DuBois v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987
Kalakaua case brief
453 F.3d 1175
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff
condominium owner appealed decisions of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Hawaii, granting summary judgment for defendants, a
group collectively referred to as a condominium association, on Fair
Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 3601-3609, and Discrimination in
Real Property Transactions Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 515-1 to -20
(2005) claims, denying reconsideration, and granting the association
summary judgment on tort claims.
FACTS: The owner's primary claim was that the association discriminated against he and his roommate on the basis of handicap in violation of the FHA when it refused to allow them to keep their dog as a reasonable accommodation for the roommate's depression. The appellate court affirmed. Although the parties had argued various issues at length, resolution of the legal issues was simple. The association never required the dog to leave and thus never refused to make the accommodation. After such accommodation was requested, the association granted a temporary exemption from its bylaw limiting the presence of animals while it investigated. The dog remained in the unit until the inhabitants moved out. Moreover, the federal district court properly denied reconsideration of its ruling because the owner's motion merely reinforced previously known facts or presented immaterial evidence. Finally, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the association on the remaining tort claims was proper as the owner failed to produce sufficient proof as to each of his claims. His exhibits were largely irrelevant, leaving only uncorroborated and self-serving declarations.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court affirmed.
FACTS: The owner's primary claim was that the association discriminated against he and his roommate on the basis of handicap in violation of the FHA when it refused to allow them to keep their dog as a reasonable accommodation for the roommate's depression. The appellate court affirmed. Although the parties had argued various issues at length, resolution of the legal issues was simple. The association never required the dog to leave and thus never refused to make the accommodation. After such accommodation was requested, the association granted a temporary exemption from its bylaw limiting the presence of animals while it investigated. The dog remained in the unit until the inhabitants moved out. Moreover, the federal district court properly denied reconsideration of its ruling because the owner's motion merely reinforced previously known facts or presented immaterial evidence. Finally, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the association on the remaining tort claims was proper as the owner failed to produce sufficient proof as to each of his claims. His exhibits were largely irrelevant, leaving only uncorroborated and self-serving declarations.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment