Willis v. First Emanuel Homes of New Orleans

Filing 55

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 49 , 52 Motions for Leave to File Reply and Sur-Reply are DENIED as unnecessary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 45 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/23/2018. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KENDALL WILLIS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-6199

FIRST EMANUEL HOMES OF NEW ORLEANS

SECTION "B"(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant First Emanuel Homes of New
Orleans’
(Rec.

“Partial

Doc.

45)

Motion
and

for

Summary

Plaintiff

Judgement”

Kendell

Willis’

(“Defendant”)
“Response

in

Opposition” (“Plaintiff”) (Rec. Doc. 46). Also before the Court is
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply and Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File Sur-reply, Rec. Docs. 49 and 52, respectively.
IT IS ORDERED that the above-mentioned Motions for Leave to
File Reply and Sur-Reply (Rec. Docs. 49 and 52) are DENIED as
unnecessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 45) is DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff leased a property owned by the Defendant, at 1711
Street,

Apartment

B,

New

Orleans,

Louisiana,

70113

(the

“Property”). See Rec. Docs. 1 and 13. Prior to initiating the
instant action, Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to contact
Defendant on numerous occasions regarding various repairs and/or

maintenance to be had on the Property—including the removal of
carpet and fixing electrical wiring issues. Rec. Doc. 1.
The underlying claims of this case involve allegations of
discrimination

and

unlawful

treatment

by

the

Defendant

while

Plaintiff was a tenant on the Property. 1 In particular, Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges that on November 20, 2014, Plaintiff sent his
first written request to Defendant regarding the de-installation
of the carpeted floor in his apartment based on his medical
disability.

Rec.

Docs.

1,

46-2.

Defendant

was

allegedly

unresponsive to said letter. Rec. Doc. 1 and 46. On January 28,
2015, Plaintiff wrote a second letter that was also allegedly
ignored by Defendant. See Rec. Doc. 46-9.
Sometime between January 2015 and November 2015, Plaintiff
and Defendant had a verbal conversation regarding the removal of
the carpeted floors in Plaintiff’s unit. Rec. Doc. 46 at 2.
Following up this conversation, Plaintiff sent a third letter to
Defendant. Rec. Doc. 46-4. Allegedly, there was an issue with
Plaintiff’s ability to move and/or storage his belongings during
installation of new flooring in the unit. Id.
On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff sent another letter to Defendant
referencing his prior requests for accommodation of his disability
and removal of the carpet in his unit. Rec. Doc. 46-7. On June 13,

1

The Complaint alleges violation of the Federal fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 – 3631; violation of Louisiana
Civil Code Articles 2322, 2696, and 2699.

2016, after Plaintiff sought help from the Greater New Orleans
Fair Housing Action Center, staff attorney Peter Theis sent a
letter to Defendant on Plaintiff’s behalf. Rec. Doc. 46-8. A final
letter was written by Plaintiff to Defendant on July 5, 2016, after
Plaintiff’s attempt to renew his lease was denied. Rec. Doc. 469.
After retaining counsel Plaintiff sent a demand letter to
Defendant on April 21, 2017, requesting compensation for damages
within ten (10) days of receipt of the letter. Rec. Docs. 16 at 4
and 13-1 at 4. After no response to the demand letter, Plaintiff
filed suit in this Court on June 27, 2017. Rec. Doc. 1.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court
should view all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros. Inc.,
453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006). Mere conclusory allegations are
insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d
1322, 1325 (5th Cir. 1996).

Defendant’s

Motion

for

Partial

Summary

Judgment

seeks

dismissal of “any clams based on alleged violations that occurred
before June 25, 2015.”

Rec. Doc. 45-1 at 2. With little to no

support, Defendant contends that “[i]n paragraphs 15, 16, and 17
of his ‘Complaint’ plaintiff alleges acts in violation of the 42
U.S.C. 3601, et. seq., which he claims occurred in November, 2014
and January 2015.” Rec. Doc. 45-2.
42 U.S.C. § 3613 provides that:
(1)(A) An aggrieved person may commence a civil
action in an appropriate United States district court or
State court not later than 2 years after the occurrence
or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing
practice, or the breach of a conciliation agreement
entered into under this subchapter, whichever occurs
last, to obtain appropriate relief with respect to such
discriminatory housing practice or breach.
42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A)(emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has concluded that “where a plaintiff,
pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, challenges not just one incident
of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that
continues into the limitations period, the complaint is timely
when it is filed within 180 days of the last asserted occurrence
of that practice.” Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363,
380–81 (1982). Defendant’s request for partial summary judgment
ignores

the

continuing

nature

of

the

violations

alleged

by

Plaintiff. The November 2014 and January 2015 claims alleged by
Plaintiff involve the Defendants alleged failure to remove carpet

from

Plaintiff’s

rental

unit,

as

well

as

other

requested

maintenance. Plaintiff’s subsequent alleged violations in 2016
also involve the same carpeting and maintenance issues. As a
result, the claims that Defendants seek to dismiss are not discrete
acts of discrimination as they are continuing violations thereof.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of May, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE