Water and Sewer Dist. v. Haydenview Cottage, LLC, 835 F. Supp. 2d 965, 981 (D. Idaho 2011)
(citing DuBois v. Assoc. of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir.
2006); also compare Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 4 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1), with Pls.’ Mem.
in Supp. of Mot. for PSJ, p. 4 (Docket No. 58, Att. 1). Through their respective Motions for
Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that each of these elements are (or are not,
as the case may be) met as a matter of the law.
a.

Evidence Exists that Plaintiffs Could Be Handicapped Under the FHA

The FHA defines “handicap” as “a physical or mental impairment which substantially
limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, a record of having such an impairment,
or being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1-3). The Code of
Federal Regulations further defines those terms used to define handicap:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 6

•

The term physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such
diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing
impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple
sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus
infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than
addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and
alcoholism.

•

Major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning and working.

•

Has a record of such an impairment means has a history of, or has been
misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities.

•

Is regarded as having an impairment means: (1) [h]as a physical or mental
impairment that does not substantially limit one or more major life activities
but that is treated by another person as constituting such a limitation; (2)
[h]as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such
impairment; or (3) has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (a) of
this definition but is treated by another person as having such an
impairment.

24 C.F.R. § 100.201(a)(2), (b), (c) & (d)(1-3) (emphasis in original).
Within their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they “suffer medical issues which
have caused disabilities . . . mak[ing] it necessary that they have cool, filtered air in a climatecontrolled environment, i.e., air conditioning in their condominium . . . .” Am. Verified Compl.,
¶¶ 16 & 17 (Docket No. 40). Defendants neither argue nor offer any evidence that Plaintiffs are
absolutely not handicapped under the FHA; rather, they claim that Plaintiffs are simply unable to
prove that they suffer from a qualifying handicap. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 12
(Docket No. 54, Att. 1). If the only foundation upon which this Court was to determine whether
Plaintiffs were handicapped under the FHA was the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 7

Complaint, the undersigned would tend to agree with Defendants. However, other evidence in
the record exists to support such a claim for purposes of summary judgment consideration.
Specifically, Plaintiff Bernard Morgan has heart disease and an associated mycobacterium
fortuitum endocarditis infection. Plaintiff Marilyn Morgan has a history of breast cancer and a
recent uterine cancer diagnosis. Plaintiffs’ medical records suggest as much, with their medical
providers recommending a climate-controlled environment as result. For example:
•

In undated correspondence from Fernando Merino, M.D., to, inter alia,
Brian Weiford, M.D., Dr. Merino stated: “I finally have the information that
I needed to initiate treatment on Mr. Bernard Morgan (MR#919088). The
final result of the AFB culture is Mycobacterium fortuitum.”

•

On August 26, 2013, Brian Weiford, M.D., stated: “Mr. Bernard Morgan has
been a patient of Mid-American Cardiology for five years. We have been
his personal heart physicians since knowing of his disability with serious
Heart Disease. His basic needs are for cool and filtered air. It is important
that he have access to a controlled environment.”

•

On September 11, 2013, Rita Hyde, MD, stated: “I am the primary care
physician for [Marilyn L. Morgan]. She has suffered from cough and
shortness of breath. I have advised her to reside and sleep in an air
conditioned environment to assist in relieving her symptoms.”

•

On September 20, 2013, Julie A. Moore, M.D., stated: “Marilyn Morgan is
requesting that she be allowed to have cool and filtered air for her basic
comfort. We strongly agree that this patient needs to have these conditions
met due to the fact that she has health concerns. She has a history of breast
cancer and was most recently diagnosed with uterine cancer, and therefore,
to optimize her health, we recommend that she have cool and filtered air.”

Medical Records (Docket No. 54, Att. 16).2,3
2

Drs. Weiford, Hyde, and Moore were identified as “Witnesses Pursuant to FRCP
26(a)(1)(A)(i)” in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures on January 31, 2014. See Pls.’ Initial
Disclosures, pp. 10-12 (Docket No. 54, Att. 14).
3

Plaintiffs also claim that certain of their grandchildren are also handicapped and
similarly need a climate-controlled environment. See Am. Verified Compl., ¶ 18 (Docket No.
40). The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person because of the handicap of
“any person associated with that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(C). In this respect, on August
22, 2013, Dr. Carolyn T. Davis, M.D. stated:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 8

Mrs. Morgan’s own testimony about the limiting effects of her condition is in accord with
Plaintiffs’ doctors’ recommendations, e.g.: “As a result of these medical impairments [(breast
cancer and uterine cancer)], I have been significantly restricted in performing the major life
activities of sleeping, walking, and other day to day activities, including caring for my husband.”
Morgan Aff., ¶ 4 (Docket No. 58, Att. 4). Though Mrs. Morgan may not be qualified to testify
about specific medical diagnoses, she is permitted to testify to things she knows based on her
personal experiences, such as her symptoms and the way her disability impacts her life. See,
e.g., Southern California Hous. Rights Ctr. v. Los Feliz Towers Homeowners Ass’n, 426 F. Supp.
2d 1061, 1070 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (declarant has personal knowledge of her own symptoms).4
The state of the medical record now before this Court, coupled with Mrs. Morgan’s
subjective complaints of disabling pain and corresponding limitations, arguably identifies a
handicap recognized by the FHA. The fact that Plaintiffs’ medical providers may not have a
definitive opinion regarding whether Plaintiffs are actually handicapped (as that term is used in
the FHA) is not fatal to their claim; it is one of many considerations that the jury will have to
consider in determining whether Plaintiffs can establish their FHA-related claims. See, e.g.,

[Plaintiffs’ grandson] has been a patient of mine since 5 months of age. He suffers
from severe asthma and allergies. During periods of hot weather, it is best for his
comfort to be in a climate-controlled environment, i.e., air conditioning.
Medical Records (Docket No. 54, Att. 16). Dr. Davis was also identified in Plaintiffs’ Initial
Disclosures on January 31. 2014. See Pls.’ Initial Disclosures, p. 11 (Docket No. 54, Att. 14).
4

Defendants move to strike statement or inferences contained in Mrs. Morgan’s
Affidavit that Plaintiffs are “handicapped” under the FHA. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to
Strike, p. 2 (Docket No. 75, Att. 1). The undersigned agrees that specific references are
inappropriate and, in this limited respect, the Motion to Strike (Docket No. 75) is granted.
However, Mrs. Morgan can testify about the effects of diagnosed illnesses, and those statements
will not be stricken even though statements may go to whether she and/or her husband are
handicapped. In this respect, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 75) is denied.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 9

Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2005) (in analogous ADA context,
plaintiff not required to provide comparative or medical evidence to establish genuine issue of
material fact regarding impairment of major life activity at summary judgment stage; rather,
plaintiff’s testimony may suffice to establish genuine issue of material fact); Prindable v.
Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1255 (D. Hawaii
2003) (letters from providers, even if insufficient to establish handicap within meaning of FHA,
create genuine issue of material fact as to claimant’s condition).5 In short, sufficient evidence
exists to at least create a jury question as to whether Plaintiffs are handicapped under the FHA.
b.

Substantial Evidence Supports Plaintiffs’ Argument that Defendants Knew of
Plaintiffs’ Alleged Handicap

Defendants dispute whether Plaintiffs are handicapped under the FHA, but even so, there is
no dispute that Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiffs’ claimed handicaps.
Consider the parties’ correspondence leading up to (and following) Plaintiffs’ installation of the
at-issue air conditioning unit:
•

In July 2013, Plaintiff Bernard Morgan made a verbal request to the HOA
Board of Directors (“Board”) to allow installation of a refrigerated air
conditioning unit to accommodate his and Plaintiff Marilyn Morgan’s
claimed handicaps. See Bowen Aff., ¶ 2 (Docket No. 58, Att. 3).

•

On August 19, 2013, Mr. Morgan wrote to the Board: “We are now moving
ahead to complete this installation. Five of our thirteen grandchildren
have the disabilities of Asthma, Allergies, and Multiple Sclerosis. We

5

In furtherance of this point, Defendants will no doubt also highlight what they perceive
to be the shortcomings in the medical evidence – namely, that “Plaintiffs produced just six (6)
pages of medical ‘records’”; that the records produced “are conclusory and completely lacking in
foundation”; and that “five of the six documents are dated after Plaintiffs installed the AC unit
and the other document is not dated.” Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 12 (Docket No. 54, Att.
1) (emphasis in original). These circumstances, however, do not warrant a finding that Plaintiffs
are not handicapped as a matter of law at this stage of the proceedings.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 10

must have a controlled environment of cool, dry air which is imperative for
proper breathing. This air filled with smoke from the fires is a catastrophe.
This XC17 will be perfect for all these conditions. Our grandchildren will
now be safe!!! . . . . Now, any interference with our installation will be
considered an attack on our grandchildren’s disabilities, and the appropriate
Government Agencies will be contacted.” Who among you will cast the
first stone at our disabled grandchildren? (Docket No. 58, Att. 4)
(emphasis in original).
•

On August 20, 2013, Mr. Morgan wrote a letter to the Board, stating: “This
is to inform you of our various family diseases and the action necessary to
protect our health in accordance with our disabilities. . . . Five of our thirteen
grandchildren have disabilities of Asthma, Allergies, and the deadly
Multiple Sclerosis (M.S.). . . . Personally, I have a serious heart condition
with details that are not necessary to include. . . . We must have a controlled
environment of cool, dry air which is imperative for proper breathing. . . .
The smoke-filled air from the fires has been a catastrophe. . . . Air cooled
air conditioning is our living solution. . . . We will be installing the most
quiet and efficient central air cooled air conditioner money can buy. . . . We
sincerely appreciate your understanding of our health needs. . . . We thank
you for helping our grandchildren and me to be safe. Please understand our
medical action, and make sure that no Director will interfere with our
installation as it would be considered as an attack on our grandchildren’s
and my disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act and other
appropriate Government Agencies would be contacted, and we sincerely do
not want that to happen.” 8/20/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 54, Att. 16).6

•

On August 21, 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a letter to Defendant Anne Jacobi,
stating: “The Federal Fair Housing Act and the American Disabilities Act
requires accommodating Americans who are afflicted with disabilities. You
have now been advised of our situation and expect all threats, fines, legal
fees, and the like to be withdrawn or we will involve all appropriate Federal
Government Agencies and give notice of your refusal of accommodating the
disabled.” 8/21/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 54, Att. 16).

•

On August 22, 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a letter to Defendant John Haase,
stating: “We are requesting that the Fairway Nine II Board grant a special

6

Plaintiffs infer that, during this time, they provided actual medical documentation of
their handicaps to Defendants. See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp., p. 5 (Docket No. 58, Att. 1) (citing
Morgan Aff., ¶ 6 (Docket No. 58, Att. 4). However, the medical records are dated in August and
September – after Plaintiffs installed their air conditioning unit on August 21, 2013. Regardless,
the dates of such documents do not impact this element of establishing an FHA claim.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 11

accommodation of air-cooled air conditioning for our unit #4408. This
accommodation is requested due to the needs of our families’ disabilities,
including Multiple Sclerosis, Severe Asthma, and Heart Disease to name
just a few. Unless we hear from you in the affirmative by August 27, 2013,
by noon, we will be forced to file a complaint with HUD under the Fair
Housing Act. Thanks.” 8/22/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 54, Att. 16).
•

On September 8, 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a letter to the Board, stating: “We
are in receipt on September 6, 2013 of the Board’s decision to once again
refuse our request for a special accommodation of air-cooled air
conditioning despite the overwhelming need due to our disabilities. Prior
requests for air-cooled air conditioning both oral and written, have been
refused with no viable alternatives presented by the Board to mitigate our
suffering. It is apparent the Board has little or no compassion for those who
suffer medically and certainly has not read the Articles of Incorporation,
Article VI, Paragraph A(2) ‘. . . . The Management Body shall actively
foster, promote, and advance the interest of owners of condominium units
within the condominium project.’” 9/8/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 58, Att. 4).

Therefore, assuming for these purposes on summary judgment that Plaintiffs do suffer from
handicaps in the first instance (see supra), these communications considered most favorably in
favor of the Plaintiffs raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants knew or
should have known of this element of Plaintiffs’ FHA claim.
c.

Even if Cool, Filtered Air in a Climate-Controlled Environment is a
Necessary Accommodation, there is No Evidence that the As-Installed,
Outside Refrigerated Air Conditioning Unit is a Necessary Accommodation.

Proof of a prima facie FHA accommodation claim requires that the accommodation sought
be “necessary to afford [the claimant] full enjoyment of the premises” . . . or “equal opportunity
to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A & B). That a requested accommodation
be “necessary” naturally requires that the person requesting such an accommodation be
compared to a person who is otherwise not handicapped – as an accommodation extends “full
enjoyment” or “equal opportunity” only if and when it addresses the needs created by the
handicap. In other words, a “necessary” accommodation is one that alleviates the effects of a
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 12

handicap. See Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing
Wisconsin Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737, 749 (7th Cir. 2006) (en banc)
(“[T]he statute requires only accommodations necessary to ameliorate the effect of the plaintiff’s
disability so that she may compete equally with the non-disabled in the housing market.”);
Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442, 460
(3rd Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the proposed accommodation provides no direct amelioration of a
disability’s effect, it cannot be said to be necessary.”); Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard
County, Md., 124 F.3d 597, 604 (4th Cir. 1997) (“The FHA does not require accommodations
that increase a benefit to a handicapped person above that provided to a non-handicapped person
with respect to matters unrelated to the handicap.”); Forest City Daly Hous., Inc. v. Town of N.
Hempstead, 175 F.3d 144, 152 (2nd Cir. 1999) (explaining that relevant inquiry is whether “the
non-complying features of the proposed residence are ‘necessary’ in light of the disabilities of
the proposed residents”); see also Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1155 (9th Cir.
2003) (“To prove that an accommodation is necessary, ‘[p]laintiffs mush show that, but for the
accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their
choice.’”) (quoting Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc. v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir.
1996)).
Here, the summary judgment record can support a scenario where Plaintiffs are
handicapped and that, owing to their handicaps, they need to have cool, filtered air in a climatecontrolled environment. To be sure, Defendants apparently want Plaintiffs to have such an
environment. See, e.g., Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, pp. 4-6 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1) (“The
reasonable accommodation is ‘cool and filtered air’ in [Plaintiffs’] condominium. The Board

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 13

does not object (and never has) to the Morgans installing an air conditioning unit . . . . In fact,
the record is that the Board wishes Mr. And Mrs. Morgan to receive an air conditioner [and] the
accommodation of ‘cool and filtered air’ has never been denied . . . .”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’
medical providers recommend an air conditioned environment to help in relieving the symptoms
stemming from their claimed handicaps. See supra. Therefore, assuming Plaintiffs’ handicaps
to exist, it is reasonable to assume that cool, filtered air in a climate-controlled environment will
help ease the effects of those handicaps and, as such, is a necessary accommodation under the
FHA.7
Alas, cool and filtered air provided by an air conditioner alone is not the accommodation
that Plaintiffs seek. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that only a refrigerated air conditioning unit
(indeed, the one they actually installed on the outside of their condominium) provides what they
claim is necessary for them to be able to fully enjoy their property. See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of
Mot. for PSJ, pp. 9-10 (Docket No. 58, Att. 1). This is the accommodation that must be
“necessary” for Plaintiffs to prevail on their FHA claim. See, e.g., Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at
1256 (“The second element of an FHA claim directs Plaintiffs to show that the requested
accommodation is necessary to afford Prindable an equal opportunity to use and enjoy unit 102
of the 2987 Kalakaua. In other words, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that preventing Prindable
from housing Einstein [(Prindable’s alleged service animal)] in unit 102 causes the denial of
Prindable’s right to equal use and enjoyment of unit 102.”) (emphasis added).

7

This is without considering Plaintiffs’ need for cool, filtered air in a climate-controlled
environment during non-summer months. Though vaguely addressed in the record, a suggestion
has been made that central Idaho’s hot summers, coupled with the extreme fire conditions during
the Summer of 2013, contributed to Plaintiffs’ need for refrigerated air conditioning. Such
questions, to the extent pertinent here, present issues of fact.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 14

In Prindable, the plaintiff requested an accommodation to keep a service animal (his dog,
Einstein) in his apartment and submitted to the defendants a handwritten note on a prescription
pad stating, “Prindable has a medical illness for which a dog is necessary for his improvement.”
Id. at 1249-50. The defendants asked for verification from a physician, to describe “the nature of
the ‘medical illness’ or disability . . . and how a pet would alleviate the effects of this handicap.”
Id. at 1250. Instead, Prindable submitted a letter from his physician stating only that Prindable
“has a medical illness for which a dog is necessary for his improvement.” Id. The defendants
wrote twice to the physician seeking additional information, promising that the information
would be kept confidential, but the physician did not reply. Id. A behaviorist sent a letter to the
defendants stating that Prindable had symptoms of depression and a pet would have a positive
impact on Prindable’s condition, recommending that animal-assisted therapy would assist in his
improvement. Id. Another physician agreed with the behaviorist’s diagnosis and
recommendation in a separate letter to the defendants. Id. After the defendants informed
Prindable his request would be reviewed at the next board of directors meeting, Prindable filed a
housing discrimination complaint, alleging that the defendants failed to make a reasonable
accommodation for him in light of his handicap. Id. at 1251.
The court acknowledged that, “[i]n certain circumstances, service animals may be
necessary accommodations,” but nonetheless granted summary judgment against Prindable, in
part because there was insufficient evidence setting Prindable’s dog apart from the ordinary pet.
Id. at 1256. In this respect, the court reasoned:
The primary handicap at issue in this case is mental and emotional (specifically,
depression, anxiety, and dizziness) rather than physical in nature. It therefore
follows that the animal at issue must be peculiarly suited to ameliorate the unique
problems of the mentally disabled. . . . .
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 15

Prindable avers that “Einstein has been individually trained to provide emotional
support[ ] and to alert me to any unusual circumstances.” The record contains no
additional admissible evidence of Einstein’s qualifications as a trained service
animal. Indeed, in response to questions from the Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel
acknowledged that Einstein is not individually trained and possesses no abilities
unassignable to the breed or to dogs in general.
Obviously, a dog cannot acquire discernable skills as a service dog without some
type of training. Unsupported averments from Prindable and slight anecdotal
evidence of service are not enough (particularly in light of counsel’s candid
admission) to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden in opposition to summary judgment.
Plaintiffs needed something more – an affidavit detailing Einstein’s training, a
declaration from Einstein’s veterinarian or a certificate from any licensed training
school – to survive summary judgment. Again, this is not a heavy burden. But the
Court has searched the record and finds nothing that would lead a reasonable jury to
conclude that Einstein is an individually trained service animal.
It also remains whether [the defendants’] refusal to allow an exemption from article
VI, § 11 [of the bylaws for the 2987 Kalakaua] caused Prindable to be denied equal
use and enjoyment of unit 102. There is little evidence going to this question, but it
follows that if there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Einstein is an
individually trained service animal capable of assisting Prindable in a relevant way,
there is likewise no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accommodation
is necessary. In other words, if Einstein is not a proper service animal (as opposed
to just a pet), an exemption from article VI, § 11 for Einstein is not necessary to
afford Prindable an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
Id. at 1256-57 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).8
As in Prindable, Plaintiffs’ refrigerated air conditioning unit can only be a necessary
accommodation under the FHA if it is “peculiarly suited to ameliorate the unique problems”
presented by Plaintiffs’ handicaps. Plaintiffs treat this requirement rather matter-of-factly,
stating that, “[b]ased on their own experience, the Morgans know that the treatment that works

8

Though Prindable has since been criticized for the way the court adopted and applied
the Americans with Disabilities Act’s standard for service animals (requiring proof of
individualized training), there is nothing arguably misplaced in the court’s discussion of an FHA
plaintiff’s burden to show that the requested accommodation is necessary in mitigating a
handicap’s effects. See, e.g., Sanzaro v. Ardiente Homeowners Ass’n LLC, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1109,
1118-19 (D. Nev. 2014).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 16

for them is a refrigerated air conditioner.” Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for PSJ, p. 10 (Docket
No. 58, Att. 1).9 However, even if refrigerated air conditioning helps with Plaintiffs’ alleged
handicaps, neither their statement that refrigerated air condition “works for them” or anything
else in the record establishes a prima facie showing that refrigerated air conditioning is
uniquely suited – “necessary” – to treat those handicaps. The Court is persuaded, as was the
court in Prindable, that “unsupported averments . . . and slight anecdotal evidence . . . are not
enough” to meet that requirement of necessity. See also Ramos v. Neumann, 417 Fed. Appx.
640, 641-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding district court’s grant of summary judgment because
plaintiff failed to show causal link between trampoline use and treatment of handicap, reasoning:
“[w]hile the Ramoses’ personal experience may indicate that the trampoline was helpful to K.R.,
that is not sufficient to carry their burden.”). Said another way: what is it about refrigerated air
conditioning in particular (as opposed to other available types of air conditioning) that makes
that particular means of obtaining cool, filtered air “necessary” (rather than simply preferable) to
treat the symptoms of Plaintiffs’ handicaps?
Plaintiffs supply no evidence speaking to this nuanced point. Plaintiffs’ medical providers
reference only Plaintiffs’ generalized need for “an air conditioned environment,” “cool and
filtered air,” a “controlled environment,” and a “climate-controlled environment, i.e., air
conditioning.” See supra. For those concerns, any type of air conditioning is adequate to treat
Plaintiffs’ conditions, so long as it supplies cool and filtered air in a climate-controlled

9

In support of this statement, Plaintiffs cite to paragraph 10 of Plaintiff Marilyn
Morgan’s Affidavit. However, there, Mrs. Morgan only discusses an August 28, 2013 letter
from the Board; she does not discuss how refrigerated air conditioning impacts Plaintiffs’
alleged handicaps generally, or how refrigerated air conditioning is the only type of air
conditioning that addresses their alleged handicaps specifically. See Morgan Aff., ¶ 10 (Docket
No. 58, Att. 4).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 17

environment. Without more, this does not make refrigerated air conditioning a necessary
accommodation – i.e., that, but for refrigerated air conditioning, Plaintiffs will be denied an
equal opportunity to use and enjoy their condominium. It may be a preference, but it is not a
need. The distinction is starkly apparent in Plaintiff Bernard Morgan’s deposition testimony on
the subject:
Q:

Had you ever asked the Board to install a water-cooled air conditioning unit in
your unit?

A:

In my unit?

Q:

Yes.

A:

Absolutely not.

Q:

Why not?

A:

Because we are very familiar – we have three, the finest air conditioners in the
country in our home in Prairie Village, Kansas, and we knew that they work for
us and for our disabilities. And that’s what we put in our home.
....

Q:

Do you have any information or knowledge as we sit here today whether the
water-cooled air conditioning unit is less efficient than the one you currently
have installed on the common area?

A:

I don’t know anything about that personally.

Q:

If it was shown to you that the water-cooled air conditioning system was as
efficient and would meet your medical needs and the medical needs of your
wife, would you then have a water-cooled air conditioning system installed?

A:

No.
....

Q:

Okay. Is it your testimony that you did not know that room-based air
conditioning units was another alternative method for air conditioning?

A:

I had no interest.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 18

Q:

But that wasn’t my question.

A:

Well, that’s my answer.

Q:

But my question was: You knew – let me ask it a different way, Bernie. You
knew, didn’t you, in 2013 that in addition to water-cooled units, the Board
would also approve room-based air conditioning units? You knew that.

A:

I probably heard about it.

Q:

So you knew that, right?

A:

Could be. Could be, yeah I’ll say I did. Had no interest.

Q:

And like the water-cooled air conditioning unit, whether or not it was as
efficient as the unit that you installed in the common area, you would not
have elected to install or utilize a room-based air conditioning solution?

A:

No. I would not have been interested.
....

Q:

You agree that a water-cooled air conditioning system is an accommodation
that is available to you and your wife should you request it.

A:

Yes, but we would not request it.

Q:

Okay. So where we disagree is whether or not that is a reasonable
accommodation, correct?

A:

It is not reasonable to us.

Q:

I understand. Because what you want is a traditional outside air-compressed
air conditioning unit.

A:

Refrigerated air conditioner, yes.

Q:

And in your mind is that the only reasonable accommodation that should be
made here?

A:

Yes.

Q:

So there is no other reasonable accommodation to you.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 19

A:

Just what I stated.

Q:

But that’s a true statement, is it not?

A:

Is what?

Q:

What I just said.

A:

State it again please.

Q:

So to you there is no other reasonable accommodation.

A:

It’s our preference for refrigerated air conditioning.

Q:

Therefore, because it’s your preference, in your mind, there is no other
reasonable accommodation that you would make or accept in this situation,
correct?

A:

Correct, because we already have experience.
....

Q:

Why is it that you wouldn’t consider [an air-compressed air conditioning
unit in your garage] as an alternative?

A:

I don’t need an alternative. I already know. I’m 84 years old and I have air
conditioning in my home in Prairie Village Kansas, I have it here. I know
what I need and I know it’s proven. It’s proven. It’s proven in the United
States of America, and I believe that. And that is what we need, that is what
our needs are, period.

Q:

But that didn’t answer my question. Why is it that you would not consider a
garage-based air-compressor system?

A:

Because I like the other better. It’s more proven in America, period.
....

Q:

Assume with me if we can.

A:

Okay. I assume.

Q:

That we could take that same air conditioning unit, that same compressor
that you have in the common area and install it into your garage, okay? That
same unit.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 20

A:

Yeah. Okay.

Q:

Would you consider that?

A:

No, because we use our garage for other things.

Q:

So the answer to my question is you wouldn’t consider that?

A:

No, absolutely not.

Q:

You want it where you want it.

A:

Right.

Q:

You want what you want.

A:

Yes.

Q:

So whether or not there are other available alternatives to you is irrelevant.

A:

That’s right.

Morgan Depo. at 34:25-35:10; 37:3-13; 38:13-39:8; 44:19-45:23; 52:10-23; 53:2-21 (Docket No.
54, Att. 5).
In short, the record evidences Mr. Morgan’s rigid insistence on a refrigerated air
conditioner unit is premised on nothing more than the fact that he wants what he has had, not
because other modes of air conditioning are incapable of meeting his medical needs. This record
contains no evidence of some unique or other distinguishing characteristic that would change
refrigerated air conditioning from simply one option among several to meet Plaintiffs’ needs into
a singularly necessary form of air conditioning that fits the definition of a necessary
accommodation under the FHA.10

10

There are other courts that have considered the necessity requirement a bit differently
– namely, to inquire no further than whether the requested accommodation simply addresses a
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 21

Therefore, while cool and filtered air in a climate-controlled environment may be a
necessary accommodation to the extent it helps treat Plaintiffs’ claimed handicaps, there is no
discrete causal link between refrigerated air conditioning specifically and any such treatment.
Stated slightly differently, no evidence exists that the prohibition against outside-installed,
refrigerated air conditioning units prevents Plaintiffs’ equal opportunity to use and enjoy their
condominium as a matter of law.
d.

Even if Cool, Filtered Air in a Climate-Controlled Environment is a
Reasonable Accommodation, Plaintiffs Offer No Evidence that Their AsInstalled Air Conditioning Unit is a Reasonable Accommodation

“A reasonable accommodation ‘can involve changing some rule that is generally applicable
so as to make its burden less onerous on the handicapped individual.’” Prindable, 304 F. Supp.
2d at 1257 (quoting Hubbard v. Samson Mgmt. Corp., 994 F. Supp. 187, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
However, “there is no ‘obligation to do everything humanly possible to accommodate a disabled
person; cost (to the defendant) and benefit (to the plaintiff) merit consideration as well.’”
Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1257 (quoting Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425, 429 (7th Cir. 1995)).
“[A] necessary accommodation will typically be considered reasonable ‘when it imposes no

handicap’s needs, regardless of the existence of alternative accommodations. See, e.g., Bhogaita
v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1289 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Some other
arrangement . . . might similarly alleviate Bhogaita’s symptoms, and evidence of such could be
relevant to the reasonableness determination, which asks whether the requested accommodation
is both efficacious and proportional to the costs to implement it. It is not, however, relevant to
the necessity determination, which asks whether the requested accommodation ameliorates the
disability’s effects.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, approaching
this element of an FHA claim in such a way changes any reasonable understanding of the
meaning of the word “necessary” when analyzing whether an accommodation is, in fact,
necessary. Perhaps this explains why some courts read into the necessity of accommodation
element of an FHA claim a reasonableness element as well. See, e.g., Giebeler, 343 F.3d at
1148-49. Regardless, while it can be argued that air conditioning alleviates the effects of
Plaintiffs’ handicaps, and that, naturally, refrigerated air conditioning likewise alleviates those
same effects, refrigerated air conditioning is not reasonable under the circumstances present
here, even if considered necessary.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 22

undue financial or administrative hardships on the defendant . . . and when it does not undermine
the basic purpose of the [challenged] requirement.’” Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1257 (quoting
Hubbard, 994 F. Supp. At 190); see also Giebler, 343 F.3d at 1157.11
In this case, it is obvious that cool, filtered air in a climate-controlled environment is a
reasonable accommodation. Defendants say that even if they were to concede that Plaintiffs are
entitled to an accommodation, air conditioning is and always has been available to Plaintiffs.
See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 5 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1) (“This accommodation [(an air
conditioner)] has never been denied and, in fact, has always been available to Plaintiffs.”)
(emphasis in original). However, in that particular space, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that each
and every possible mechanism for providing cool, filtered air in a climate-controlled
environment is, ipso facto, also reasonable.
The heart of this issue traces to the Fairway Nine II CCR prohibition against outside,
refrigerated air conditioner units. See CCR, § 10.11 (Docket No. 58, Att. 6) (“No clothes lines,
television antennas, wiring or installation of air conditioning or other machines shall be installed
on the exterior of the building or be allowed to protrude through the wells, the windows or the
roof of the building, unless the prior written approval of the Board of Directors is secured.”).

11

As to the burden of proving reasonableness, the Ninth Circuit in Giebler looked to the
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act for assistance. Under the
Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of proof that a reasonable
accommodation was possible. See id. The burden then shifts to the other party to prove that it is
not reasonable. See id. Under the ADA, the plaintiff has the initial burden to show that the
accommodation “‘seems reasonable on its face.’” Id. (quoting U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S.
391, 401 (2002)). The Defendant then has the burden to prove that the accommodation would
cause undue hardship. See id.; see also Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for PSJ, p. 4 (Docket No.
58, Att. 1). Despite these slightly different formulations of the standard, the Ninth Circuit
declined to chose one particularly described approach, noting that application of either standard
led to the same result in that particular case. See id. at 1157. Similarly, this Court finds that
application of either standard would yield the same result here.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 23

And, inescapably, Plaintiffs’ actual installation of a refrigerated air conditioning unit on the
outside of their condominium runs afoul of the HOA/CCR rules. But such a violation is not
necessarily an administrative hardship for the purposes of whether a requested accommodation is
an undue burden or otherwise unreasonable. See, e.g., Kulin v. Deschutes Cnty., 872 F. Supp. 2d
1093, 1100 (D. Or. 2012) (“[S]imply because a requested accommodation would alter a
substantive rule or regulation does not render it unreasonable or unduly burdensome.”) (citing
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 1242, 1247 (D. Or. 1998)); see also Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’
MSJ, pp. 10-11 (Docket No. 57) (“To argue that any modification is an unreasonable
administrative burden if it violates the policies of the Defendant would render the Fair Housing
Act irrelevant . . . . This position is one that, if the court accepted, would essentially allow
Defendants to insulate themselves from the Fair Housing Act by drafting other rules that are
discriminatory on their face.”).
Instead, “[a]n accommodation imposes an undue financial or administrative burden if its
costs are clearly disproportionate to the benefits it will produce.” Kulin, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 1100
(citing Borkowski v. Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 63 F.3d 131, 138 (2nd Cir. 1995)). Here, the burden
and costs associated with allowing Plaintiffs to install a refrigerated air conditioning unit on the
outside of their condominium outweigh the benefits that might result. Plaintiffs do not require
refrigerated air conditioning to address the symptoms of their handicaps. Other forms of air
conditioning could adequately meet their medical needs. Refrigerated air conditioning is
Plaintiffs’ preferred form of air conditioning – they have refrigerated air conditioning at their
home in Kansas and it works for them there. A preference for that type of air conditioning,
however, is not evidence that other methods of providing cool, filtered air are inadequate to their

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 24

needs. The record just does not bear out such a claim, even if Plaintiffs might suggest that it is
somehow implied by their circumstances.12 Plaintiffs’ medical providers have never opined to
that effect and Plaintiffs’ mere desire for a certain type of air conditioning does not, by itself,
establish as much. In contrast, the HOA has put forward sensible reasons for the prohibition
against such units – they create noise (which travels beyond a particular condominium that might
install such a unit) which detracts from the peace and quiet that otherwise is a valued
characteristic of the development, and they are aesthetically displeasing. Hence, allowing the
Plaintiffs’ preferred form of air conditioning would not only violate the Fairway Nine II
Homeowners’ Association’s directives per se, it also would create conditions the rules were
designed to prevent – namely, noisy and unattractive outside air conditioning units in areas
shared by neighboring condominium owners.
Simply put, the record does not contain any persuasive reason to support a claim that a
refrigerated air conditioning unit installed on the outside of Plaintiffs’ condominium is a
reasonable accommodation to address Plaintiffs’ handicaps. The legitimate concerns over a need
for cool, filtered air can be met by alternatives that do not raise even a genuine issue of fact as to
whether they could possibly outweigh the legitimate interests served by the HOA’s prohibition

12

In fact, Defendants present the affidavits of other residents, commenting on their
satisfaction with water-cooled air conditioning units. See, e.g., Hasse, Town, Banchik, Feldman,
Grohmann, Downie, & Judell Affs. (Docket No. 54, Atts. 3, 7-11, & 13). Plaintiffs seek to strike
those portions of these affidavits that contain testimony discussing the efficiency and
comparative benefits of a water-cooled air conditioning unit. See Pls.’ Mot. to Strike (Docket
No. 56). However, at this juncture, these affidavits are sufficient evidence that other, viable air
conditioning options exist and have been put to use with good results. The affiants can testify to
this ultimate fact as such statements are well within the competency of a lay witness with direct
knowledge, regardless of the technical mechanical and engineering ins-and-outs of why they
may think they way they do. Further, more elaborate testimony is not needed to resolve this
element of an FHA claim, as it is Plaintiffs’ burden to establish the reasonableness of the
requested accommodation which necessarily implies that other options do not work as well.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 56) is denied.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 25

against such units. Whatever benefits flow to Plaintiffs in the installation of such a unit are
outweighed by the costs to Defendants and others. As a result, no evidence exists that Plaintiffs’
as-installed, outside refrigerated air conditioning unit is a reasonable accommodation as a matter
of law.13
e.

A Question of Fact Exists As to Whether Defendants Refused to Make the
Requested/Reasonable Accommodation

As previously discussed, housing providers are not required under the FHA to immediately
grant all requests for accommodation. See Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1258 (“‘[T]he duty to
make a reasonable accommodation does not simply spring from the fact that the handicapped
person...wants such an accommodation made.’”) (quoting Gavin v. Spring Ridge Conservancy,
Inc., 934 F. Supp. 685, 687 (D. Md. 1995)). “Defendants must instead have been given an
opportunity to make a final decision with respect to Plaintiffs’ request, which necessarily
includes the ability to conduct a meaningful review of the requested accommodation to
determine if such an accommodation is required by law.” Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1258
(internal citations omitted). “Once allowed that opportunity, ‘a violation occurs when the
disabled resident is first denied a reasonable accommodation, irrespective of the remedies
granted in subsequent proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Groome Resources Ltd., LLC v. Parish of
Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192, 199 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bryant Woods Inn, 124 F.3d at 602)).

13

If a defendant determines that a requested accommodation imposes unreasonable
costs, they are required to engage in an “interactive process” with the plaintiff to explore
alternatives. See Smith v. Powdrill, 2013 WL 5786586, *7 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Plaintiffs argue
this did not happen. See Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ MSJ, p. 5 (Docket No. 57). However, this
argument fails of its own weight, in that accepted alternatives existed to (and were used instead
of) refrigerated air conditioning units generally (e.g., water-cooled and inside room-based air
conditioning units). Nonetheless, there is an open question in this record as to whether such
alternatives were available to Plaintiffs when they installed the refrigerated air conditioning unit
on the outside of their condominium in August 2013. See infra.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 26

Unless and until a reasonable accommodation is denied, there is no discrimination under
the FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Similarly, unless there is or is about to be an
occurrence of discrimination, there is no cause of action. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). “The
denial can be either actual or constructive, ‘as an indeterminate delay has the same effect as an
outright denial.’” Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1258 (quoting Groome Resources, 234 F.3d at
199).
Defendants say that they “did not refuse the requested accommodation.” See Mem. in
Supp. of Defs.’ MSJ, p. 4 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1). But, in fact, Defendants refused Plaintiffs’
request to install a refrigerated air conditioning unit in the Summer of 2013 – the genesis of this
action. Defendants apparently mean to say that they never refused a request for a reasonable
accommodation, either in the form of a water-cooled or inside room-based air conditioning unit.
See id. (“The reasonable accommodation is ‘cool and filtered air’ in his condominium. The
Board does not object (and never has) to the Morgans installing an air conditioning unit. The
only disagreement here is the placement and/or the type of unit that can be installed.”). But this
statement is also not precisely correct, because at the time Plaintiffs were looking to install their
refrigerated air conditioning unit the Board was postponing consideration of any request for any
type of air conditioning unit – regardless of whether it was for a water-cooled, inside-room
based, or some other form of air conditioning unit. The purported justification for the
postponement of consideration of such requests stemmed from an action taken in June 2013 by
the Sun Valley Sewer and Water Board (“SVSWD”) to impose a six-month moratorium on the
future installations of “water based” air conditioning units. See Pls.’ U.F. No. 5 (Docket No. 54,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 27

Att. 2) (citing Haase Aff., ¶ 16 (Docket No. 54, Att. 3)).14 This moratorium had the effect of
halting every request to install air conditioning units at the Fairway Nine II Condominium
complex, as reflected in the Board’s July 15, 2013 meeting minutes:
The Board unanimously agrees to postpone Mr. Bowen’s request to install an A/C
unit. At a previous meeting, the Board agreed to postpone all requests until the
moratorium is over. There has been a lot of misguided information about the
Board’s position on the installation of A/C units at Fairway Nine II. The Board
would like to dispel this from continuing by having an informative meeting, at 4398
deck, on the topics of A/C at Fairway Nine II and the moratorium. The Board wants
the homeowners to know that they are not saying no to air conditioning. There are
a lot of A/C options and the Board is taking everything into consideration, to ensure
that the decision made is best for all homeowners. A motion was made to . . . meet
with homeowners to discuss the moratorium and A/C at Fairway Nine II. In
addition, a letter will be sent out to all homeowners explaining the moratorium and
why the Board has decided to not approve any A/C requests until the moratorium is
over. The motion was seconded and a majority of the Board was in favor.
7/15/13 Minutes (Docket No. 58, Att. 4) (emphasis added). Similarly, in a September 6, 2013
letter to the Plaintiffs, the Board said, in part:
We understand your issues. The Board . . . will continue to work to provide adequate
air conditioning options . . . by the next summer season, regardless of any action that
may be taken by the Sun Valley Water and Sewer System as the current moratorium
expires. You may then reapply for installation of such an approved system.
9/6/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 58, Att. 4) (emphasis added). Then again, in a September 12, 2013 letter
to Plaintiff Bernard Morgan, the Board said:
The Fairway Nine II Board of Directors held their Board meeting today and reviewed
your request to install a Lennox, XC17, Air Cooled (refrigerated) Air Conditioner.

14

Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff Bernard Morgan lobbied for the moratorium
purportedly so that he could install his outside refrigerated air conditioning unit, “he cannot now
hide behind it and claim he had no other choice. If this is Mr. Morgan’s argument, it is
completely lacking in merit.” See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 8 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1).
Defendants supply no legal footing for their argument, and it is without merit factually because it
was the SVSWD – not Mr. Morgan – which issued the moratorium on installing “water based”
air conditioning units. The fact that Mr. Morgan may have agreed with the moratorium’s
purpose or even sought to somehow orchestrate it is of no legal moment on this point.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 28

As you know, there now exists a moratorium on installation of water-cooled air
conditioners, which are the air conditioners now approved for our condominiums.
The Water & Sewer Department officials are studying these air conditions, and we
are providing information to them based on our experience and information that has
been made available to us.
Requests for all air conditioners will be delayed until sometime after the moratorium
process has concluded and a decision has been made.
The Board will collect information on all types of air conditioners and research the
possibilities to determine what the best is for all the homeowners.
9/12/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 58, Att. 4) (emphasis added). This correspondence indicates the Board
viewed its required approval extending to all types of air conditioners15 and that until the
SVSWD’s moratorium on water-cooled air conditioners expired, the Board would not be
approving any types of air conditioners.
Accordingly, it is incorrect to state as a matter of law – as Defendants have here – that
“[r]oom-based air conditioners have ALWAYS been an acceptable option.” Defs.’ Mem. in
Supp. of MSJ, p. 8 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1) (emphasis in original). Arguably, so long as
Plaintiffs were unable to receive cool, filtered air in a climate-controlled environment during the
six-month moratorium, Defendants refused to make either the requested (refrigerated air
conditioning) – or even reasonable (water-cooled or inside, room-based air conditioning) –
accommodations during that time. The record is too underdeveloped to determine that to
15

Board approval seems necessary not only for outside-installed air conditioning units
(like the refrigerated air conditioning unit Plaintiffs installed), but also water-cooled and inside
room-based air conditioning units. See, e.g., Haase Aff., ¶ 3 (Docket No. 54, Att. 3) (“The Board
would approve a water based system like the others that have been installed or would approve a
room based air conditioner.”) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, Defendants argue that inside roombased air conditioning units have never been denied – even during the moratorium. See Defs.’
Reply in Supp. of MSJ, p. 7 (Docket No. 61). At the very least, a question of fact exists on this
point.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 29

actually be the case as a matter of law. Still, after the moratorium was lifted – and presumably
with water-cooled and/or inside room-based air conditioners available to Plaintiffs – reasonable
accommodations exist to account for and treat Plaintiffs’ claimed handicaps. As a result, and
particularly so with inferences drawn in favor of the non-movant, questions of fact exist as to
whether Defendants refused to make the requested/reasonable accommodation.16
2.

Individual Defendants’ Liability Under the FHA

Defendants seek dismissal of the individual Defendants, arguing that there is no evidence
that any individual Defendant acted outside his or her role either as members of the Board or as
property manager for Pioneer West Property Management, LLC. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of
MSJ, pp. 13-15 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1) (“In order to have a cause of action against the
individually-named Defendants, Plaintiffs must prove that they acted outside the scope of their
respective roles within the two organizations.”). In essence, Defendants argue that the individual

16

The Court acknowledges that Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not been damaged
because they have actually installed a refrigerated air conditioning unit on the outside of their
condominium. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of MSJ, p. 11 (Docket No. 54, Att. 1) (“Plaintiffs
installed an air conditioner on August 21, 2013 and it has been in use since that time. As a
consequence, Plaintiffs have never been without the accommodation they requested . . . . The
Board may disapprove of its placement in the common area, but given that the accommodation is
currently in place, Plaintiff cannot prove resulting damage from an alleged denied
accommodation . . . . This argument is not ripe for a decision at present.”) (emphasis in
original). However, this argument ignores the fact that Defendants have assessed (or threatened
to assess) fines against Plaintiffs and recorded a lien upon their condominium due to the fact that
they installed the refrigerated air conditioning unit in violation of the CCRs. See Pls.’ Opp. to
Defs.’ MSJ, pp. 11-12 (Docket No. 57) (“Defendants’ position that Plaintiffs have not suffered
any damage is contrary to fact, as damages continue to incur literally every day. Defendants
impose daily fines on Plaintiffs . . . . have placed a lien on the Plaintiffs’ home . . . . [and]
continue to spread misinformation to the residents of Fairway Nine II, damaging the Morgans’
reputation in the community.”). Had that not been the case, Defendants argument in this regard
might have greater traction.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 30

Defendants cannot be held liable in an individual capacity merely based upon their association
with the decision-making entities involved here (the Board and property management company ).
Other courts have ruled that directors who participate in, authorize, or ratify the
commission of a FHA violation may be held individually liable. See Fielder v. Sterling Park
Homeowners Ass’n, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1227 (W.D. Wash. 2012); but see Rosenfeld v.
Hackett, 2010 WL 5067960, *2 (D. Or. 2010) (citing “lack of clear guidance from statutory
language or reported case law in FHA accommodation cases,” relying upon “closely related field
of disability discrimination under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act” in
prohibiting individual capacity claims against individual defendants).17 Significantly, an
independent tortious act is not required. See United States v. Tropic Seas, Inc., 887 F. Supp.
1347, 1365 (D. Hawaii 1995) (“Because the duty to comply with the Fair Housing Act is
nondelegable, a corporation’s officers and directors may be held individually liable for their
failure to ensure the corporation’s compliance. This is so even where the individual director or
officer did not actively participate in the alleged discrimination and did not subjectively intend to
discriminate against the complainant.”) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
individual Defendants contributed in some way to the alleged refusal to reasonably
accommodate Plaintiffs. These Defendants wrote letters to Plaintiffs rejecting their request for a
refrigerated air conditioner. See, e.g., 8/21/13, 9/12/13 & 10/25/13 Ltrs. from Pioneer West and

17

In Rosenfeld, however, the plaintiff never made a request for accommodation directly
to the individually-named defendant seeking judgment on the pleadings; instead, her request was
made to Housing and Urban Development. See Rosenfeld, 2010 WL 5067960 at *2.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 31

9/6/13, 9/16/1318 & 1/8/14 Ltrs. from Board (Docket No. 58, Att. 4). Because Defendants’
refusal to grant such a request is the basis for Plaintiffs’ refusal-to-accommodate claim under the
FHA, it follows that these individual Defendants personally contributed to the alleged FHA
violation. Cf. Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ MSJ, pp. 12-13 (Docket No. 57) (“[T]he Board had sole
control over its choice to discriminate, and did so . . . . Similarly, Anne Jacobi, as agent for the
Board, advised the Board on the same and enforced the Board’s decision, thus showing she has
also violated the Fair Housing Act.”).
Of course, this presumes that Plaintiffs’ actual FHA claims have merit – something that is
not altogether clear based upon the discussion of the issues contained herein. Whether Plaintiffs
can ultimately prove such a violation remains to be seen, but at this state the claims against the
individual Defendants cannot be resolved as a matter of law upon the rationale put forward by
Defendants. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in denied in this respect.
3.

Summary of Recommendations Regarding the Cross Motions
for Summary Judgment

As to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, a question of fact exists as to whether
Defendants refused a reasonable accommodation during the period of the SVSWD’s six-month
moratorium, with the related decision by the Board to arguably not approve any air conditioning
requests during the moratorium. Given the evidence of the individual Defendants’ role in the
refusal of such an accommodation, they should not be dismissed at this time.
As to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, there are genuine issues as to
whether Plaintiffs are indeed handicapped under the FHA and whether refrigerated air
18

This letter from the “Fairway Nine II Board of Directors” was written on Pioneer West
Property Management LLC letterhead. See 9/16/13 Ltr. (Docket No. 58, Att. 4).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 32

conditioning is either a necessary or reasonable accommodation under the circumstances
presented by those handicaps.19
Therefore, it is recommended that each of the summary judgment motions be denied. To be
clear, what remains at-issue as a result (although not neatly framed by the parties’ as-filed
dispositive motions) is whether an FHA claim exists during the period represented by the sixmonth period coinciding with the SVSWD’s moratorium.
B.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss/Strike Defendants’ Counterclaim and Defendants’
Motion to Amend Answer to Include Verified Counterclaim
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 7, 2013. On December 2, 2013, Defendants

filed their Answer. On June 23, 2014, after the Court adopted the parties’ Stipulation to File
Amendments to the Pleadings, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The next day,
Defendants filed a Verified Counterclaim. Defendants’ actual Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint was filed on July 21, 2014.20
19

Plaintiffs have also moved to strike several exhibits attached to Defendants’
opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See Pls.’ Second Mot. to Strike
(Docket No. 73). Though certain of Plaintiffs’ objections in this respect may have merit as
discussed more fully during oral argument, the undersigned did not consider the materials at
issue in the motions when considering the underlying dispositive motions. Therefore,
Defendants’ Second Motion to Strike (Docket No. 73) is denied as moot.
20

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint did not set out separately
identified counterclaims in the customary and appropriate form. However, their Sixth
Affirmative Defense said that:
Plaintiffs have been and are currently in violation of the applicable CCRs and
Bylaws and, consequently, Defendants are entitled to a judgment in its favor, its
costs and fees, and all other relief that the Court deems appropriate and just. The
Counterclaim filed by the Defendants states in more reasonable detail its [sic]claims
for relief.
Ans., p. 6 (Docket No. 44).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 33

Plaintiffs now move to strike Defendants’ Verified Counterclaim because it “was not filed
as part of Defendants’ Answer or any other allowable pleading” under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike, p. 3 (Docket No. 60, Att. 1). Defendants
oppose this motion and alternatively move to amend their Answer to include their Verified
Counterclaim. See Defs.’ Opp. to Mot. to Strike (Docket Nos. 67 & 68).
Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ request to amend its Answer to include the Verified
Counterclaim. Moreover, good cause exists to do so given that Defendants’ Answer referenced
the previously-filed Verified Counterclaim. There is no prejudice to Plaintiffs if Defendants’
requested amendment is permitted.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer to Include the Verified Counterclaim
(Docket No. 68) is granted. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Defendants’
Counterclaim (Docket No. 60) is denied as moot.
III. RECOMMENDATION/ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 54) be DENIED;

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 58) be DENIED; and

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Defendants’ Counterclaim (Docket No.
60) be DENIED as moot.

Pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rule 72.1(b)(2), a party objecting to a Magistrate
Judge’s recommended disposition “must serve and file specific, written objections, not to exceed
twenty pages . . . within fourteen (14) days . . ., unless the magistrate or district judge sets a
different time period.” Additionally, the other party “may serve and file a response, not to

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 34

exceed ten pages, to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with
a copy thereof.”
Also based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affidavits of Jack Haase, Daniel Feldman, Thomas
Grohmann, Howard Banchik, Ken Downie, Eileen Juddell, and Dave Town (Docket
No. 56) is DENIED;

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer to Include Verified Counterclaim (Docket
No. 68) is GRANTED;

3.

Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Strike (Docket No. 73) is DENIED as moot; and

4.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Marilyn Morgan (Docket No. 75) is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
DATED: February 11, 2015

Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DECISION AND ORDER - 35