Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breier-Scheetz Properties, LLC et al
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and deferring in part plaintiff's 76 Petition for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt ; granting in part and denying in part defendants' 84 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. The Court STAYS (1) enforcement of the Judgment as to actual and punitive damages, conditioned upon Defendants posting a supersedeas bond in the amount of $130,762.36 no later than 9/7/2018, and (2) enforcement of the Supplemental Judgment in a Civil Case (Dkt. 74 ), conditioned upon Defendants posting a supersedeas bond in the amount of $189,762.69 no later than9/7/2018. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF
LLC, a Washington corporation; and
FREDERICK BREIER-SCHEETZ, an
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
15 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff’s Petition for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should
Not Be Held in Civil Contempt and for Actual and Punitive Damages, docket no. 76 (the
“Petition to Show Cause”), is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part. The Petition
to Show Cause seeks enforcement of the Court’s October 6, 2017, Judgment in a Civil
Case, docket no. 61 (the “Judgment”), awarding Plaintiff damages and “forever
permanently enjoin[ing Defendants] from enforcing any occupancy restriction which
violates the Fair Housing Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW
49.60.222(1), or the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code 14.08.”
Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), Defendants argue that they “cannot know
whether any ‘occupancy restriction’ beyond the one-person per studio policy, that it
might implement, would be judged violative of the law.” Defendants’ Response to
Petition for Order to Show Cause, docket no. 83, at 2–3. The Court rejects this argument
and concludes that its Judgment enjoining Defendants from violating the law is valid
MINUTE ORDER - 1
1 under Rule 65(d) because it sufficiently describes in enough detail what conduct is
actually prohibited. Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 501 Fed. Appx. 713, 716 (9th
2 Cir. 2012); Perez v. United States Postal Serv., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1198 (W.D. Wash.
2015) (“[T]he Ninth Circuit allows for injunctions that track statutory mandates.” (citing
3 United States v. Miller, 588 F.2d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir. 1978); Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d
528, 537 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Court DEFERS any evidentiary hearing to show cause
4 pending Defendants’ appeal to the United States Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit.
See docket no. 68.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, docket no. 84, is GRANTED
6 in part and DENIED in part. The Court STAYS (1) enforcement of the Judgment as to
actual and punitive damages, conditioned upon Defendants posting a supersedeas bond in
7 the amount of $130,762.36 no later than Friday, September 7, 2018, and (2) enforcement
of the December 1, 2017, Supplemental Judgment in a Civil Case, docket no. 74,
8 awarding attorney’s fees and costs, conditioned upon Defendants posting a supersedeas
bond in the amount of $189,762.69 no later than Friday, September 7, 2018, while
9 Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit remains pending. See docket no. 68.
Defendants’ request to stay the injunctive portion of the Judgment is DENIED.
10 Defendants have not identified what injury, if any, they or any other interested party will
suffer if a stay is not issued and Defendants are forced to comply with the Fair Housing
11 Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1), and the Seattle
Open Housing Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code 14.08. See Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640
12 F.3d 962, 964–66 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court presumes that issuing a stay would
substantially injure those potential tenants denied housing under Defendants’ improper
13 housing policies in violation of the Fair Housing Act, see, e.g., Manhart v. Los Angeles
Dep’t of Water & Power, 387 F. Supp. 980, 984 (9th Cir. 1976), and the Court concludes
14 that, for these same reasons, issuing a stay would be against public interests.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
Dated this 29th day of August, 2018.
William M. McCool
MINUTE ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?