Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 25 Pageid#: 174

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC. )

and PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, )

INC.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

HHHUNT CORPORATION; ABBERLY AT

)

WEST ASHLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; )

ASHTON POINTE PROPERTY LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE I LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE II LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY PLACE - GARNER- )

PHASE I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ASHTON )

VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON )

WOODS-CHARLOTTE-PHASE I APARTMENTS)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON WOODS- )

CHARLOTTE-PHASE II APARTMENTS

)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON GROVE – )

RALEIGH APARTMENTS LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY FARMS-

)

LEXINGTON PARK – PHASE I LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY CREST-

)

LEXINGTON PARK – PHASE II LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY CREST-

)

LEXINGTON PARK – PHASE III LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY GREEN –

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE I LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY GREEN –

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE II LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; TWIN HICKORY

)

APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

)

HHHUNT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. )

and J DAVIS ARCHITECTS, PLLC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No.7:11-cv-00131
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 25 Pageid#: 175
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 1. Plaintiffs National Fair Housing Alliance (“NFHA”) and Paralyzed Veterans of America (“Paralyzed Veterans”) hereby bring this civil rights action against the builder, designer, manager and current owners of multifamily apartment complexes designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt Corporation (“HHHunt”) for monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief arising from violations of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619. The FHA requires that certain apartment complexes built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 be designed and constructed with accessible and adaptable features for people with disabilities. 2. Since at least 2002, the Design/Build Defendants, who are identified in paragraphs 12-20 herein, have engaged in a continuous pattern or practice of discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of the FHA by designing and/or constructing multifamily dwellings, and the common use and public use areas associated with those dwellings (hereafter referred to as “covered units” or “covered apartment complexes”), at seven apartment complexes tested by Plaintiffs, as to deny people with disabilities full access to, and the use of, these facilities as required under the FHA. The seven apartment complexes are: Auston Chase in Ridgeland, South Carolina; Abberly at West Ashley in Charleston, South Carolina; Ashton Pointe in Beaufort, South Carolina; Abberly Place in Garner, North Carolina; Auston Grove in Raleigh, North Carolina; Abberly Green-Mooresville in Mooresville, North Carolina; and Auston Woods
2

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 3 of 25 Pageid#: 176
in Charlotte, North Carolina (hereinafter the “Tested Properties”). Some of these Tested Properties have apartment buildings with covered units that were first occupied within two years of the filing of this Complaint. The Design/Build Defendants’ violations of the FHA at these apartment complexes are serial and frequent, and they continue 20 years after the effective date of the FHA accessibility requirements.
3. The Design/Build Defendants’ violations of the FHA accessibility requirements have serious and significant consequences for people with disabilities. As outlined below, many complexes have steps, curbs without curb cuts, excessive running and cross slopes, and primary entry doors with high thresholds impeding the only route of travel for people with mobility impairments to travel to covered units. There is insufficient centered clear floor space for people in wheelchairs at bathroom toilets, lavatories and tubs, and at kitchen sinks. There are inaccessible routes to public- and common-use areas that can be blocked by parked cars, designated accessible parking which lacks the required access aisle for people with mobility impairments to leave or enter their parked vehicles, common-use restrooms which lack the required clear floor space for people with mobility impairments, sinks with insufficient clear floor space for wheelchairs and exposed hot water and drain pipes at roll-under sinks, environmental controls beyond the reach range of wheelchair users, computer tables with work surfaces that are excessively high for people in wheelchairs, exercise facilities with narrow access aisles that block access to machines for wheelchair users – all in violation of the FHA’s accessibility requirements. These blatant violations, and many others, effectively communicate that people with disabilities are not welcome at the Tested Properties.
3

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 4 of 25 Pageid#: 177
4. According to the 2004 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 51 million Americans (nearly one in five) have some form of disability, and one in eight has a severe disability. Of that number, more than 2.7 million people over the age of 15 years use a wheelchair, and that number is expected to increase as the population ages and medical care allows people with disabilities to live longer and fuller lives. Another 7 million use a cane, crutches, a walker or other mobility aid. Accessible housing is an essential means of ensuring that people with disabilities are able to fully participate in community life.
5. A person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular dwelling by steps, excessively high thresholds at building or unit entrances or by excessive running slopes on the route to covered units as by a posted sign saying “No Handicapped People Allowed.” In considering the 1988 disability amendments to the FHA, Congress stressed that enforcement of the civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with disabilities from the “devastating” impact of housing discrimination, including the “architectural barriers” erected by developers and builders who fail to construct dwellings and public accommodations accessible to, and adaptable by, people with disabilities. H.R. REP. NO. 100-711, at 25 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2186.
6. The Design/Build Defendants’ flagrant, systematic and continuing violations of the FHA have thwarted Congressional efforts to eradicate housing discrimination against people with disabilities, rendered units unavailable to people with disabilities, frustrated the mission of Plaintiffs and caused Plaintiffs to divert their scarce resources in an attempt to redress these violations. Enforcement of the FHA against these Defendants
4

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 5 of 25 Pageid#: 178
is necessary because of the extensive and continuing nature of the civil rights violations at numerous apartment complexes throughout the middle Atlantic states that have been designed and/or constructed by them.
7. To the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have also identified two additional covered apartment complexes designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and currently owned by Remedial Defendants, who are later identified herein. The two apartment complexes are: Abberly Crest in Lexington Park, Maryland and The Gardens at Twin Hickory in Glen Allen, Virginia. On information and belief, these additional properties share common design features with the tested apartment complexes, and Plaintiffs have reason to believe that similar FHA accessibility violations may exist at these properties as well. Further, Plaintiffs bring this action against Remedial Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. in its capacity as the manager of covered properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt. Plaintiffs request as a remedy, inter alia, that the Remedial Defendants be enjoined from refusing to permit any survey and, where necessary, any retrofits of covered properties that may be ordered by this Court to bring properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt into full compliance with the FHA.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a) and 12188. 9. Venue is proper in the District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendants are legal entities that reside in this district and /or that have transacted and continue to transact business and contract to supply services in this district, events
5

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 6 of 25 Pageid#: 179
giving rise to these claims occurred in this district and these claims concern or otherwise relate to real property located in this district.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
10. Plaintiff NFHA is a national, nonprofit, public service organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place of business at 1101 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 710, Washington, D.C. 20005. NFHA is a nationwide alliance of private, nonprofit, fair housing organizations, including organizations in 28 states. NFHA’s mission includes advocating for the rights of people with disabilities to accessible housing. NFHA is the only national organization dedicated solely to ending housing discrimination and promoting residential integration. NFHA works to eliminate housing discrimination and to ensure equal opportunity for all people through leadership, education and outreach, membership services, public policy initiatives, advocacy, investigation of fair housing violations and enforcement. One of NFHA’s goals is the promotion of accessible housing; to that end, since 1992, NFHA has conducted nationwide educational campaigns to address accessibility in rental housing.
11. Plaintiff Paralyzed Veterans is a private, nonprofit corporation, chartered by an act of the United States Congress, with its principal place of business at 801 18th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-3517. Paralyzed Veterans’ membership is comprised of citizens of the United States who have served honorably in the United States Armed Forces and who have spinal cord injuries or diseases. Paralyzed Veterans’ national office and its 34 chapters represent thousands of veterans in all 50 states. It is dedicated to
6

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 7 of 25 Pageid#: 180
veterans service, medical research and advancing the civil rights of people with disabilities including advocating for truly universal accessibility in housing.
B. Design/Build Defendants 12. Defendant HHHunt is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Either directly or through affiliated companies, HHHunt has been and continues to be in the business of developing, building and managing multifamily residential properties that are covered by the FHA, including but not limited to:
a. Auston Chase at 59 Summerlake Circle, Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936; b. Abberly at West Ashley at 3100 Ashley Town Center Drive, Charleston,
South Carolina 29414; c. Ashton Pointe at 100 Ashton Pointe Boulevard, Beaufort, South Carolina
29906; d. Abberly Crest at 46850 Abberly Crest Lane, Lexington Park, Maryland
20653; e. Abberly Green—Mooresville at 117 Abberly Green Boulevard, Mooresville,
North Carolina 28117; f. Abberly Place at 500 Abberly Crest Boulevard, Garner, North Carolina
27529; g. Auston Grove at 1160 Auston Grove Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27610; h. Auston Woods at 5301 Roundstone Way, Charlotte, North Carolina 28216;
and i. The Gardens at Twin Hickory at 4700 The Gardens Drive, Glen Allen,
Virginia 23059. In one or more of these capacities, Defendant HHHunt is responsible for the design and/or construction of these properties.
7

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 8 of 25 Pageid#: 181
13. Defendants Auston Chase I Limited Partnership (“Defendant Auston Chase I”) and Auston Chase II Limited Partnership (“Defendant Auston Chase II”) are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Auston Chase I was the owner of phase I of Auston Chase during the time of its design and/or construction, and Defendant Auston Chase II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Auston Chase. Defendants Auston Chase I and Auston Chase II are also the current owners of phases I and II, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs with respect to their phase. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
14. Defendant Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership (“Defendant Abberly at West Ashley”) is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Abberly at West Ashley during the time of its design and/or construction and, in this capacity, is responsible for the design and/or construction of Abberly at West Ashley. Defendant Abberly at West Ashley is also the current owner of Abberly at West Ashley and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiff. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
15. Defendant Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership (“Defendant Ashton Pointe”) is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Ashton Pointe during the time of its design and/or construction; and, in this capacity, is responsible for
8

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 9 of 25 Pageid#: 182
the design and/or construction of Ashton Pointe. Defendant Ashton Pointe is also the current owner of Ashton Pointe and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
16. Defendants Abberly Place – Garner – Phase I Limited Partnership (“Defendant Abberly Place I”) and Ashton Village Limited Partnership (“Defendant Ashton Village”) are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Place I was the owner of phase I of Abberly Place during the time of its design and/or construction and Defendant Ashton Village was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Abberly Place. Defendants Abberly Place I and Ashton Village are also the current owners of phases I and II of Abberly Place, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
17. Defendant Auston Grove-Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership (“Defendant Auston Grove”) is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Auston Grove during the time of its design and/or construction and, in this capacity, is responsible for the design and/or construction of Auston Grove. Defendant Auston Grove is also the current owner of Auston Grove and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
9

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 10 of 25 Pageid#: 183
18. Defendants Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership (“Defendant Auston Woods I”) and Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership (“Defendant Auston Woods II”) are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Auston Woods I was the owner of phase I of Auston Woods during the time of its design and/or construction, and Defendant Auston Woods II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Auston Woods. Defendants Auston Woods I and Auston Woods II are also the current owners of phases I and II of Auston Woods, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
19. Defendants Abberly Green – Mooresville – Phase I (“Defendant Abberly Green I“) and Abberly Green – Mooresville – Phase II (“Defendant Abberly Green II”) are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Green I was the owner of phase I of Abberly Green during its design and/or construction, and Defendant Abberly Green II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Abberly Green Mooresville. Defendants Abberly Green I and Abberly Green I are also the current owners of phase I and II of Abberly Green Mooresville, respectively, and, in this capacity each is necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
10

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 11 of 25 Pageid#: 184
20. Defendant J Davis Architects, PLLC is a legal entity established under the laws of North Carolina with offices at 200 North West Street Raleigh North Carolina 27603. J Davis Architects, PLLC has been and continues to be in the business of preparing plans for the construction of multifamily residential properties that are covered by the FHA, including but not limited to Auston Chase at 59 Summerlake Circle, Ridgeland, South Carolina. C. Remedial Defendants:
21. Defendants Abberly Farms – Lexington Park – Phase I (“Defendant Abberly Farms”), Abberly Crest – Lexington Park – Phase II (“Defendant Abberly Crest II”) and Abberly Crest – Lexington Park – Phase III (“Defendant Abberly Crest III”) are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Farms is the owner of phase I of Abberly Crest, Defendant Abberly Crest II is the owner of phase II, and Defendant Abberly Crest III is the owner of phase III. In this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each of the three limited partnerships.
22. Defendant Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership (“Defendant Twin Hickory”) is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It is the current owner of The Gardens At Twin Hickory, and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership
23. Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060.
11

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 12 of 25 Pageid#: 185
Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. is in the business of managing covered multifamily residential properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs.
IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 24. Congress enacted the FHA design and construction accessibility requirements as part of a comprehensive revision of the FHA to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The debates and legislative history of the FHA reflect Congressional findings that a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular dwelling by steps or thresholds at building or unit entrances and by too narrow doorways as by a posted sign saying “No Handicapped People Allowed.” In considering the 1988 disability amendments to the FHA, the Congress stressed that enforcement of civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with disabilities from the “devastating” impact of housing discrimination, including the “architectural barriers” erected by developers who fail to construct dwellings and public accommodations accessible to, and adaptable by, people with disabilities. H.R. REP. NO. 100-711, at 25 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2186. 25. In response to Congressional findings, the FHA mandated that every multifamily apartment building containing four (4) or more units, and built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 (“covered multi-family dwellings”), be subject to certain design and construction requirements. All ground floor units must comply with the following requirements, as must all units served by an elevator:
a. Public-use and common-use areas that are readily accessible to, and usable by, people with disabilities;
12

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 13 of 25 Pageid#: 186
b. Doors into and within covered units that are sufficiently wide to allow passage by people in wheelchairs;
c. An accessible route into and through the dwelling; d. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations; e. Reinforcements in bathroom walls that allow for the later installation of grab bars; and f. Usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 26. Pursuant to Congressional authority, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) promulgated final FHA design and construction regulations in January 1989, see 24 C.F.R. § 100.205 (2008), and published the final Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines on March 6, 1991 (hereinafter “FHAAG”) which incorporates the requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people, A117-1-1986 (hereinafter “ANSI”), see 56 Fed.Reg. 9472 (Mar. 6, 1991), and the Fair Housing Act Design Manual in August 1996, which was revised in August 1998.
V. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND 27. Plaintiff NFHA became aware in January 2010 that new multifamily housing complexes designed and/or constructed by the Design/Build Defendants did not include the required elements of accessible and adaptable design. NFHA subsequently visited the Tested Properties and identified multiple FHA design and construction violations.
13

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 14 of 25 Pageid#: 187
28. Plaintiff Paralyzed Veterans became aware in September 2010 that Design/Build Defendants did not include the required elements of accessible and adaptable design. Members of Paralyzed Veterans subsequently visited Abberly Place, AustonWoods and Auston Grove and identified multiple FHA design and construction violations.
29. The Design/Build Defendants’ violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) at the Tested Properties include, but are not limited to, those outlined in paragraphs 29 through 34 below. These allegations represent just some of the evidence of a continuing pattern and practice of the Design/Build Defendants’ failures to design and construct covered units and the public and common use areas in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and are not intended as an exhaustive inventory of such violations.
30. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct covered, multifamily dwellings with an accessible entrance on an accessible route, in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(I) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(a) (2008). For example:
a. Abberly Place, Ashton Pointe and Auston Woods have steps which cause excessively high and abrupt level changes for people with mobility impairments on the accessible route to covered units in violation of FHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline (1)(a);
b. Ashton Pointe and Auston Chase have sidewalks with excessively steep running slopes for people with mobility impairments, greater than 5% ,and without ramp features in violation of FHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline (1)(a);
c. Auston Woods has an accessible route with an excessively high and abrupt level change for people with mobility impairments caused by the curb
14

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 15 of 25 Pageid#: 188
without a curb cut at the terminus of the cross walk in violation of FHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline 1(a); and
d. Auston Grove, Abberly Place and Auston Chase have curb ramps that are built in the sidewalks perpendicular to the line of travel on the sidewalk and without a 48 inches x 48 inches level landing at the top of the curb ramp such that people with mobility impairments must travel across the curb ramp with an excessive cross slope in violation of FHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline 1(a), ANSI 4.3.7 and 4.8.4 31. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct public and common-use areas that are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(1) (2008). For example:
a. Abberly at West Ashley, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have curb ramps on accessible routes that are partially or fully blocked for passage by people in wheelchairs when a vehicle is legally parked in the adjacent parking space, in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.3.3, 4.78 and 4.79;
b. Auston Grove has parking designated as “handicap accessible” future resident parking without an access aisle thereby preventing a wheelchair user from safely transferring to or from a parked vehicle to a wheelchair or using a van lift in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4. 6.2.
c. Auston Grove has the outgoing mail slot located beyond the reach range of a wheelchair user in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.2.5 and 4.2.6;
15

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 16 of 25 Pageid#: 189
d. Auston Grove, Abberly Place, Abberly at West Ashley, Auston Woods and Ashton Pointe fail to provide a sufficiently wide route to the exercise equipment for wheelchair passage and at Auston Woods a sufficiently wide route to the emergency telephone, both in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4. 3.3;
e. Auston Grove has a common-use kitchen without sufficient, centered, clear floor space at the sink for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.19.3;
f. Ashton Pointe has doors to the fitness center that require excessive force to open in violation of Requirement 2, ANSI 4.13.11;
g. Auston Chase has common-use computer at tables with work surfaces that are excessively high for use by people in wheelchairs in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.30.4.
h. Abberly Place has a common-use men’s room with excessive space between the centerline of the toilet and the adjacent wall for use of the toilet and grab bar by people with a mobility impairment in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.22.3 and 4.16.2, fig 28;
i. Abberly Place and Auston Woods have common-use rest rooms with sinks with exposed hot water and drain pipes under the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.19.4;
j. A firm, stable and slip resistant traveling surface for people in wheelchairs is not provided to the playground at Abberly Place and Auston
16

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 17 of 25 Pageid#: 190
Woods and to the dog run at Auston Grove in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.5.1; and
k. Auston Woods has drop down stairs in the breezeways without cane detection beneath the stairs that pose a protruding object into the accessible route of people with low visual impairments in violation of Requirement 2, ANSI 4.4.2. 32. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct accessible routes into and through all premises within covered dwellings in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (3)(C)(iii)(I) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(3)(i) (2008). For example:
a. Auston Woods, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have primary entry doors to covered units with excessively high and/or abrupt level changes at thresholds in violation of FHAAG Requirement 4 Guideline (6); and
b. Abberly Place and Abberly Green have doors to the patio or balcony with excessively high and abrupt level changes at the interior side of the threshold in violation of FHAAG Requirement 4 Guideline (4). 33. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct environmental controls in accessible locations in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(II) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(3)(ii) (2008). For example, at Ashton Pointe, the operable parts of environmental controls in the fitness center are beyond the reach range of people in wheelchairs in violation of FHAAG Requirement 5. 34. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct usable kitchens such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(3)(iv) (2008). For example, Auston Woods and Abberly Place have insufficient centered clear
17

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 18 of 25 Pageid#: 191
floor space at the kitchen sink for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7 Guideline 1(a).
35. Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct usable bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(3)(iv) (2008). For example:
a. Auston Woods has toilets located in alcoves with insufficient clear floor space at the toilets for people using a wheelchair or walker to maneuver, approach the toilet seat and transfer to the toilet, in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(a)(ii), fig.7(a);
b. Auston Woods and Auston Grove have insufficient, clear space between the centerline of the toilet to the adjacent wall for the later installation of a grab bar in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(b)(iv), fig. 7(a);
c. Auston Woods and Abberly Place have insufficient, centered, clear floor space at bathroom sinks for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(a)(ii), fig. 7(c); and
d. Auston Woods, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have insufficient, clear space for an access aisle parallel to the tubs for a wheelchair user in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(b)(vi) fig. 8. 36. Further, by failing to provide the accessible and adaptable features required by 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) at the Tested Properties for people with physical disabilities, including but not limited to those outlined in paragraphs 29 through 34 above, the Design/Build Defendants have made dwellings unavailable to people with
18

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 19 of 25 Pageid#: 192
physical disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) and/or have discriminated against them in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental of dwellings in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).
VI. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS 37. As a result of the Design/Build Defendants’ actions described above, Plaintiffs have been directly and substantially injured. Plaintiffs have been frustrated in their missions to eradicate discrimination in housing and in carrying out the programs and services they provide, including encouraging integrated living patterns, educating the public about fair housing rights and requirements, educating and working with industry groups on fair housing compliance, providing assistance to individuals and families looking for housing or affected by discriminatory housing practices and eliminating discriminatory housing practices. Plaintiffs have also been damaged by having to divert scarce resources that could have been used to provide these services to instead identify and counteract the Design/Build Defendants’ discriminatory conduct. 38. In addition, Plaintiffs have invested considerable time and effort in education about the importance of accessible housing for people with disabilities, in an attempt to secure compliance by entities involved in the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings. Each time the Design/Build Defendants designed and constructed covered dwellings that did not comply with the FHA, they frustrated the mission of Plaintiffs inasmuch as they served to discourage people with disabilities from living at that dwelling and encouraged other entities involved in the design, construction and rental of covered units to disregard their own responsibilities under the FHA. The Design/Build Defendants’ conduct reduced the effectiveness of Plaintiffs’ outreach
19

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 20 of 25 Pageid#: 193
efforts and caused Plaintiffs to provide additional educational programs to rebut the impression that constructing inaccessible residential housing is permissible.
39. The Design/Build Defendants’ continuing discriminatory practices have forced NFHA to divert significant and scarce resources to identify, investigate and counteract the Defendants’ discriminatory practices, and such practices have frustrated NFHA’s other efforts against discrimination, causing NFHA to suffer concrete and demonstrable injuries.
40. Plaintiffs have conducted site visits, investigations, surveys or tests at the Tested Properties, resulting in the diversion of their resources in terms of staff time, salaries and travel and incidental expenses that it would not have had to expend were it not for the Design/Build Defendants’ violations. In doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint, each employee or officer of each Design/Build Defendant was acting in the course and scope of his or her actual or apparent authority pursuant to such agencies, or the alleged acts or omissions of each employee or officer as agent was subsequently ratified and adopted by each Design/Build Defendant as principal.
41. Until remedied, the Design/Build Defendants’ unlawful, discriminatory actions will continue to injure Plaintiffs by inter alia:
a. interfering with efforts and programs intended to bring about equality of opportunity in housing;
b. requiring the commitment of scarce resources, including substantial staff time and funding, to investigate and counteract the Design/Build Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, thus diverting those resources from the
20

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 21 of 25 Pageid#: 194
Plaintiffs’ other activities and services, such as education, outreach, and counseling; and
c. Frustrating Plaintiffs’ missions and purposes of promoting the equal availability of housing to all persons without regard to any protected category, including disability. 42. The Design/Build Defendants’ discriminatory conduct will also deprive individuals to whom Plaintiffs provide services and others living in and near the Tested Properties of the benefit of living in a diverse community that includes people who have disabilities and use wheelchairs.
VII. LEGAL CLAIMS 43. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint. 44. Each of the properties specified in paragraph 12 above contains residential apartment units that are “dwelling[s]” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b). 45. At the properties specified in paragraph 12 above, all ground-floor units in non-elevator buildings and all units on floors served by elevators are “covered multifamily dwellings” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(7)(A), were built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, and are subject to the design and construction requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) of the FHA. The public- and common-use areas of the properties specified in paragraph 12 above are also subject to the design and construction requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C). 46. The Design/Build Defendants, together and separately, have failed to design and/or construct the Tested Properties so that:
21

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 22 of 25 Pageid#: 195
a. the public-use and common-use portions are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities; and
b. all the ground floor units contain the following features of adaptive design:
i. an accessible route into and through the dwelling; ii. light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations; and iii. usable kitchens and bathrooms such that a person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 47. Through the actions and inactions described above, the Design/Build Defendants, together and separately, have: a. discriminated in the rental of, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, dwellings to persons because of their disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1); b. discriminated against persons because of their disabilities in the terms, conditions or privileges of rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the rental of a dwelling, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2); and c. failed to design and construct dwellings in compliance with the requirements mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations, 24 C.F.R. Part 100.205 (2008).
VIII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
22

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 23 of 25 Pageid#: 196
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant judgment in their favor, and against Defendants, as follows: A. Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (2010), that the conduct of the Design/Build Defendants in designing and constructing the Tested Properties, as alleged herein, is in violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3)(C), and the applicable regulations; B. Enjoin, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1)(a), the Design/Build Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, both temporarily during the pendency of this action, and permanently from:
1. with regard to the Tested Properties, failing or refusing to bring the covered dwelling units and the public use and common use areas into compliance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations; to comply with such procedures for inspection and certification of the retrofits performed as may be ordered by this Court; and to perform or allow such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate any judgment of this Court against them;
2. failing or refusing to design and construct any covered multifamily dwellings in the future in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations; and
3. failing or refusing to take such steps as will eliminate, to the fullest extent practicable, the lingering effects of the Design/Build Defendants unlawful housing practices.
23

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 24 of 25 Pageid#: 197
C. Ordering Defendants HHHunt and J Davis Architects, PLLC to: 1. survey each and every apartment community containing “covered
units” and appurtenant common and public use areas at any covered property owned by HHHunt or a related entity for which it had a role in the design and construction since March 13, 1991 other than the Tested Properties (“Remaining Hunt Portfolio”) and assess the compliance of each with the accessibility requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C);
2. report to the Court the extent of the noncompliance of the Remaining Hunt Portfolio with the accessibility requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C); and
3. bring each and every such apartment community in the Remaining Hunt Portfolio into compliance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations. D. Enjoining the Remedial Defendants and the owner of any other covered apartment community in the Remaining Portfolio not presently known to Plaintiffs from failing or refusing to permit the survey of any of their covered properties that were designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and any retrofits ordered by the Court to be made at such property, to also comply with such procedures for inspection and certification of the retrofits performed as may be ordered by this Court and to perform or allow such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate any judgment against Defendant HHHunt.
24

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 35 Filed 04/05/12 Page 25 of 25 Pageid#: 198

E. Award such damages as would fully compensate NFHA and Paralyzed Veterans for their injuries incurred as a result of the Design/Build Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices and conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1)(a);
F. Award such punitive damages against the Design/Build Defendants as is proper under law, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1)(a);
G. Award NFHA and Paralyzed Veterans their costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2); and
F. Award NFHA and Paralyzed Veteran such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 4th day of April 2012.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Michael Allen

s

Michael Allen

Virginia Bar No. 25141 Stephen M. Dane* Thomas J. Keary*

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 728-1888 (202)728-0804 (facsimile) mallen@relmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed

25

 
 Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 276

UN ITED STATES DISTR ICT COURT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W R GINIA
ROAN OK E DIW SION

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCEyINC.,)

andPARALYZED VETERANSOFAM ERICA, )

INC.

)

)

PLAIN TIFFS,

CLERKSOFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED
22T 2 6 2212
JUL U LE'X LERK BY;
EPUFY CLERK

HHHUNT CORPORATION ;ABBERLY AT

W EST ASHLEY LIM ITED PARTN ERSHIP;

ASHTON PO INTE PROPERTY LIM ITED

PARTN ERSHIP;A USTON CHASE lLIM ITED

PARTNERSHIP;AUSTON CHASE 11LIM ITED ) PARTNERSHIP;ABBERLY PLACE -GARNER-)

PHASEILIMITED PARTNERSHIP;ASHTON ) VILLAGE LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;AUSTON )

WOODS-CHARLOTTE-PHASElAPARTM ENTS)

LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;AUSTON W OODS- )

CHARLOTTE-PHASE 11APARTM ENTS

)

LIM ITED PARTN ERSHIP;AU STON GROVE -

RALEIGH APARTM ENTS LIM ITED

PARTN ER SHIP;A BBEM Y FA RM S-

LEX INGTON PARK - PHA SE 1;A BBERLY

CREST-LEX INGTON PARK - PHA SE II;

ABBERLY CREST-LEXINGTON PA RK -

PHA SE 111;A BBERLY GREEN -

M OORESVILLE PHA SE ILIM ITED

PARTN ERSHIP;ABBERLY GREEN -

M OORESVILLE PHA SE 11LIM ITED

PARTN ERSHIP;TW IN HICKORY

APARTM ENTSLIM ITED PARTN ERSHIP;

HHHUNT PROPERTY M ANAGEM ENT,INC.;

J.DA VISA RCHITECTSPLLC

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

CivilActionN o.7:1lCV00131 STIPU LA TED IUD GM ENT

ThisStipulated Judgm entisentered intothis24thdayofOctober,2012 byandbetween Plaintiffs,NationalFairHousingAlliance,Inc.andTheParalyzedV eteransofAmerica,lnc.

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 26 Pageid#: 277
andDefendants,Hl-ll-luntCorporation,AustonChaselLim itedPartnership,Auston Chase11 Lim itedPartnership,A bberly atW estAshley Lim itedPartnership,AshtonPointeProperty Lim ited Partnership,Abberly Place- Garner- Phase1Lim itedPartnership,A shton Village Lim ited Partnership,A ustonGrove-Raleigh Apartm entsLim itedPartnership,Auston W oodsCharlotte-phaselApartm entsLim ited Partnership,AustonW oods-charlotte-phase11 Apartm entsLim ited Partnership,Abberly Green- M ooresville- Phase1,Abberly GreenM ooresville- PhaseI1,A bberlyFarm s-LexingtonPark- Phase1,AbberlyCrest- Lexington Park- Phase11,AbberlyCrest- LexingtonPark- Phase111,Tw in H ickory Apartm entsLim ited PartnershipandHlll-luntProperty M anagem ent,lnc.
1.PURPO SES O F TH E STIPULATED JIJDG M ENT W HEREA StheDefendantsarethedevelopers,owners,and/orm anagersofAuston Chaseat59Sum m erlakeCircle,Ridgeland,SouthCarolina29936;A bberly atW estA shley at 3l00A shley Tow nCenterD rive,Charleston,South Carolina29414;AshtonPointeat100 AshtonPointeBoulevard,Beaufort,South Carolina29906;Abberly Crestat46850Abberly CrestLane,Lexington Park,M aryland20653;AbberlyGreen- M ooresvilleat117Abberly GreenBoulevard,M ooresville,N orth Carolina281l7;A bberly Placeat500Abberly Crest Boulevard,Garner,N ot'th Carolina27529;A uston Groveat1160Auston GroveDrive,Raleigh, N orth Carolina276l0;Auston W oodsat5301RoundstoneW ay,Charlotte,N orth Carolina 28216,.andTheG ardensatTwinH ickoryat4700TheGardensDrive,Glen Allen,V irginia
23059(tûsubjectProperties''l;
W HEREA S,onM arch 17,201l,PlaintiffsfiIed aCom plaintagainstDefendantsin the United StatesDistrictCoul'tfortheW estern DistrictofVirginia,casenum ber7:l1-cv-0000131, allegingthat,asm orefully setforth inthePlaintiffs'Com plaint,Defendantsdesignedand

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 26 Pageid#: 278
constructedtheSubjectPropertieswithoutfulladherencetotherequiredelementsofaccessible andadaptabledesigninviolationoftheFairHousingAmendm entsAct(&tFHAA''),42U.S.C.jj 3604(9(1),(9(2)and(9(3)(C);
W HEREA S,ata1ltim esDefendantshavedeniedandcontinueto denytheallegationsin theCom plaint;
W HEREA S,W illiam Hecker,AIA ofHeckerD esignat3568H am pshireDrive,
BirminghamsAlabama35223(hereinafterttlnspector'')hasbeenretainedbythePartiesas
neutral,thirdparty inspector', W HEREA S,byprioragreem entoftheParties,thelnspectorhasvisited and surveyed
A ustonChase,AshtonPointeandAbberly atW estAshley and hasprovided aw ritten reportfor
eachsurveyedproperty(tslnspector'sReport'')containingtheInspector'sfindingsofitems
determ inednotto bein compliancew ithAN SIA 117.1-l986,HUD 'SFairH ousingA ccessibility
Guidelines(Volume56Fed.Registerpp.9497-9515includingtheSupplementalQ&A atVol. 59,Fed.RegisterNo 123,pp.33362-68)asmodifiedbyagreementoftheparties(hereinafter ttchecklisf'l.
W HEREA S,PLA INTIFFS arenationalorganizationsdedicatedtoending housing discrim inationandprom otingresidentialintegrationandwhoseinterestsarealignedw ith, include,and overlapw ith publicinterestinfairhousingasdetined,interpreted,andusedin
Spannv.ColonialVillage,Inc.,899F.2d24,31(D.C.Cir.l990).Assuch,atal1timesduring
thelaw suit,PLA INTIFFShavebeenacting asprivateattorneysgeneraltoenforcetheFHA A
andtovindicatethepublicinterest.Tvam cantev.Metro.L# Ins.Co.,409U.S.205(1972)., M osekev.M ilerandSmith,Inc,202F.supp.zd492,499(E.D.Va.2002);and

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 4 of 26 Pageid#: 279
W HEREA S,Plaintiffsand DefendantsdesiretoresolvePlaintiffs'Com plaint,as am ended,voluntarily and,to thatend,theyhaveagreedtothefollow ingterm sbyw hich Plaintiffs'Com plaint,asam ended,m aybefully and tinallyresolvedand havestipulatedto the entryofthisStipulatedJudgm ent.
Il.TERM S O F THE STIPULATED JUD GM EN T Basedupontheforegoingrecitals,whichareincorporatedhereinbythisreference,itis hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED asaFinalJudgm entthat: A . Definitions
GILAW SUIT''m eanstheactiontiledin theUnited StatesD istrictCourtforthe W estern DistrictofV irginia,styledNationalFairHousingAlliance,lnc,etal.v.HllH unt Corporation,etal.,CaseN o.7:11CV 0013.
GCDEFEND AN TS''shallincludeHl-ll-luntCorporation,Abberly AtW estAshley Lim ited Partnership,AshtonPointeProperty Lim ited Partnership,Auston Chase lLim ited Partnership,Auston Chase11Lim itedPartnership,A bberly Place- Garner- PhaselLim ited Partnership,Ashton VillageLim itedPartnership,AustonW oods- Charlotte-Phasel Apartm entsLim itedPartnership,A uston W oodsCharlotte- Phase11Apartm entsLim ited Partnership,Auston GroveRaleigh Apartm entsLim ited Partnership,A bberly Farm s- Lexington Park- Phase1,A bberly Crest- Lexington Park- Phasell,Abberly Crest-Lexington ParkPhase111,Abberly Green - M ooresvillePhaselLim itedPartnership,AbberlyGreenM ooresvillePhase11Lim ited Partnership,Tw in HickoryApartm entsLim itedPartnership, Hl-ll-luntPropertyM anagem ent,lnc.,and eachoftheirpredecessors,successorsandassigns, parentcorporations,subsidiary corporations,aftiliatedcom orations,andtheofficers,directors,

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 5 of 26 Pageid#: 280

shareholders,partners,em ployees,m anagers,mem bers,representatives,insurers,attorneysand

agents,pastandpresent,ofeachoftheaforesaidentities(tiRelatedPersons'').
tSPLA TN TIFFS''shallincludeN ationalFairHousingAlliance,lnc.andParalyzed

VeteransofAmerica,Inc.,forthem selvesandforeach oftheirpredecessors,successors,assigns, privies,parents,m anagers,directorindirectowners,subsidiaries,directors,officers,employees,

agents,representatives,and attorneys.

4. ttparties''shallm eanDEFEND ANTSandPLA INTIFFS,asthoseterm sare

defined herein.

AEFHAA''meanstheFairHousingAct,asamended,42U.S.C.j3601c/seq.,and
any ofitsim plem enting regulations.

ClGuidelines''m eanstheFairHousingA ccessibility Guidelines,56 Fed.Reg.9472

(l991).

tSADA''m eanstheAm ericanswithD isabilitiesAct,asam ended,42U .S.C.12101

c/seq.,and any ofitsim plementingregulations.

Etlnspector''m eansW illiam Hecker,AlA ofHeckerDesign at3568Ham pshire

Drive,Birm ingham ,A labam a35223.

9. ltsubjectProperties''meansthepropertiesallegedbyPLAINTIFFStobeoutof
com pliancew iththeFHAA intheirAm endedComplaintandw hich havebeensurveyed bythe Inspector.

tû-l-heChecklist''m eansthelistprovidedtothelnspectorwith theagreedupon

termsforinspectingtheSubjectProperties. EçpunchList''meanstheretrotitplanforeachSubjectPropertyagreedtobythe
Partiespursuanttotheterm softhisStipulated Judgment.

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 6 of 26 Pageid#: 281
B. Jurisdictionand ScopeoftheStipulatedJudgm ent
AteachoftheSubjectProperties,allground-tloorunitsinal1non-elevator
buildingsand allunitsin elevatorbuildingsareûûcoveredunits''within them eaningofthe
FHAA.EachcoveredunitattheSubjectProperties,andthepublicandcommon-useareasatthe SubjectProperties,aresubjecttothedesignandconstructionrequirementsoftheFHAA,42 U.S.C.j3604(9(3)(C),unlessotherwiseagreedbythePLAINTIFFSthatsuchunitsareexempt
from theFHA A becauseoftheterrainorunusualcharacteristicsofthesiteundertheSite lmpracticalityexemption contained intheG uidelines.
ThisCourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionoverthisactionpursuantto28U.S.C. jjl331and l332,42U.S.C.jj36l3(a)and 12l88.
TheprovisionsofthisStipulatedJudgm entshallbebindingupon PLAW TIFFS andDEFENDANTS and RelatedPersons.
TheprovisionsofthisStipulatedJudgm entareeffectiveim m ediatelyuponthe entry oftheStipulatedJudgm entby theCourt.
EntryofthisStipulatedJudgm entisinthepublicinterest. PLA IN TIFFS areactingasprivateattorneysgeneralin bringingthisaction and enforcingtheFHA A againsttheDEFEND AN TS.
lnmakingthetindingshereinandimplementingtheinjunctiveandotherrelief
herein,theCourthasconsidered,interalia,thefollow ing'. TheFH AA authorizestheCourttoû'grantasrelief,asthecourtdeem s
appropriate,anypermanentortemporaryinjunction,temporaryrestrainingorder, orotherorder(includinganorderenjoiningthedefendantfrom engaginginsuch

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 7 of 26 Pageid#: 282
practiceororderingsuchaffirmativeactionasmaybeappropriatel.''42U.S.C.j 3613(c)(l).
lndeterm iningappropriatereliettheCourtmustbeflexibleandtheCourt recognizesthatçdgejquitableremediesareaspecialblendofwhatisnecessary,
w hatisfair,andwhatisworkable.Traditionally,equityhasbeencharacterized
byapracticalflexibilityinshapingitsremediesandbyafacilityforadjustingand
reconcilingpublicandprivateneeds.''BaltimoreNeighborhoods,Inc.v.LOB
Inc,92F.supp.zd456,468(D.M d.2000).M oreover,ûçltlheprincipallim itation
on thecourt'sequitablepowersisthatthereliefshould benobroaderand no more burdensom ethannecessarytoprovidecom pleterelieftotheplaintiff''ld at468.
ln anFHAA designandconstruction casesuch asthislaw suit,equitable rem ediesm ay includeretrotittingofalleged noncom pliantkscoveredm ultifam ily
dwellings''inconjunctionwithamonetarypaymenttothePlaintiffswhichwillbe
usedto furtheraccessiblehousingthroughouttheUnitedStates.Such amonetary paym entretlectsthesom etim esinherentinabilityofadefendantto fullyretrofit an existing property toensurecompletetechnicalcom pliancewiththedesign and constructionrequirem entsoftheFH AA. d. Them easurcssetforthinthisStipulated Judgm entarepracticalandfairly addressboth publicand privateneedsforaccessiblehousing.ThisStipulated Judgm entandthem easurestaken hereinfullyandcom pletelysatisfytheFHAA
regardinganyallegednoncompliantfeatureattheSubjectProperties.
Thereliefcontained in thisStipulated Judgm entincluding,butnotlim ited
to,theagreeduponretrotitstotheSubjectPropertiesandthemonetarypayments

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 8 of 26 Pageid#: 283
madebyDEFENDANTS,makeitclearthatit(l)itcanbesaidwithassurancethat
dthereisnoreasonableexpectation...'thattheallegedviolation willrecur...
and(2)interim relieforeventshavecompletelyandirrevocablyeradicatedthe effectsoftheallegedviolation.''Jonesv.Poindexter,903F.2d1006,l009(4th Cir.1990)(quotingCountyofluosAngelesv.Davis,440U.S.625,631(1979$.
Consequently,theCourtfindsthatanyfurtherIegaloradm inistrativeactionof any kind,exceptfortheenforcem entofthisStipulated Judgm ent,institutedby any individualorentityarising from,basedupon,orconnectedw ith thealleged
failuretodesignand/orconstructtheSubjectPropertiesincompliancewiththe
FHAA w ould bem oot. CorrectiveA ction AttheSubiectProperties ThePartieshave'entered intoaPerform anceProtocol,theterm sofw hich are incorporated herein by referenceandenforceableaspartofthisStipulatedJudgment.
AlterationsatAuston Chase,AshtonPointeandAbberly atWestAshley: DEFEN DANTSw illperform thealterationsatAustonChase,A shton PointeandAbberly
atW estAshley(collectively,thettsurveyedProperties''),asoutlinedinthePunchListforeach
suchpropel'tythatisincorporated into thePerform anceProtocol.
Sun'eyandAlterationsattheRemainingSubjectProperties
Theprovisionsofthissection shallgovernthedevelopm entoflnspector's ReportsforA bberlyCrest,AbberlyGreen- M ooresville,A bberlyPlace,A uston Grove,
AustonW oods,andTheGardensatTwinHickory(collectively,thetdRemainingSubject Properties'')andthealterationstobeperformedatthoseproperties.
8

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 9 of 26 Pageid#: 284
b. On orbeforeDecem berl,2012,thelnspectorshaltprovideawritten
reporttocounselforeachPartyforalIoftheRemainingSubjectProperties.The
lnspector'sR eportshallcontainthelnspector'stindingsconcerningbuiltconditionshe hasdeterm inednottobeincom pliancewiththeterm scontained in theChecklist.
Thepartieswillthen scheduleanagreedupon dateandtim etoconducta SettlementM eeting atw hich thepartieswilldeveloparetrofitplan fortheRemaining
SubjectPropertiesanddevelopafinalPunchListfortheRemainingSubjectProperties.
TheSettlem entM eetingshallfollow thesameform atasthemeetingw hichwasheld betw eenthepartiesto developtheretrofitplanwhichresulted intheagreem entto perform thealterationsattheSurveyedProperties.
d. ThepartiesagreethattheretrofitplansfortheRemainingSubject
Propertiesshall,tothem axim um extentpossible,incorporatetheparties'agreem entw ith respectto alterationsofbuiltconditionsthatareto beappliedattheSurveyedProperties tobring them into com pliance.
e. lftheyareunableto agreewithrespecttothealteration ofabuiltcondition found by theInspectortobeoutofcom pliance,thePartiesagreeto subm itthe disagreem enttothelnspector.Thelnspectorshallrecom mendw hetherand/orhow to retrofit/alterthespecificarchitecturalelem entin dispute.Thelnspector's
recomm endationshallbecomefinalandpartofthetinalPunchListfortheSubject Propertyatwhichthearchitecturalelementislocatedunlesseitherpartyobjectstothe recommendationwithinten(10)daysofreceiptofthelnspector'srecommendation.
ThePartiesshallhaveuptothirtydays(30)followingreceiptofthe writtenobjectionsreferencedintheprecedingparagraph,toreachagreementresolving

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 10 of 26 Pageid#: 285
anyandallobjections.W herethePartiesareabletoreachagreement,suchresolution
shallbecom epartofthePunchList. g. lfthePartiesareunabletoreachagreem entthroughtheprocessdescribed
intheprecedingparagraph,eithermaysubmittheirobjectionsandsupportingarguments
to theM agistrateJudgeorto anotherperson designatedbytheCourtforafinal
determ ination.Aûerconsideringthemovant'sobjectionsandresponseoftheopposing
party,theM agistrateJudgeorotherparty designatedbytheCourtshallissuea
determinationastotheobjection,andthatdeterm inationshallbefinalandbindingon bothPartiesandshallbemadeapartofthefinalPunchListfortherelevantSubject
Property. ThePartiesagreethat,upon conclusionoftheprocessoutlined in this
Paragraph l1.C.2.,thefinalPunch ListforeachoftheRem aining Propertiesshallbe incorporated intothePerform anceProtocoland beenforceableaspartofthisStipulated Judgm ent.
CostofAlterations
DEFEN DAN TS agreetopaythecostsofany alterationsagreedto attheSurveyed
PropertiesandinthefinalPunchListsfortheremainingSubjectPropertiesandshallattempt,in
goodfaith,tom inim izeanyinconveniencetotheresidentsoftheapartmentsinperform ingthose alterations.
TimetableforPetformingAlterationsAttheSubjectProperties
AccessibleBuilding EntrancesonAccessibleRoutes,Accessibleand Usable
PublicandCommonUseAreasandplacesofpublicAccommodation:DEFENDANTSagree to
com m enceandtinish thealterationstotheaccessibleroutes,accessibleandusablepublicand
10

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 11 of 26 Pageid#: 286
com monuseareas,andplacesofpublicaccom m odation asagreed upon bythepartiesunderthe follow ing term s:
atAuston Chase,Ashton Pointe,AbberlyatW estA shley,andAbberly
Crestassoonaspracticalbutnolaterthantwelve(12)monthsfrom theendofthemonthin
whichthisStipulated Judgm entisenteredbytheCourt; b. atAuston Grove,Abberly Place,andAuston W oodsassoonaspractical
butnolaterthantwenty-four(24)monthsfrom theendofthemonthinwhichthisStipulated
Judgm entisenteredby theCourt;and atAbberly Green I& 11andtheGardensatTw inH ickory assoon as
practicalbutnoIaterthanthirtpsix(36)monthsfrom theendofthemonthinwhichthis
StipulatedJudgm entisentered bytheCourt.
ii.InteriorofcoveredllwellingsïExceptinunitswheretenantsrequestexpedited
alterationsasprovided in Paragraph 1l.C.5.,DEFENDANTSagreetocom menceandfinishthe alterationstotheinteriorofthecoveredunitsattheSurveyed Propertiesno laterthanthetirst tim etheunitbecom esvacantfollow ing entryofthisStipulated Judgm entand beforetheunitis
re-occupiedbyanew tenant,andforeach RemainingSubjectProperty,nolaterthanthefirst
tim etheunitbecom esvacantfollow ingthedateonwhichthepartiesreachagreem entonafinal
PunchListforthatRemainingSubjectProperty.Regardlessofwhetherornotavacancyarises
forthealterationstobeperfonned,however,theDEFENDAN TSagreeto perform alIsuch
alterationswithinthree(3)yearsfrom theendofthemonthinwhichthisStipulatedJudgmentis
entered.How ever,inthatcase,ifacurrenttenantofaunitisinform edoftheproposed
alterationsandheorsheobjectsinwritingtoDEFENDANTSperformingthealterations,such
unitshallbealteredw hen such tenantvacatestheunitandbeforetheunitisre-occupiedbya
11

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 12 of 26 Pageid#: 287
new tenant.ThesedeadlinesaresubjecttotheprovisionsofParagraph1l.C.7regardingthesale
ortransferofan ow nership interest.
NoticetoTenantsofAvailability ofAlterationsl
DEFEN DANTSw illsend thenoticeassetforthinA ppendix 1toeach tenantofa
covereddwellingunitattheSubjectPropertiesinformingthetenantoftheavailabilityof
alterationsunderthisStipulatedJudgment,andthatthealterationswillbem adew ithoutcostto thetenant.Any tenantm ay,on accountofhis/herown disabilityorthedisabilityofafam ily m em ber,requestalterationsprovided forunderthisStipulatedJudgm entbem adetohis/her coveredunit.A statem entfrom atenantthathe/sheorhis/herfam ilym em berhasadisability is sufficientto establishthatsuch person hasadisability forpurposesofthisparagraph.Upon such arequest,DEFEN DAN TS w illcom pletethealterationsrelatingtotheinteriorofthattenant's
coveredunitwithinthirty(30)daysafterDefendant'sreceiptoftherequest,unlesstheretrofit planfortheSubjectPropertyprovidesforashortertimeframe.1
6. InspectionofAlterationsPerformed
D EFEN DANTS agreeto inform theInspectorand PLAIN TIFFSin writingofthe
completionoftheagreeduponalterationsateachSubjectPropertywithinthirty(30)daysofthe
com pletion ofsuchalterations.Thelnspectorshallthen conductanon-siteinspectionateach
SubjectPropertywithinareasonabletimeperiodafterreceiptofsuchnotice.Theinspection
shallbeofasam pleto bedeterm ined by theInspectorofthecom pletedalterationsattheRetrofit Propertyto determ ineifthealterationshavebeenperform edaccording totheterm softhis
1It-DEFENDANTSreceivean inordinateamountot.requeststkom tenantsinresponsetonoticesascomparedtothe partiesexpectations,DEFENDAN TSmay requestadditionaltimefrom PLAINTIFFStocompletetheretrolitsand thePLAINTIFFSmustconsideranenlargedperiodtocompletethealterationsrequestedbythetenants.
12

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 13 of 26 Pageid#: 288
StipulatedJudgm ent.DEFENDANTS agreetopay aI1ofthelnspector'scostsassociated with the inspectionsand such paym entsshallbem adewithoutregardto theInspector'sfindings.
ThelnspectorshallnotetheresultsofeachinspectionofeachSubjectProperty
includingdeficiencies,ifany,inthew rittenreportcontained in Appendix 3and shallsendthat reporttocounselforeach Party.IfDEFEN DAN TS havefullym adethealterationsasagreed
uponherein,thelnspectorshallcertifyinthereportthattheSubjectPropertyisincompliance.If
theinspection indicatesthatany oftherequiredalterationshavenotbeen m adeasspecified herein,thelnspectorshallnotethedeticienciesin thereport.DEFEN DAN TSagreetocorrect
anydeficienciesnotedinthereportasdirectedbythelnspectorwithinthirty(30)days2and
providedocum entary andphotographicevidenceofthecorrection ofsuchalterationstothe Inspector.AfterDEFENDAN TS havemadethealterationstothedeticienciesnotedbythe
lnspector,thelnspectorshallcertifyinthereportthattheSubjectPropertyisincompliance. iii. OncetheInspectorcertitiesthataSubjectPropertyisincompliance,such
certification shallbedeem ed finalandbindingonPLAIN TIFFS and DEFEN DAN TS asto each
SubjectPropertyuponwhichacertiticationisissuedandshallfullydischargeDEFENDANTS from anyfurtherobligationunderthisStipulatedJudgmentastothatSubjectProperty.This
processshallcontinue untilthe lnspectorcertitiesthatallofthe agreed upon alterationshave beenm ade.
SaleorTransferofanOwncrl/ll/InterestlnaSubjectProperty Thesaleortransfer,inwholeorinpart,ofanownershipinterestinanyoftheSubject
PropertiesbyD EFEN DAN TS aftertheentryofthisStipulatedJudgm entshallnotaffect
DEFENDANTS'obligationtocompletethealterationsataSubjectPropertyagreedtounderthis
2lfthethirty(30)daytimeperiodisdeemedimpracticalbytheInspectorbecauseoftheextentofthedeticiency .
DEFENDANTS mayrequestadditionaltim efrom PLAINTIFFStoeompletetheretrotstsandthePLAINTIFFS
13

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 14 of 26 Pageid#: 289
StipulatedJudgment.Should DEFEN DANTSdecideto sellortransferanyownership interestin
aSubjectPropertypriortothecompletionofthealterationsprovidedforunderthisStipulated
Judgm ent,D EFEN DAN TSw illprovidewritten noticetoeachbuyerortransfereethat DEFENDAN TS arerequiredto com pletethealterationspursuanttothisStipulatedJudgment.
DEFENDANTSshalleithercompletethealterationspriortothesaleortransferoftheSubject Propertyorobtainwrittenconsentofthenew buyertsl/transfereets)tohavethesealterations performedwithinthetimeframeallottedhereinattheSubjectPropertyafterthenew ownertakes possessionoftheSubjectProperty.Notlaterthanfourteen(14)daysaftersuchsaleortransfer,
DEFEND ANTS agreetonotifyPLA INTIFFS in writing ofactionsthatDEFEN DANTShas taken inaccordwith thisprovision.
Rem edialObliaations GeneralProvisions.
SubjecttothetermsofthisStipulatedJudgment,theDEFENDANTSagreetodesignand constructanynew coveredmultifamilydwellingsincompliancewith42U.S.C.j3604, subdivisions(9(1)-43),asamended.
NoticetoandEducationofcurrentandFutureEmployees. Foraperiodofthirty-six(36)monthsfrom theexecutionofthisStipulated
Judgm enttheDEFENDAN TS agreeto ensurethatanyoftheirem ployeesandagentsw ho have supervisoryauthority overthedesign and/orconstructionofcovered multifam ilydw ellingshave
acopyotlarefam iliarwith,andpersonallyreview,theFairHousingAccessibilityGuidelines,56 Fed.Reg.9472(1991)andtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment, FHA DesignManual,.,4M anualtoAssistBuildersinM eetingtheAccessibilityRequirementsof theFHA (August1996,Rev.April1998).
1f mustconsiderthelnspector'sl'ecomm endationforanenlar edperiodtocorrectthedeficiencies. z

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 15 of 26 Pageid#: 290
ii. W ithinthirty(30)daysoftheexecutionofthisStipulatedJudgments
DEFENDAN TS agreetoprovideto a1loftheirexecutiveswith supervisoryresponsibility forthe designand/orconstruction ofcovered multifam ilydwellingsandon-sitem anagem entemployees w ith supervisoryresponsibilityforthedesign and/orconstruction ofcoveredm ultifam ily dwellingsacopy ofthisStipulated Judgm ent.DEFEND AN TS furtheragreeto secureasigned statem entfrom each such executiveorem ployeeacknow ledgingthatheorshehasreceivedand readthe Stipulated Judgm entand hashad an opportunitytohavequestionsabouttheStipulated
Judgmentanswered.W ithinforty(40)daysoftheentryofthisStipulatedJudgment,copiesof
thesignedstatem entsshallbeprovidedtoPLAINTIFFS.
iii. Foraperiodoftwenty-fourmonths(24)from theentl'yofthisStipulated Judgment,theDEFENDANTSagreeto,withinthirty(30)daysafterthedateanynew employee
oragentwith supervisory responsibility forthedesign and/orconstruction ofcovered m ultifam ilydwellingscom m encesw ork,givesuch new employeeoragentacopyofthis StipulatedJudgm ent',andsecureasigncd statem entfrom eachacknowledgingthatheorshehas receivedandreadthe StipulatedJudgm entand hashadan opportunitytohavequestionsabout theStipulated Judgm entansw ered.ByD ecember30ofeachyearduringtheterm ofthis StipulatedJudgm ent,D EFEN DAN TSagreetoprovidecopiesofthesestatem entsto PLA INTIFFS.
N oticetoPublic:
W ithinten(10)daysofthedateofexecutionofthisStipulatedJudgmentandfora periodofthirtpsix(36)monthsthereafter,DEFENDANTSagreetopostandprominently
display inthesalesorrentalofticesofallcovered multifam ily dw ellingsowned inwholeorin pal4orm anagedbythem asign no sm allerthan l0 by 14 inchesindicatingthatalIdw ellingsare
15

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 16 of 26 Pageid#: 291
availableforrental.on anondiscrim inatorybasis.A posterthatcom portsw ith24C .F.R.Partl10 w illsatisfythisrequirem ent.
Foraperiodofthirty-sixmonths(36)from theexecutionofthisStipulated
Judgm ent,DEFENDAN TS agree,in al1advertisinginnewspapers,w ebsites,orreprintsof pam phlets,brochuresandotherprom otionalliteratureregarding any coveredm ultifam ilyrental property owned inw holeorin partorm anagedbythem ,toplace,in aconspicuouslocation,the universalsym bolofaccessibility. D . Settlem entPaym ent
TheDEFENDAN TS agreeto,no laterthanDecem berl5,2012 makeaSettlem ent PaymenttoPLAINTIFFS asprovided inthePerform anceProtocolascom pensationto
PLAm TIFFS(includingattorney'sfees).NoportionoftheSettlementPaymentisintendedfor, orwillbeutilizedforDEFENDANTStomakeanySubjectPropertymoreaccessibleor
adaptableto anypersonw ithdisabilities. E. GeneralReleaseofA llClaim s:
lnexchangefor,andinconsiderationotlthepayments,alterations,benetits,andother
com m itm entsdescribed herein,PLA INTIFFS hereby fully release,acquit,and foreverdischarge DEFEN DANTS from any and aIlclaim s,liabilities,causesofaction,dam ages,costs,attorneys' fees,expenses,and com pensation whatsoever,ofwhatever kind or nature, in law,equity or otherwise,whether know n or unknown,vested orcontingent,suspected or unsuspected,that PLA m TIFFS m ay now have,haveeverhad,orhereaûerm ay have relatingtotheallegationsin theLawsuit,andhereby specifically waiveandreleaseal1suchclaim s,including,butnotlimited to,those arising underthe FHAA,ADA ,Section 504,and any and a1lstate or Iocalstatutes, ordinances,or regulations governing the accessibility ofresidential units and comm on areas
16

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 17 of 26 Pageid#: 292
including,w ithoutlim itation,anystatelaw claim pursuantto the lawsoftheStatesofM aryland, Virginia,NorthCarolina,and South Carolina,asw ellasaIlclaim sarisingunderfederal,state,or local1aw involvinganyclaim relatedtotheallegationsintheLaw suit.
PLAm TIFFS intend by thisreleasetoelim inatecom pletely and perm anently a1lclaim sof everynaturewhatsoeverthatPLAINTIFFS haveagainstDEFEN DAN TS foractsorom issionsprior tothedateofthisA greem entandthisreleaseshallbebroadlyconstruedtothatend.
ln consideration for each and every one of DEFEN DANTS' agreements and
covenants set forth herein, each of which is an essential and indispensable part hereotl PLAINTIFFSagreethattheywillneversue,fileaclaim,charge,oraction against(orcauseto have a claim,charge,oraction be filed against),orassertany rightorliability against
DEFENDAN TS concerning any claim , issue, or matter relating to or arising out of the LAW SUIT.N o provision ofthisAgreem entshallbeinterpreted to waive,release,orextinguish anyrightsthat- by expressand unequivocalterm soflaw - m ay notunderany circum stancesbe waivedsreleased,orextinguished.
PLA INTIFFS agreethattheentry ofthisStipulatedJudgm entshallextinguishalI claim s and shallbe a full,com plete,and finaldisposition and settlem entofallclaim sagainst DEFEN DANTS relatingto al1mattersand issuewhichwerealleged,orcould havebeen alleged, wereraised,orcould havebeenraised,in anyotherm annerinthisLA W SUIT,including,butnot lim ited to,claim srelatingto theFHAA ,ADA ,and Section 504,and any sim ilarfederal,state,or
locallaw. Accordingly,PLAINTIFFS stipulate and agree thatresjudicata and collateral
estoppelapply to each oftheclaims in thisLA W SUIT sothatPLA INTIFFS areforeverbarred from re-litigating such claim s,m atters,and issues which were alleged, or could have been alleged,orcould have been raised,in any otherm annerin this LAW SUIT including,butnot
17

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 18 of 26 Pageid#: 293
lim ited to,claim srelatingtotheFHA A,AD A,and Section504,andany sim ilarfederal,state,or locallaw .
M iscellaneousProvisions.
Binding Effect.
ThisStipulatedJudgm entshallbebindinguponandinureto thebenetitoftheparties hereto,theirrespectiveheirs,successorsand assigns.
Costsand Expenses. Exceptasspecitically provided forherein,eachofthePartiestothisStipulated Judgm ent shallbearitsown attorneysfeesandcostsarising outofand/orrelatingtotheCom plaint.
Deadlines. A I1deadlinesanddatesforperform anceby PLAINTIFFS and/orDEFEN DANTS under thisStipulatedJudgm entm aybeextendedorm oditiedbywritten agreem entbetween PLA IN TIFFS and DEFEN DANTS.
Severability. Eachprovision andterm ofthisStipulatedJudgm entshallbeinterpreted insuch am anner asto bevalidand enforceable.lntheeventany provision orterm ofthisStipulatedJudgm entis determ ined to be,orisrendered,the invalidorunenforceable,aI1otherprovisionsorterm sof thisStipulated Judgm entshallremain unaffectedtotheextentperm itted by Iaw .
Noticeto theParties. AIlnoticesrequiredorperm ittedhereundershallbeinw ritingandshallbeserved on the Partiesattheaddressesore-m ailaddressessetforth below.lfsentby overnightdelivery,notice
shallbedeemeddeliveredone(1)businessdayafterdepositwiththenationallyrecognized
overnightcourier.Personaldelivery shallbedeem eddelivered upon thedatethesam ewas
18

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 19 of 26 Pageid#: 294
actually delivered.E-m ailnoticesshallbedeem ed deliveredthedaythesam ew assent, providedthatthesenderhasretainedacopy andthesam ewasproperly sent.
N oticestothePLAINTIFFS shallbesentto:N ationalFairHousingA llianceAttention:ShannaSm ith,CEO andPresident,1101Verm ontAve.,NW ,Suite710,W ashington,
DC 20005withe-mailtossmith@nationalfairhousing.org.AnynoticetothePLAINTIFFSmust
allalsobesenttocounselforPLAIN TIFFS,M ichaelA llen,Esq.,Relm an,Dane& Colfax 1225 19thSt.NW ,Suite600,W ashingtonDC 20036withe-mailtomallenfjàôRelrylalllaqNr.conl.
Any noticetoDEFEND AN TS shallalsobesenttocounselforDEFEN DANTS, ScottParrish M oore,Esq.,BairdHolm LLP,1700Farnam St.,1500 W oodm enTow er,Om aha, Nebraska68102w ith emailtospllltltlrefx:N.3bail'dlltnlln-cflm .
6. EntireAgreement. ThisStipulated Judgm entconstitutestheentireagreem entbetweenthePartieswith
respecttothesubjectmatterhereofandsupersedesalIprioragreements,understandings,
expectationsanddiscussionsoforbetweentheparties,whetheroralorw ritten,andthereareno
19

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 20 of 26 Pageid#: 295

representationsorotheragreementsbetweenthePartiesrespectingthesubjectmatterhereof. ForceM ajeure.
lfDEFEN D AN TS aredelayed,interrupted,orprevented from perform ing anyoftheir obligationsunderthisStipulatedJudgm entand such delay,interruption,orpreventionisdueto tire,actofGod,orany causeoutsidethereasonablecontrolofDEFEN DAN TS,then PLAIN TIFFS agreetoconsider,in good faith,extendingthetimeforperform anceoftheaffected obligationofDEFEN DANTS.

111.ENTR Y OF JUD GM ENT .

soouosRsothis éî-.i'fopdayof

2012 .

>

U

TED STATES DISTRICT OURT JUDGE

20

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 21 of 26 Pageid#: 296

Stipulatd tobythePartiesasindicated bythesignaturesappearing below :

PlaintiffN atlonalFsirH ousingAlliancw Inc.

By; .

x-

!

.,. -1'4.2.-,$

Na e: kis''' à L <% 'tî'T-lk

Its:

)z - .

'
G.

October24,2012

PlalntlffTheParalyzed VeteransofA m erica,Tnc.

By: N ame: lts:

Octobcr -

, 2012

chaelAllen(Virgmia arNo.25141) StephenM .Dane@ ro/lJcvicej ThomasJ.Keary+ rohacWcd)
RELM AN,DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 lgthstreet,N .W .,Suite600 W ashington,D ,C.20036
(202) 728-1888 (202)728-0804(facsim ile) mallen@relmanlaw.com
Attom eysforPlaintiffs

octoberzkf,-2012

21

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 22 of 26 Pageid#: 297

Stipulated tobythePnrtiesasindicatedbythesignaturesappearingbelow :

Plaintx NationalFairH ouslngA llianee,Inc.

By: Name: Its:

October- , 2012

Plaintl/ TheParalyzed VeteransofAm eriea,Inc-

By:

Name:

.W tw mç

.

1Ls: Bxe..rA 'y& t'ec.* > .

Octoberc 2012

œ
M ichaelAllen(VirginiaBarNo.25141) Stephen M .Dane#rohacWce) n om asJ.Keary+ roe cvice)
RELM AN,D m & COLFAX PLLC 1225 lgthstreet,N .W .,Suite6* W ashington,D .C.2* 36
(202) 728-1888 (202)728-0804 (facsimile)
m allen@ relm nnlaw.com
Attom eysforPlaintiffs

Octoberv x jz ,

21

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 23 of 26 Pageid#: 298

HHHu11tCèl-f,orgtl-o11

.'-.,;s;f..'g''.1..t.t:è'..'*.ï,#%'jîr'>?

By-.

-Ik$%..j'.uh.k,. '.:y,,/syjj,r

Nanle.. v' .' Fv:.'

Its-

'' .'

oçyobol.2..j:,z;jz
.
. ..

AustonchaseI,.f.>>,(1I,m,tkw,-sl,lp

By:

l /i'.,'/ 't..!%.$'.t;';..kzk.' / . - ,.

N WN6.. Its .-

-
.

.''

r '< (

',$?

ï.i:$1 .

'-*.

. . ..

Octoberu.zx,...,ggjg

AugttllC haa.'.t.,...1.!q11d,'Llj''1ipm.j;..i.tcdPRrtllmvhip

By:

;.'x''..'?.-.: ;?.?4.F;.,.e''/'iy.-,

' J*

)hl1,111th..

: . s.zzv.

Its:

v'r

Octobere.;.s/7',2012

'
Abberl).atW

1èà.,,t.',*''yëg'h'j#..l,''.>',eyLlmited

Psrtnm-ship

B y * .- ,

.'i t''
N'.:

.z..;k,,.f//:

Ne1r0T:

h3'.,. l ?O

-

Its:

v -dI

AslltonPointeP.yro:'p''1(2ml.r.y ,im ited Plrtnen hlp

j .*

1, r'.:.a' .p'

9y:

Nl'u...'.';.;,'s.,)

Na1ng., 11':!

%;: '. t'yj.# i ' '

oaobevl'*'h,/'#'201, ,. u
oclobeD..u4,,/.2c12

'

AbberlyPlaee- Gar(n. ëz.)r.4...),''Y:Z.l'meeIlalmit.dPartnenhjp

ikl;h. ,I*

.

By.à

'.
.

9,''.,:'/'9te4kn

(S))!J..i.ë.
October ,2012

IIBI'.
Its;

. .-. .-. . - -

. .
i'f

22

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 24 of 26 Pageid#: 299

'

AshtenVilla!'-,g-e'*pN:L.jl6êmz,i'ei'p dPm'tlwrghip

rJy:

z' i.Ak ..

.:
'J

jlêbt'.ê...:'/)

N atMt: lts;

, tt-- 4 . '

.jj.hk

O

ctobqy.r'. ,

20 12

Atston

G

rove-R
' '
.
I

a
.

vigh Apurtm
. .-. 41

yez?fp'r;jrJ..e'

ents lwlllhijed

Partneeslllp

.

By:

N .;y,yy,

.

octobi'..-,2012

'l:(u!1e-.

t .

1t&:

$'12 '

Aluton W oetla-flhaelottt-l3llasqIAparjm mlt:Llmlted Psl#ttlerwhjp

By)

..,h%xj;',J..jh.,N.!$*

*'alï.z./ . . re.y..,r;!.y..v#

f
zwxutousepïz.-.!jy.gg1g

1N!aIDC,.

: . '.t'jï,j.

lte:

kl'

'

Auston W oodx-cllqrb tte-prhaae11Apal'tm tntsLln3ltcd Partnvrshlp

By:

# ) '.Nu..er,j,41*$,,it.:J.,jkqt%v)e;.j.:.,t4:v.1.#*>,.,.

v
Octobe4r.,*.,.a:.jj,,',2012

Namc:

--/&zA 1z.y1 --- - . - -

1111-

6'1*'*'*V ' '

AbbrrlyGreen-M ooresville-PllaseI

h$.,-w;,.%ILg.q..p**''tvg.:l
kl, z..

By:

u! yN ,.., ,

N ame:

' fz-/ ''

ltS :

e'i' '-

Oetober...,jjc,e2012

A

bberly

G

reel, -

M
' I

ôo.1l/'.e...g-î.v,zl;lle-

Fha:e,1

U, v .

I!b...qjjtf't:...q'y'''.:.:'y.,dpr:.jgJ.(j

Nallle..

., t'%,.J4:,1.'jt/f'.*'

1ts..

.'/'.-- -

sa..!7
-. :': gujoya y4ggjg

23

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 25 of 26 Pageid#: 300

AbbcrlyFarlM:-. exljxgttnPar1(-Phast1

k. 1

:
.

J:

i'. l' v

l3y: .----h,!q.,..-qypp -.-. -.

Namt*.

''.'//' IA't

oijotyetyjj;pjz

AbbeelyCrest-LtxtvjtmlPhl'k -Pllaat11

,l..x$'ii,'t

s.klL ,

By;

i..' J/''

'N ,n3t:

$ .%. .;f

1tB:

VCI'.'

octebecoçf.,ç/.20I2

'

Abbtlklyfa'lxst- L;J.,.

'ngtop Park- PhaseIIl
. .,,..;,!.

t :1 :'

%*uj. . ;%

3y.

.. <.$.'./,g.'.:

'!Jj1ldIkj!'dlïle.411 Its:

%.

''' .

i'''

k-.l')

ocjoberg'?.//,2û1,2
'

TwlnHigllol?Apa,:r'.9't:',m..'à.y.:kk.,.'yqn.?';./t*/LlmitedPa'l.tntr:ll$

171111/:

;,.,., , *
.

2 ..

. . ,..

. , a

' d'

octob:4:-. '/ac:a

----.- ... . .

.

jbsj ,

' rjlj.,4,).-;.;,.,

11t;!i:

t' ë'

'

HHHUII'Prqperty i'i- omlt,111e.

By..

E !
$*&

lp1..d*
Jl@

.j..y/1i:'z''.'f

#

z/ ;.

d.

. .

N anlt; 11::

k ' --

1.3

.Uf-

octoberzwk.a/.,'2012

24

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 48 Filed 10/26/12 Page 26 of 26 Pageid#: 301

SeoltP&l- oore@z-ehtlcWeel
AllisonD.BaltlejVirginiaBar48:25
RyanD.W ilkin1?.0hacWce)
l5ûûq'oocllnenTower 170Q Fel'pim St Om aha,N E 68102-2068 Pltûne;402-344-0500 Fax:402444-0528
Entail:spmoôreo4bairdllolm-com
A ttorn:y: fol'D tftndants

Oqtobm' .2012

25

 
 Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 30 Pageid#: 215

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC., )

and PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, )

INC.

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

v.

)

)

HHHUNT CORPORATION; ABBERLY AT

)

WEST ASHLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; )

ASHTON POINTE PROPERTY LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE I LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE II LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY PLACE - GARNER- )

PHASE I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ASHTON )

VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON )

WOODS-CHARLOTTE-PHASE I APARTMENTS)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON WOODS- )

CHARLOTTE-PHASE II APARTMENTS

)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON GROVE – )

RALEIGH APARTMENTS LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY FARMS-

)

LEXINGTON PARK – PHASE I; ABBERLY )

CREST-LEXINGTON PARK – PHASE II;

)

ABBERLY CREST-LEXINGTON PARK –

)

PHASE III; ABBERLY GREEN –

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE I LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY GREEN –

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE II LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; TWIN HICKORY

)

APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

)

HHHUNT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.; )

J. DAVIS ARCHITECTS PLLC

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 7:11CV00131 STIPULATED JUDGMENT

This Stipulated Judgment is entered into this 24th day of October, 2012 by and between Plaintiffs, National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. and The Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 30 Pageid#: 216
and Defendants, HHHunt Corporation, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Abberly Place – Garner – Phase I Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Grove-Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston WoodsCharlotte-Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, Abberly Green – Mooresville – Phase I, Abberly Green – Mooresville – Phase II, Abberly Farms – Lexington Park – Phase I, Abberly Crest – Lexington Park – Phase II, Abberly Crest – Lexington Park – Phase III, Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership and HHHunt Property Management, Inc.
I. PURPOSES OF THE STIPULATED JUDGMENT WHEREAS the Defendants are the developers, owners, and/or managers of Auston Chase at 59 Summerlake Circle, Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936; Abberly at West Ashley at 3100 Ashley Town Center Drive, Charleston, South Carolina 29414; Ashton Pointe at 100 Ashton Pointe Boulevard, Beaufort, South Carolina 29906; Abberly Crest at 46850 Abberly Crest Lane, Lexington Park, Maryland 20653; Abberly Green—Mooresville at 117 Abberly Green Boulevard, Mooresville, North Carolina 28117; Abberly Place at 500 Abberly Crest Boulevard, Garner, North Carolina 27529; Auston Grove at 1160 Auston Grove Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27610; Auston Woods at 5301 Roundstone Way, Charlotte, North Carolina 28216; and The Gardens at Twin Hickory at 4700 The Gardens Drive, Glen Allen, Virginia 23059 (“Subject Properties”); WHEREAS, on March 17, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, case number 7:11-cv-0000131, alleging that, as more fully set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants designed and
2

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 3 of 30 Pageid#: 217
constructed the Subject Properties without full adherence to the required elements of accessible and adaptable design in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”), 42 U.S.C.§§ 3604(f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3)(C);
WHEREAS, at all times Defendants have denied and continue to deny the allegations in the Complaint;
WHEREAS, William Hecker, AIA of Hecker Design at 3568 Hampshire Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35223 (hereinafter “Inspector”) has been retained by the Parties as neutral, third party inspector;
WHEREAS, by prior agreement of the Parties, the Inspector has visited and surveyed Auston Chase, Ashton Pointe and Abberly at West Ashley and has provided a written report for each surveyed property (“Inspector’s Report”) containing the Inspector’s findings of items determined not to be in compliance with ANSI A117.1- 1986, HUD’s Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (Volume 56 Fed. Register pp. 9497-9515 including the Supplemental Q&A at Vol. 59, Fed. Register No 123, pp. 33362-68) as modified by agreement of the parties (hereinafter “Checklist”);
WHEREAS, PLAINTIFFS are national organizations dedicated to ending housing discrimination and promoting residential integration and whose interests are aligned with, include, and overlap with public interest in fair housing as defined, interpreted, and used in Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24, 31 (D.C. Cir. 1990). As such, at all times during the lawsuit, PLAINTIFFS have been acting as private attorneys general to enforce the FHAA and to vindicate the public interest. Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Moseke v. Miler and Smith, Inc., 202 F.Supp.2d 492, 499 (E.D. Va. 2002); and
3

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 4 of 30 Pageid#: 218
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants desire to resolve Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as amended, voluntarily and, to that end, they have agreed to the following terms by which Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as amended, may be fully and finally resolved and have stipulated to the entry of this Stipulated Judgment.
II. TERMS OF THE STIPULATED JUDGMENT Based upon the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, it is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED as a Final Judgment that: A. Definitions 1. “LAWSUIT” means the action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, styled National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., et al. v. HHHunt Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:11CV0013. 2. “DEFENDANTS” shall include HHHunt Corporation, Abberly At West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place – Garner – Phase I Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Woods – Charlotte – Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods Charlotte – Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Grove Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms – Lexington Park – Phase I, Abberly Crest – Lexington Park – Phase II, Abberly Crest-Lexington Park – Phase III, Abberly Green – Mooresville Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green – Mooresville Phase II Limited Partnership, Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., and each of their predecessors, successors and assigns, parent corporations, subsidiary corporations, affiliated corporations, and the officers, directors,
4

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 5 of 30 Pageid#: 219
shareholders, partners, employees, managers, members, representatives, insurers, attorneys and agents, past and present, of each of the aforesaid entities (“Related Persons”).
3. “PLAINTIFFS” shall include National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. and Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc., for themselves and for each of their predecessors, successors, assigns, privies, parents, managers, direct or indirect owners, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys.
4. “Parties” shall mean DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFFS, as those terms are defined herein.
5. “FHAA” means the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and any of its implementing regulations.
6. “Guidelines” means the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 56 Fed. Reg. 9472 (1991).
7. “ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and any of its implementing regulations.
8. “Inspector” means William Hecker, AIA of Hecker Design at 3568 Hampshire Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35223.
9. “Subject Properties” means the properties alleged by PLAINTIFFS to be out of compliance with the FHAA in their Amended Complaint and which have been surveyed by the Inspector.
10. “The Checklist” means the list provided to the Inspector with the agreed upon terms for inspecting the Subject Properties.
11. “Punch List” means the retrofit plan for each Subject Property agreed to by the Parties pursuant to the terms of this Stipulated Judgment.
5

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 6 of 30 Pageid#: 220
B. Jurisdiction and Scope of the Stipulated Judgment 1. At each of the Subject Properties, all ground-floor units in all non-elevator
buildings and all units in elevator buildings are “covered units” within the meaning of the FHAA. Each covered unit at the Subject Properties, and the public and common-use areas at the Subject Properties, are subject to the design and construction requirements of the FHAA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), unless otherwise agreed by the PLAINTIFFS that such units are exempt from the FHAA because of the terrain or unusual characteristics of the site under the Site Impracticality exemption contained in the Guidelines.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a) and 12188.
3. The provisions of this Stipulated Judgment shall be binding upon PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS and Related Persons.
4. The provisions of this Stipulated Judgment are effective immediately upon the entry of the Stipulated Judgment by the Court.
5. Entry of this Stipulated Judgment is in the public interest. 6. PLAINTIFFS are acting as private attorneys general in bringing this action and enforcing the FHAA against the DEFENDANTS. 7. In making the findings herein and implementing the injunctive and other relief herein, the Court has considered, inter alia, the following:
a. The FHAA authorizes the Court to “grant as relief, as the court deems appropriate, any permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order (including an order enjoining the defendant from engaging in such
6

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 7 of 30 Pageid#: 221
practice or ordering such affirmative action as may be appropriate).” 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). b. In determining appropriate relief, the Court must be flexible and the Court recognizes that “[e]quitable remedies are a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable. Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. LOB Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 456, 468 (D. Md. 2000). Moreover, “[t]he principal limitation on the court’s equitable powers is that the relief should be no broader and no more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiff.” Id. at 468. c. In an FHAA design and construction case such as this lawsuit, equitable remedies may include retrofitting of alleged noncompliant “covered multifamily dwellings” in conjunction with a monetary payment to the Plaintiffs which will be used to further accessible housing throughout the United States. Such a monetary payment reflects the sometimes inherent inability of a defendant to fully retrofit an existing property to ensure complete technical compliance with the design and construction requirements of the FHAA. d. The measures set forth in this Stipulated Judgment are practical and fairly address both public and private needs for accessible housing. This Stipulated Judgment and the measures taken herein fully and completely satisfy the FHAA regarding any alleged noncompliant feature at the Subject Properties. e. The relief contained in this Stipulated Judgment including, but not limited to, the agreed upon retrofits to the Subject Properties and the monetary payments
7

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 8 of 30 Pageid#: 222
made by DEFENDANTS, make it clear that “(1) it can be said with assurance that ‘there is no reasonable expectation . . .’ that the alleged violation will recur . . . and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Jones v. Poindexter, 903 F.2d 1006, 1009 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). Consequently, the Court finds that any further legal or administrative action of any kind, except for the enforcement of this Stipulated Judgment, instituted by any individual or entity arising from, based upon, or connected with the alleged failure to design and/or construct the Subject Properties in compliance with the FHAA would be moot. C. Corrective Action At the Subject Properties The Parties have entered into a Performance Protocol, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference and enforceable as part of this Stipulated Judgment. 1. Alterations at Auston Chase, Ashton Pointe and Abberly at West Ashley: DEFENDANTS will perform the alterations at Auston Chase, Ashton Pointe and Abberly at West Ashley (collectively, the “Surveyed Properties”), as outlined in the Punch List for each such property that is incorporated into the Performance Protocol. 2. Survey and Alterations at the Remaining Subject Properties a. The provisions of this section shall govern the development of Inspector’s Reports for Abberly Crest, Abberly Green—Mooresville, Abberly Place, Auston Grove, Auston Woods, and The Gardens at Twin Hickory (collectively, the “Remaining Subject Properties”) and the alterations to be performed at those properties.
8

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 9 of 30 Pageid#: 223
b. On or before December 1, 2012, the Inspector shall provide a written report to counsel for each Party for all of the Remaining Subject Properties. The Inspector’s Report shall contain the Inspector’s findings concerning built conditions he has determined not to be in compliance with the terms contained in the Checklist.
c. The parties will then schedule an agreed upon date and time to conduct a Settlement Meeting at which the parties will develop a retrofit plan for the Remaining Subject Properties and develop a final Punch List for the Remaining Subject Properties. The Settlement Meeting shall follow the same format as the meeting which was held between the parties to develop the retrofit plan which resulted in the agreement to perform the alterations at the Surveyed Properties.
d. The parties agree that the retrofit plans for the Remaining Subject Properties shall, to the maximum extent possible, incorporate the parties’ agreement with respect to alterations of built conditions that are to be applied at the Surveyed Properties to bring them into compliance.
e. If they are unable to agree with respect to the alteration of a built condition found by the Inspector to be out of compliance, the Parties agree to submit the disagreement to the Inspector. The Inspector shall recommend whether and/or how to retrofit/alter the specific architectural element in dispute. The Inspector’s recommendation shall become final and part of the final Punch List for the Subject Property at which the architectural element is located unless either party objects to the recommendation within ten (10) days of receipt of the Inspector’s recommendation.
f. The Parties shall have up to thirty days (30) following receipt of the written objections referenced in the preceding paragraph, to reach agreement resolving
9

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 10 of 30 Pageid#: 224
any and all objections. Where the Parties are able to reach agreement, such resolution shall become part of the Punch List.
g. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement through the process described in the preceding paragraph, either may submit their objections and supporting arguments to the Magistrate Judge or to another person designated by the Court for a final determination. After considering the movant’s objections and response of the opposing party, the Magistrate Judge or other party designated by the Court shall issue a determination as to the objection, and that determination shall be final and binding on both Parties and shall be made a part of the final Punch List for the relevant Subject Property.
h. The Parties agree that, upon conclusion of the process outlined in this Paragraph II.C.2., the final Punch List for each of the Remaining Properties shall be incorporated into the Performance Protocol and be enforceable as part of this Stipulated Judgment. 3. Cost of Alterations DEFENDANTS agree to pay the costs of any alterations agreed to at the Surveyed Properties and in the final Punch Lists for the remaining Subject Properties and shall attempt, in good faith, to minimize any inconvenience to the residents of the apartments in performing those alterations. 4. Timetable for Performing Alterations At the Subject Properties i. Accessible Building Entrances on Accessible Routes, Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas and Places of Public Accommodation: DEFENDANTS agree to commence and finish the alterations to the accessible routes, accessible and usable public and
10

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 11 of 30 Pageid#: 225
common use areas, and places of public accommodation as agreed upon by the parties under the following terms:
a. at Auston Chase, Ashton Pointe, Abberly at West Ashley, and Abberly Crest as soon as practical but no later than twelve (12) months from the end of the month in which this Stipulated Judgment is entered by the Court;
b. at Auston Grove, Abberly Place, and Auston Woods as soon as practical but no later than twenty-four (24) months from the end of the month in which this Stipulated Judgment is entered by the Court; and
c. at Abberly Green I & II and the Gardens at Twin Hickory as soon as practical but no later than thirty-six (36) months from the end of the month in which this Stipulated Judgment is entered by the Court.
ii. Interior of Covered Dwellings: Except in units where tenants request expedited alterations as provided in Paragraph II.C.5., DEFENDANTS agree to commence and finish the alterations to the interior of the covered units at the Surveyed Properties no later than the first time the unit becomes vacant following entry of this Stipulated Judgment and before the unit is re-occupied by a new tenant, and for each Remaining Subject Property, no later than the first time the unit becomes vacant following the date on which the parties reach agreement on a final Punch List for that Remaining Subject Property. Regardless of whether or not a vacancy arises for the alterations to be performed, however, the DEFENDANTS agree to perform all such alterations within three (3) years from the end of the month in which this Stipulated Judgment is entered. However, in that case, if a current tenant of a unit is informed of the proposed alterations and he or she objects in writing to DEFENDANTS performing the alterations, such unit shall be altered when such tenant vacates the unit and before the unit is re-occupied by a
11

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 12 of 30 Pageid#: 226
new tenant. These deadlines are subject to the provisions of Paragraph II.C.7 regarding the sale or transfer of an ownership interest. 5. Notice to Tenants of Availability of Alterations:
DEFENDANTS will send the notice as set forth in Appendix 1 to each tenant of a covered dwelling unit at the Subject Properties informing the tenant of the availability of alterations under this Stipulated Judgment, and that the alterations will be made without cost to the tenant. Any tenant may, on account of his/her own disability or the disability of a family member, request alterations provided for under this Stipulated Judgment be made to his/her covered unit. A statement from a tenant that he/she or his/her family member has a disability is sufficient to establish that such person has a disability for purposes of this paragraph. Upon such a request, DEFENDANTS will complete the alterations relating to the interior of that tenant’s covered unit within thirty (30) days after Defendant’s receipt of the request, unless the retrofit plan for the Subject Property provides for a shorter time frame.1
6. Inspection of Alterations Performed i. DEFENDANTS agree to inform the Inspector and PLAINTIFFS in writing of the completion of the agreed upon alterations at each Subject Property within thirty (30) days of the completion of such alterations. The Inspector shall then conduct an on-site inspection at each Subject Property within a reasonable time period after receipt of such notice. The inspection shall be of a sample to be determined by the Inspector of the completed alterations at the Retrofit Property to determine if the alterations have been performed according to the terms of this
1 If DEFENDANTS receive an inordinate amount of requests from tenants in response to notices as compared to the parties expectations, DEFENDANTS may request additional time from PLAINTIFFS to complete the retrofits and the PLAINTIFFS must consider an enlarged period to complete the alterations requested by the tenants.
12

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 13 of 30 Pageid#: 227
Stipulated Judgment. DEFENDANTS agree to pay all of the Inspector’s costs associated with the inspections and such payments shall be made without regard to the Inspector’s findings.
ii. The Inspector shall note the results of each inspection of each Subject Property including deficiencies, if any, in the written report contained in Appendix 3 and shall send that report to counsel for each Party. If DEFENDANTS have fully made the alterations as agreed upon herein, the Inspector shall certify in the report that the Subject Property is in compliance. If the inspection indicates that any of the required alterations have not been made as specified herein, the Inspector shall note the deficiencies in the report. DEFENDANTS agree to correct any deficiencies noted in the report as directed by the Inspector within thirty (30) days2 and provide documentary and photographic evidence of the correction of such alterations to the Inspector. After DEFENDANTS have made the alterations to the deficiencies noted by the Inspector, the Inspector shall certify in the report that the Subject Property is in compliance.
iii. Once the Inspector certifies that a Subject Property is in compliance, such certification shall be deemed final and binding on PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS as to each Subject Property upon which a certification is issued and shall fully discharge DEFENDANTS from any further obligation under this Stipulated Judgment as to that Subject Property. This process shall continue until the Inspector certifies that all of the agreed upon alterations have been made.
7. Sale or Transfer of an Ownership Interest In a Subject Property The sale or transfer, in whole or in part, of an ownership interest in any of the Subject Properties by DEFENDANTS after the entry of this Stipulated Judgment shall not affect DEFENDANTS’ obligation to complete the alterations at a Subject Property agreed to under this
2 If the thirty (30) day time period is deemed impractical by the Inspector because of the extent of the deficiency. DEFENDANTS may request additional time from PLAINTIFFS to complete the retrofits and the PLAINTIFFS
13

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 14 of 30 Pageid#: 228
Stipulated Judgment. Should DEFENDANTS decide to sell or transfer any ownership interest in a Subject Property prior to the completion of the alterations provided for under this Stipulated Judgment, DEFENDANTS will provide written notice to each buyer or transferee that DEFENDANTS are required to complete the alterations pursuant to this Stipulated Judgment. DEFENDANTS shall either complete the alterations prior to the sale or transfer of the Subject Property or obtain written consent of the new buyer(s)/transferee(s) to have these alterations performed within the time frame allotted herein at the Subject Property after the new owner takes possession of the Subject Property. Not later than fourteen (14) days after such sale or transfer, DEFENDANTS agree to notify PLAINTIFFS in writing of actions that DEFENDANTS has taken in accord with this provision. C. Remedial Obligations
1. General Provisions. Subject to the terms of this Stipulated Judgment, the DEFENDANTS agree to design and construct any new covered multifamily dwellings in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604, subdivisions (f)(1)-(3), as amended. 2. Notice to and Education of Current and Future Employees. i. For a period of thirty-six (36) months from the execution of this Stipulated Judgment the DEFENDANTS agree to ensure that any of their employees and agents who have supervisory authority over the design and/or construction of covered multifamily dwellings have a copy of, are familiar with, and personally review, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 56 Fed. Reg. 9472 (1991) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Design Manual, A Manual to Assist Builders in Meeting the Accessibility Requirements of the FHA (August 1996, Rev. April 1998).
must consider the Inspector’s recommendation for an enlarged period to correct the deficiencies.
14

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 15 of 30 Pageid#: 229
ii. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Stipulated Judgment, DEFENDANTS agree to provide to all of their executives with supervisory responsibility for the design and/or construction of covered multifamily dwellings and on-site management employees with supervisory responsibility for the design and/or construction of covered multifamily dwellings a copy of this Stipulated Judgment. DEFENDANTS further agree to secure a signed statement from each such executive or employee acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Stipulated Judgment and has had an opportunity to have questions about the Stipulated Judgment answered. Within forty (40) days of the entry of this Stipulated Judgment, copies of the signed statements shall be provided to PLAINTIFFS.
iii. For a period of twenty-four months (24) from the entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the DEFENDANTS agree to, within thirty (30) days after the date any new employee or agent with supervisory responsibility for the design and/or construction of covered multifamily dwellings commences work, give such new employee or agent a copy of this Stipulated Judgment; and secure a signed statement from each acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Stipulated Judgment and has had an opportunity to have questions about the Stipulated Judgment answered. By December 30 of each year during the term of this Stipulated Judgment, DEFENDANTS agree to provide copies of these statements to PLAINTIFFS.
3. Notice to Public: i. Within ten (10) days of the date of execution of this Stipulated Judgment and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, DEFENDANTS agree to post and prominently display in the sales or rental offices of all covered multifamily dwellings owned in whole or in part or managed by them a sign no smaller than 10 by 14 inches indicating that all dwellings are
15

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 16 of 30 Pageid#: 230
available for rental on a nondiscriminatory basis. A poster that comports with 24 C.F.R. Part 110 will satisfy this requirement.
ii. For a period of thirty-six months (36) from the execution of this Stipulated Judgment, DEFENDANTS agree, in all advertising in newspapers, websites, or reprints of pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature regarding any covered multifamily rental property owned in whole or in part or managed by them, to place, in a conspicuous location, the universal symbol of accessibility. D. Settlement Payment
The DEFENDANTS agree to, no later than December 15, 2012 make a Settlement Payment to PLAINTIFFS as provided in the Performance Protocol as compensation to PLAINTIFFS (including attorney’s fees). No portion of the Settlement Payment is intended for, or will be utilized for DEFENDANTS to make any Subject Property more accessible or adaptable to any person with disabilities. E. General Release of All Claims:
1. In exchange for, and in consideration of, the payments, alterations, benefits, and other commitments described herein, PLAINTIFFS hereby fully release, acquit, and forever discharge DEFENDANTS from any and all claims, liabilities, causes of action, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, e xpenses, a nd c ompensation w hatsoever, o f w hatever ki nd or na ture, i n l aw, e quity or otherwise, w hether kno wn or unknow n, ve sted or c ontingent, s uspected or uns uspected, t hat PLAINTIFFS may now have, have ever had, or hereafter may have relating to the allegations in the Lawsuit, and hereby specifically waive and release all such claims, including, but not limited to, t hose a rising und er t he F HAA, A DA, S ection 504, a nd a ny and all state or lo cal s tatutes, ordinances, o r r egulations g overning t he a ccessibility o f r esidential uni ts a nd c ommon a reas
16

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 17 of 30 Pageid#: 231
including, without limitation, any state law claim pursuant to the laws of the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as well as all claims arising under federal, state, or local law involving any claim related to the allegations in the Lawsuit.
PLAINTIFFS intend by this release to eliminate completely and permanently all claims of every nature whatsoever that PLAINTIFFS have against DEFENDANTS for acts or omissions prior to the date of this Agreement and this release shall be broadly construed to that end.
2. In c onsideration f or e ach a nd e very one of D EFENDANTS’ agreements an d covenants set f orth he rein, each of w hich is a n e ssential a nd i ndispensable pa rt hereof, PLAINTIFFS agree that they will never sue, file a claim, charge, or action against (or cause to have a cl aim, charge, or act ion be f iled a gainst), or as sert an y right or l iability against DEFENDANTS c oncerning any claim, issue, or ma tter r elating to or a rising out of th e LAWSUIT. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted to waive, release, or extinguish any rights that – by express and unequivocal terms of law – may not under any circumstances be waived, released, or extinguished.
3. PLAINTIFFS agree that the entry of this Stipulated Judgment shall extinguish all claims a nd shall be a full, complete, and f inal d isposition and settlement of all c laims against DEFENDANTS relating to all matters and issue which were alleged, or could have been alleged, were raised, or could have been raised, in any other manner in this LAWSUIT, including, but not limited to, claims relating to the FHAA, ADA, and Section 504, and any similar federal, state, or local l aw. A ccordingly, P LAINTIFFS s tipulate and agree t hat r es j udicata and collateral estoppel apply to each of the claims in this LAWSUIT so that PLAINTIFFS are forever barred from re -litigating s uch claims, matters, and issues w hich were a lleged, or c ould ha ve be en alleged, or c ould ha ve b een r aised, i n a ny ot her m anner i n t his L AWSUIT i ncluding, but not
17

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 18 of 30 Pageid#: 232
limited to, claims relating to the FHAA, ADA, and Section 504, and any similar federal, state, or local law. F. Miscellaneous Provisions.
1. Binding Effect. This Stipulated Judgment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 2. Costs and Expenses. Except as specifically provided for herein, each of the Parties to this Stipulated Judgment shall bear its own attorneys fees and costs arising out of and/or relating to the Complaint. 3. Deadlines. All deadlines and dates for performance by PLAINTIFFS and/or DEFENDANTS under this Stipulated Judgment may be extended or modified by written agreement between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS. 4. Severability. Each provision and term of this Stipulated Judgment shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable. In the event any provision or term of this Stipulated Judgment is determined to be, or is rendered, the invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions or terms of this Stipulated Judgment shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law. 5. Notice to the Parties. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be served on the Parties at the addresses or e-mail addresses set forth below. If sent by overnight delivery, notice shall be deemed delivered one (1) business day after deposit with the nationally recognized overnight courier. Personal delivery shall be deemed delivered upon the date the same was
18

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 19 of 30 Pageid#: 233
actually delivered. E-mail notices shall be deemed delivered the day the same was sent, provided that the sender has retained a copy and the same was properly sent.
i. Notices to the PLAINTIFFS shall be sent to: National Fair Housing Alliance – Attention: Shanna Smith, CEO and President, 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 710, Washington, DC 20005 with e-mail to ssmith@nationalfairhousing.org. Any notice to the PLAINTIFFS must all also be sent to counsel for PLAINTIFFS, Michael Allen, Esq., Relman, Dane & Colfax 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036 with e-mail to mallen@Relmanlaw.com.
ii. Any notice to DEFENDANTS shall also be sent to counsel for DEFENDANTS, Scott Parrish Moore, Esq., Baird Holm LLP, 1700 Farnam St., 1500 Woodmen Tower, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 with email to spmoore@bairdholm.com.
6. Entire Agreement. This Stipulated Judgment constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, expectations and discussions of or between the parties, whether oral or written, and there are no
19

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 20 of 30 Pageid#: 234
representations or other agreements between the Parties respecting the subject matter hereof. 7. Force Majeure. If DEFENDANTS are delayed, interrupted, or prevented from performing any of their
obligations under this Stipulated Judgment and such delay, interruption, or prevention is due to fire, act of God, or any cause outside the reasonable control of DEFENDANTS, then PLAINTIFFS agree to consider, in good faith, extending the time for performance of the affected obligation of DEFENDANTS.
III. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED this ________day of ________, 2012.
_______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
20

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 21 of 30 Pageid#: 235
24

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 22 of 30 Pageid#: 236

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 23 of 30 Pageid#: 237

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 24 of 30 Pageid#: 238

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 25 of 30 Pageid#: 239

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 26 of 30 Pageid#: 240

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 27 of 30 Pageid#: 241
APPENDIX 1 NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS
__________[Date] [Name of Tenant] [Address of Tenant]
Re: Fair Housing Amendments Act Retrofits at _______________ [Name of Apartment Complex]
Dear Madam or Sir: [Name of Apartment Complex] will provide retrofits to your apartment home increase
accessibility at no cost to you. We can provide some of these retrofits on the same day you request it. You need not have a disability to request any of the retrofits in this notice.
Here is a list of elements that we will modify at no cost to you: 1. . . . If you would like us to alter any or all of these elements in your unit, please circle the element(s) you would like altered, sign below, and return this letter to _______________ or you may call _______________ at _______________ to discuss this matter. After we receive this request, someone will contact you to discuss the details of completing the alterations. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
I request that _______________ alter the elements in my unit that I have circled.
____________________________________ Print Name _____________________________________ Unit Number _____________________________________ Signature
26

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 28 of 30 Pageid#: 242

APPENDIX 2 EXECUTIVE/EMPLOYEE/AGENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I _______________, an of ____________________, hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Stipulated Judgment in National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. HHHunt Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:11CV0013 (W.D. Va.), and that I have read and understand the Stipulated Judgment.

Date:

Signature

27

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 29 of 30 Pageid#: 243

APPENDIX 3

CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY AS COMPLIANT WITH STIPULATED JUDGMENT

William Hecker has reviewed _______________ (the “Subject Property”) for compliance with the requirements of the Stipulated Judgment.

I conducted a review to obtain a reasonable basis for my opinion. This included reviewing, on a test basis, architectural elements provided to me by the parties in National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. HHHunt Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:11CV0013 (W.D. Va.). I did not review every architectural element throughout the Subject Property. The requirements for accessible design and construction in multifamily housing are subject to changing and evolving interpretations and court decision as to which design experts and code officials may disagree. Further, compliance with the FHAA may be accomplished by various and differing design solutions. In addition, HUD has recognized several “safe harbors” for FHAA compliance, and these safe harbors differ as to particular accessible design requirements.

_______

Based upon my review of the Subject Property, I conclude that the elements provided to me by the parties in National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. HHHunt Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:11CV0013 (W.D. Va.), have been retrofitted to full compliance with the FHAA and/or ADA, as applicable.

_______

Based upon my review of the Subject Property, I conclude that the elements provided to me by the parties in National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. HHHunt Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:11CV0013 (W.D. Va.), have been retrofitted to full compliance with the FHAA and/or ADA, as applicable, with the exception of the following:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

28

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 44 Filed 10/25/12 Page 30 of 30 Pageid#: 244
DOCS/1139430.1
29

 
 Part Description 1 26 pages 2 Civil Cover Sheet

Multiple Documents

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LIMSNB82?documentName=1.xml

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1

Filed 03/17/11

Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 1
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. OIST. COU~ AT ROANOKE, VA FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

MAR 17 2011
ouw BYJ;ULIADCE. PllfoiClfLtE-RCK

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC. )

and PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, )

INC.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

HHHUNTCORPORATION;ABBERLY AT

)

WEST ASHLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; )

ASHTON POINTE PROPERTY LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE I LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON CHASE II LIMITED )

PARTNERSHW;ABBERLYPLACE-GARNER-)

PHASE I LIMITED PARTNERSHW; ASHTON )

VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON )

WOODS-CHARLOTTE-PHASE I APARTMENTS)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON WOODS- )

CHARLOTTE-PHASE II APARTMENTS

)

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUSTON GROVE- )

RALEIGH APARTMENTS LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHW; ABBERLY FARMS-

)

LEXINGTON PARK- PHASE I LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY CREST-

)

LEXINGTON PARK- PHASE II LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY CREST-

)

LEXINGTON PARK- PHASE III LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY GREEN-

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE I LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; ABBERLY GREEN-

)

MOORESVILLE PHASE II LIMITED

)

PARTNERSHIP; TWIN HICKORY

)

APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and )

HHHUNT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. )

)

Defendants.

)

1-'1/- Civil Action No.

Clf-.00/3/

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

1

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 26 Pageid#: 2
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS l. Plaintiffs National Fair Housing Alliance ("NFHA") and Paralyzed Veterans of America ("Paralyzed Veterans") hereby bring this civil rights action against the builder, designer, manager and current owners of multifamily apartment complexes designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt Corporation ("HHHunt") for monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief arising from violations of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619. The FHA requires that certain apartment complexes built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 be designed and constructed with accessible and adaptable features for people with disabilities. 2. Since at least 2002, the Design/Build Defendants, who are later defined herein, have engaged in a continuous pattern or practice ofdiscrimination against people with disabilities in violation of the FHA by designing and/or constructing multifamily dwellings, and the common use and public use areas associated with those dwellings (hereafter referred to as "covered units" or "covered apartment complexes"), at seven apartment complexes tested by Plaintiffs, as to deny people with disabilities full access to, and the use of, these facilities as required under the FHA. The seven apartment complexes are: Auston Chase in Ridgeland, South Carolina; Abberly at West Ashley in Charleston, South Carolina; Ashton Pointe in Beaufort, South Carolina; Abberly Place in Garner, North Carolina; Auston Grove in Raleigh, North Carolina; Abberly GreenMooresville in Mooresville, North Carolina; and Auston Woods in Charlotte, North
2

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 26 Pageid#: 3
Carolina (hereinafter the 'Tested Properties"). Some of these Tested Properties have apartment buildings with covered units that were first occupied within two years of the filing of this Complaint. The Design/Build Defendants' violations of the FHA at these apartment complexes are serial and frequent, and they continue 20 years after the effective date ofthe FHA accessibility requirements.
3. The Design/Build Defendants' violations of the FHA accessibility requirements have serious and significant consequences for people with disabilities. As outlined below, many complexes have steps, curbs without curb cuts, excessive running and cross slopes, and primary entry doors with high thresholds impeding the only route of travel for people with mobility impairments to travel to covered units. There is insufficient centered clear floor space for people in wheelchairs at bathroom toilets, lavatories and tubs, and at kitchen sinks. There are inaccessible routes to public- and common-use areas that can be blocked by parked cars, designated accessible parking which lacks the required access aisle for people with mobility impairments to leave or enter their parked vehicles, common-use restrooms which lack the required clear floor space for people with mobility impairments, sinks with insufficient clear floor space for wheelchairs and exposed hot water and drain pipes at roll-under sinks, environmental controls beyond the reach range of wheelchair users, computer tables with work surfaces that are excessively high for people in wheelchairs, exercise facilities with narrow access aisles that block access to machines for wheelchair users- all in violation ofthe FHA's accessibility requirements. These blatant violations, and many others, effectively communicate that people with disabilities are not welcome at the Tested Properties.
3

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 26 Pageid#: 4
4. According to the 2004 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 51 million Americans (nearly one in five) have some form of disability, and one in eight has a severe disability. Of that number, more than 2.7 million people over the age of 15 years use a wheelchair, and that number is expected to increase as the population ages and medical care allows people with disabilities to live longer and fuller lives. Another 7 million use a cane, crutches, a walker or other mobility aid. Accessible housing is an essential means of ensuring that people with disabilities are able to fully participate in community life.
5. A person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular dwelling by steps, excessively high thresholds at building or unit entrances or by excessive running slopes on the route to covered units as by a posted sign saying "No Handicapped People Allowed." In considering the 1988 disability amendments to the FHA, Congress stressed that enforcement of the civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with disabilities from the "devastating" impact of housing discrimination, including the "architectural barriers" erected by developers and builders who fail to construct dwellings and public accommodations accessible to, and adaptable by, people with disabilities. H.R. REP. NO. 100-711, at 25 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173,2186.
6. The Design/Build Defendants' flagrant, systematic and continuing violations of the FHA have thwarted Congressional efforts to eradicate housing discrimination against people with disabilities, rendered units unavailable to people with disabilities, frustrated the mission of Plaintiffs and caused Plaintiffs to divert their scarce resources in an attempt to redress these violations. Enforcement of the FHA against these Defendants
4

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 5 of 26 Pageid#: 5
is necessary because ofthe extensive and continuing nature of the civil rights violations at numerous apartment complexes throughout the middle Atlantic states that have been designed and/or constructed by them.
7. To the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have also identified two additional covered apartment complexes designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and currently owned by Remedial Defendants, who are later identified herein. The two apartment complexes are: Abberly Crest in Lexington Park, Maryland and The Gardens at Twin Hickory in Glen Allen, Virginia. On information and belief, these additional properties share common design features with the tested apartment complexes, and Plaintiffs have reason to believe that similar FHA accessibility violations may exist at these properties as well. Further, Plaintiffs bring this action against Remedial Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. in its capacity as the manager of covered properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt. Plaintiffs request as a remedy, inter alia, that the Remedial Defendants be enjoined from refusing to permit any survey and, where necessary, any retrofits of covered properties that may be ordered by this Court to bring properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt into full compliance with the FHA.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a) and 12188. 9. Venue is proper in the District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendants are legal entities that reside in this district, events giving rise to these claims occurred in this district and these claims concern or otherwise relate to real property located in this district.
5

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 6 of 26 Pageid#: 6
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
I 0. PlaintiffNFHA is a national, nonprofit, public service organization incorporated under the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place of business at 1101 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 710, Washington, D.C. 20005. NFHA is a nationwide alliance of private, nonprofit, fair housing organizations, including organizations in 28 states. NFHA's mission includes advocating for the rights of people with disabilities to accessible housing. NFHA is the only national organization dedicated solely to ending housing discrimination and promoting residential integration. NFHA works to eliminate housing discrimination and to ensure equal opportunity for all people through leadership, education and outreach, membership services, public policy initiatives, advocacy, investigation of fair housing violations and enforcement. One of NFHA's goals is the promotion of accessible housing; to that end, since 1992, NFHA has conducted nationwide educational campaigns to address accessibility in rental housing.
II. Plaintiff Paralyzed Veterans is a private, nonprofit corporation, chartered by an act of the United States Congress, with its principal place of business at 801 18th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-3517. Paralyzed Veterans' membership is comprised of citizens of the United States who have served honorably in the United States Armed Forces and who have spinal cord injuries or diseases. Paralyzed Veterans' national office and its 34 chapters represent thousands of veterans in all 50 states. It is dedicated to veterans service, medical research and advancing the civil rights of people with disabilities including advocating for truly universal accessibility in housing.
6

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 7 of 26 Pageid#: 7
B. Design/Build Defendants 12. Defendant HHHunt is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Either directly or through affiliated companies, HHHunt has been and continues to be in the business of developing, building and managing multifamily residential properties that are covered by the FHA, including but not limited to:
a. Auston Chase at 59 Surnmerlake Circle, Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936; b. Abberly at West Ashley at 3100 Ashley Town Center Drive, Charleston,
South Carolina 29414; c. Ashton Pointe at I00 Ashton Pointe Boulevard, Beaufort, South Carolina
29906; d. Abberly Crest at 46850 Abberly Crest Lane, Lexington Park, Maryland
20653; e. Abberly Green-Mooresville at 117 Abberly Green Boulevard, Mooresville,
North Carolina 28117; f. Abberly Place at 500 Abberly Crest Boulevard, Garner, North Carolina
27529; g. Auston Grove at 1160 Auston Grove Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27610; h. Auston Woods at 5301 Roundstone Way, Charlotte, North Carolina 28216;
and 1. The Gardens at Twin Hickory at 4700 The Gardens Drive, Glen Allen,
Virginia 23059. In one or more of these capacities, Defendant HHHunt is responsible for the design and/or construction of these properties.
13. Defendants Auston Chase I Limited Partnership ("Defendant Auston Chase f') and Auston Chase II Limited Partnership ("Defendant Auston Chase II") are Virginia
7

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 8 of 26 Pageid#: 8
limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Auston Chase I was the owner of phase I of Auston Chase during the time of its design and/or construction, and Defendant Auston Chase II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Auston Chase. Defendants Auston Chase I and Auston Chase II are also the current owners of phases I and II, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs with respect to their phase. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
14. Defendant Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership ("Defendant Abberly at West Ashley") is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Abberly at West Ashley during the time of its design and/or construction and, in this capacity, is responsible for the design and/or construction of Abberly at West Ashley. Defendant Abberly at West Ashley is also the current owner of Abberly at West Ashley and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiff. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
15. Defendant Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership ("Defendant Ashton Pointe") is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Ashton Pointe during the time of its design and/or construction; and, in this capacity, is responsible for the design and/or construction of Ashton Pointe. Defendant Ashton Pointe is also the
8

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 9 of 26 Pageid#: 9
current ov.ner of Ashton Pointe and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
16. Defendants Abberly Place- Gamer- Phase I Limited Partnership ("Defendant Abberly Place I") and Ashton Village Limited Partnership ("Defendant Ashton Village") are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Place I was the owner of phase I of Abberly Place during the time of its design and/or construction and Defendant Ashton Village was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Abberly Place. Defendants Abberly Place I and Ashton Village are also the current owners of phases I and II of Abberly Place, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
17. Defendant Auston Grove-Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership ("Defendant Auston Grove") is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It was the owner of Auston Grove during the time of its design and/or construction and, in this capacity, is responsible for the design and/or construction of Auston Grove. Defendant Auston Grove is also the current owner of Auston Grove and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership.
18. Defendants Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership ("Defendant Auston Woods I") and Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase II Apartments
9

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 10 of 26 Pageid#: 10
Limited Partnership ("Defendant Auston Woods II") are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Auston Woods I was the owner ofphase I of Auston Woods during the time of its design and/or construction, and Defendant Auston Woods II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction ofits respective phase of Auston Woods. Defendants Auston Woods I and Auston Woods II are also the current owners of phases I and II of Auston Woods, respectively, and, in this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership.
19. Defendants Abberly Green- Mooresville- Phase I ("Defendant Abberly Green I") and Abberly Green- Mooresville -Phase II ("Defendant Abberly Green II") are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Green I was the owner of phase I of Abberly Green during its design and/or construction, and Defendant Abberly Green II was the owner of phase II during its design and/or construction. In this capacity, each is responsible for the design and/or construction of its respective phase of Abberly Green Mooresville. Defendants Abberly Green I and Abberly Green I are also the current owners of phase I and II of Abberly Green Mooresville, respectively, and, in this capacity each is necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each limited partnership. C. Remedial Defendants:
10

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 11 of 26 Pageid#: 11
20. Defendants Abberly Farms- Lexington Park- Phase I ("Defendant Abberly Farms"), Abberly Crest- Lexington Park- Phase II ("Defendant Abberly Crest II") and Abberly Crest- Lexington Park- Phase III ("Defendant Abberly Crest III") are Virginia limited partnerships with their principal places of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant Abberly Farms is the owner of phase I of Abberly Crest, Defendant Abberly Crest II is the owner of phase II, and Defendant Abberly Crest III is the owner of phase III. In this capacity, each is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of each ofthe three limited partnerships.
21. Defendant Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership ("Defendant T\\'in Hickory") is a Virginia limited partnership with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. It is the current owner of The Gardens At Twin Hickory, and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Defendant HHHunt is the general partner of this limited partnership
22. Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at 800 Hethwood Boulevard, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. is in the business of managing covered multifamily residential properties designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and, in this capacity, is a necessary party for the relief sought by Plaintiffs.
IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 23. Congress enacted the FHA design and construction accessibility requirements as part of a comprehensive revision of the FHA to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The debates and legislative history of the FHA reflect Congressional findings
11

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 12 of 26 Pageid#: 12
that a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular dwelling by steps or thresholds at building or unit entrances and by too narrow doorways as by a posted sign saying "No Handicapped People Allowed." In considering the 1988 disability amendments to the FHA, the Congress stressed that enforcement of civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with disabilities from the "devastating" impact of housing discrimination, including the "architectural barriers" erected by developers who fail to construct dwellings and public accommodations accessible to, and adaptable by, people with disabilities. H.R. REP. NO. 100-711, at 25 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2186.
24. In response to Congressional findings, the FHA mandated that every multifamily apartment building containing four (4) or more units, and built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 ("covered multi-family dwellings"), be subject to certain design and construction requirements. All ground floor units must comply with the following requirements, as must all units served by an elevator:
a. Public-use and common-use areas that are readily accessible to, and usable by, people with disabilities;
b. Doors into and within covered units that are sufficiently ~ide to allow passage by people in wheelchairs;
c. An accessible route into and through the dwelling; d. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations; e. Reinforcements in bathroom walls that allow for the later installation of grab bars; and
12

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 13 of 26 Pageid#: 13
f. Usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 25. Pursuant to Congressional authority, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") promulgated final FHA design and construction regulations in January 1989, see 24 C.F.R. § 100.205 (2008), and published the final Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines on March 6, 1991 (hereinafter "FHAAG") v.i:tich incorporates the requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped
people, A 117-1-1986 (hereinafter "ANSI"), see 56 Fed.Reg. 9472 (Mar. 6, 1991 ), and the
Fair Housing Act Design Manual in August 1996, which was revised in August 1998.
~FACTUALANDLEGALBACKGROUND
26. PlaintiffNFHA became aware in January 2010 that new multifamily housing complexes designed and/or constructed by the Design/Build Defendants did not include the required elements of accessible and adaptable design. NFHA subsequently visited the Tested Properties and identified multiple FHA design and construction violations.
27. PlaintiffParalyzed Veterans became aware in September 2010 that Design/Build Defendants did not include the required elements of accessible and adaptable design. Members of Paralyzed Veterans subsequently visited Abberly Place, AustonWoods and Auston Grove and identified multiple FHA design and construction violations.
28. The Design/Build Defendants' violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) at the Tested Properties include, but are not limited to, those outlined in paragraphs 29 through 34 below. These allegations represent just some of the evidence of a continuing pattern
13

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 14 of 26 Pageid#: 14
and practice of the Design/Build Defendants' failures to design and construct covered units and the public and common use areas in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and are not intended as an exhaustive inventory of such violations.
29. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct covered, multifamily dwellings with an accessible entrance on an accessible route, in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(I) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(a) (2008). For example:
a. Abberly Place, Ashton Pointe and Auston Woods have steps which cause excessively high and abrupt level changes for people with mobility impairments on the accessible route to covered units in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline (1 )(a);
b. Ashton Pointe and Auston Chase have sidewalks with excessively steep running slopes for people with mobility impairments, greater than 5% ,and without ramp features in violation ofFHAAG Requirement l, Guideline (l)(a);
c. Auston Woods has an accessible route with an excessively high and abrupt level change for people with mobility impairments caused by the curb without a curb cut at the terminus of the cross walk in violation of FHAAG Requirement l, Guideline l(a); and
d. Auston Grove, Abberly Place and Auston Chase have curb ramps that are built in the sidewalks perpendicular to the line of travel on the sidewalk and without a 48 inches x 48 inches level landing at the top of the curb ramp such that people with mobility impairments must travel across the curb ramp with an excessive cross slope in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 1, Guideline l(a), ANSI 4.3.7 and 4.8.4
14

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 15 of 26 Pageid#: 15
30. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct public and common-use areas that are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(t)(3)(C)(i) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.205(c)(l) (2008). For example:
a. Abberly at West Ashley, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have curb ramps on accessible routes that are partially or fully blocked for passage by people in wheelchairs when a vehicle is legally parked in the adjacent parking space, in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.3.3, 4.78 and 4.79;
b. Auston Grove has parking designated as "handicap accessible" future resident parking without an access aisle thereby preventing a wheelchair user from safely transferring to or from a parked vehicle to a wheelchair or using a van lift in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4. 6.2.
c. Auston Grove has the outgoing mail slot located beyond the reach range of a wheelchair user in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.2.5 and4.2.6;
d. Auston Grove, Abberly Place, Abberly at West Ashley, Auston Woods and Ashton Pointe fail to provide a sufficiently wide route to the exercise equipment for wheelchair passage and at Auston Woods a sufficiently wide route to the emergency telephone, both in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4. 3.3;
e. Auston Grove has a common-use kitchen without sufficient, centered, clear floor space at the sink for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.19.3;
15

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 16 of 26 Pageid#: 16
f. Ashton Pointe has doors to the fitness center that require excessive force to open in violation of Requirement 2, ANSI 4.13.11;
g. Auston Chase has common-use computer at tables with work surfaces that are excessively high for use by people in wheelchairs in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.30.4.
h. Abberly Place has a common-use men's room with excessive space between the centerline of the toilet and the adjacent wall for use of the toilet and grab bar by people with a mobility impairment in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.22.3 and 4.16.2, fig 28;
i. Abberly Place and Auston Woods have common-use rest rooms with sinks with exposed hot water and drain pipes under the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.19.4;
j. A firm, stable and slip resistant traveling surface for people in wheelchairs is not provided to the playground at Abberly Place and Auston Woods and to the dog run at Auston Grove in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 2, ANSI 4.5.1; and
k. Auston Woods has drop down stairs in the breezeways without cane detection beneath the stairs that pose a protruding object into the accessible route of people with low visual impairments in violation of Requirement 2, ANSI 4.4.2. 31. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct accessible routes into and through all premises within covered dwellings in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (3)(C)(iii)(I) and 24 C.P.R.§ I00.205(c)(3)(i) (2008). For example:
16

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 17 of 26 Pageid#: 17
a. Auston Woods, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have primary entry doors to covered units with excessively high and/or abrupt level changes at thresholds in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 4 Guideline (6); and
b. Abberly Place and Abberly Green have doors to the patio or balcony with excessively high and abrupt level changes at the interior side of the threshold in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 4 Guideline (4). 32. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct environmental controls in accessible locations in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(II) and 24 C.F.R § 100.205(c)(3)(ii) (2008). For example, at Ashton Pointe, the operable parts of environmental controls in the fitness center are beyond the reach range of people in wheelchairs in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 5. 33. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct usable kitchens such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) and 24 C.F.R § 100.205(c)(3)(iv) (2008). For example, Auston Woods and Abberly Place have insufficient centered clear floor space at the kitchen sink for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7 Guideline l(a). 34. The Design/Build Defendants have failed to design and/or construct usable bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space in compliance with 42 U.S. C.§ 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) and 24 C.F.R § 100.205(c)(3)(iv) (2008). For example:
a. Auston Woods has toilets located in alcoves with insufficient clear floor space at the toilets for people using a wheelchair or walker to maneuver,
17

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 18 of 26 Pageid#: 18
approach the toilet seat and transfer to the toilet, in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(a)(ii), fig.7(a);
b. Auston Woods and Auston Grove have insufficient, clear space between the centerline ofthe toilet to the adjacent wall for the later installation of a grab bar in violation ofFHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(b)(iv), fig. 7(a);
c. Auston Woods and Abberly Place have insufficient, centered, clear floor space at bathroom sinks for a wheelchair user to use the sink in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(a)(ii), fig. 7(c); and
d. Auston Woods, Auston Grove and Abberly Place have insufficient, clear space for an access aisle parallel to the tubs for a wheelchair user in violation of FHAAG Requirement 7, Guideline (2)(b)(vi) fig. 8. 35. Further, by failing to provide the accessible and adaptable features required by 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) at the Tested Properties for people with physical disabilities, including but not limited to those outlined in paragraphs 29 through 34 above, the Design/Build Defendants have made dwellings unavailable to people with physical disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(l) and/or have discriminated against them in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental ofdwellings in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).
VI. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS 36. As a result of the Design/Build Defendants' actions described above, Plaintiffs have been directly and substantially injured. Plantiffs have been frustrated in their missions to eradicate discrimination in housing and in carrying out the programs and services they provide, including encouraging integrated living patterns, educating the
18

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 19 of 26 Pageid#: 19
public about fair housing rights and requirements, educating and working with industry groups on fair housing compliance, providing assistance to individuals and families looking for housing or affected by discriminatory housing practices and eliminating discriminatory housing practices. Plaintiffs have also been damaged by having to divert scarce resources that could have been used to provide these services to instead identify and counteract the Design/Build Defendants' discriminatory conduct.
37. In addition, Plaintiffs have invested considerable time and effort in education about the importance of accessible housing for people with disabilities, in an attempt to secure compliance by entities involved in the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings. Each time the Design/Build Defendants designed and constructed covered dwellings that did not comply \\lith the FHA, they frustrated the mission of Plaintiffs inasmuch as they served to discourage people with disabilities from living at that dwelling and encouraged other entities involved in the design, construction and rental of covered units to disregard their own responsibilities under the FHA. The Design/Build Defendants' conduct reduced the effectiveness of Plaintiffs' outreach efforts and caused Plaintiffs to provide additional educational programs to rebut the impression that constructing inaccessible residential housing is permissible.
38. The Design/Build Defendants' continuing discriminatory practices have forced NFHA to divert significant and scarce resources to identify, investigate and counteract the Defendants' discriminatory practices, and such practices have frustrated NFHA's other efforts against discrimination, causing NFHA to suffer concrete and demonstrable injuries.
19

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 20 of 26 Pageid#: 20
39. Plaintiffs have conducted site visits, investigations, surveys or tests at the Tested Properties, resulting in the diversion oftheir resources in terms of staff time, salaries and travel and incidental expenses that it would not have had to expend were it not for the Design/Build Defendants' violations. In doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint, each employee or officer ofeach Design/Build Defendant was acting in the course and scope of his or her actual or apparent authority pursuant to such agencies, or the alleged acts or omissions ofeach employee or officer as agent was subsequently ratified and adopted by each Design/Build Defendant as principal.
40. Until remedied, the Design/Build Defendants' unlawful, discriminatory actions will continue to injure Plaintiffs by inter alia:
a. interfering with efforts and programs intended to bring about equality of opportunity in housing;
b. requiring the commitment of scarce resources, including substantial stafftime and funding, to investigate and counteract the Design/Build Defendants' discriminatory conduct, thus diverting those resources from the Plaintiffs' other activities and services, such as education, outreach, and counseling; and
c. Frustrating Plaintiffs' missions and purposes of promoting the equal availability of housing to all persons without regard to any protected category, including disability. 41. The Design/Build Defendants' discriminatory conduct will also deprive individuals to whom Plaintiffs provide services and others living in and near the Tested
20

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 21 of 26 Pageid#: 21
Properties of the benefit ofliving in a diverse community that includes people who have disabilities and use wheelchairs.
VII. LEGAL CLAIMS 42. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs I through 41 of this Complaint. 43. Each of the properties specified in paragraph 12 above contains residential apartment units that are "dwelling[s]" within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 3602(b). 44. At the properties specified in paragraph 12 above, all ground-floor units in non-elevator buildings and all units on floors served by elevators are "covered multifamily dwellings" within the meauing of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(t)(7)(A), were built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, and are subject to the design and construction requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 3604(t)(3)(C) of the FHA. The public- and common-use areas of the properties specified in paragraph 12 above are also subject to the design and construction requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(t)(3)(C). 45. The Design/Build Defendants, together and separately, have failed to design and construct the Tested Properties so that:
a. the public-use and common-use portions are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities; and
b. all the ground floor units contain the following features of adaptive design:
i. an accessible route into and through the dwelling; ii. light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations; and
21

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 22 of 26 Pageid#: 22
iii. usable kitchens and bathrooms such that a person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 46. Through the actions and inactions described above, the Design/Build Defendants, together and separately, have: a. discriminated in the rental of, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, dwellings to persons because of their disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1); b. discriminated against persons because of their disabilities in the terms, conditions or privileges of rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the rental of a dwelling, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2); and c. failed to design and construct dwellings in compliance with the requirements mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations, 24 C.F.R. Part 100.205 (2008).
VIII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant judgment in their favor, and against Defendants, as follows: A. Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (2010), that the conduct of the Design/Build Defendants in designing and constructing the Tested Properties, as alleged herein, is in violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(l), (f)(2) and (f)(3)(C), and the applicable regulations;
22

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 23 of 26 Pageid#: 23
B. Enjoin, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(l)(a), the Design/Build Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, both temporarily during the pendency of this action, and permanently from:
I. with regard to the Tested Properties, failing or refusing to bring the covered dwelling units and the public use and common use areas into compliance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations; to comply with such procedures for inspection and certification of the retrofits performed as may be ordered by this Court; and to perform or allow such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate any judgment of this Court against them;
2. failing or refusing to design and construct any covered multifamily dwellings in the future in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations; and
3. failing or refusing to take such steps as will eliminate, to the fullest extent practicable, the lingering effects of the Design/Build Defendants unlawful housing practices. C. Ordering Defendant HHHunt to:
I. survey each and every apartment community containing "covered units" and appurtenant common and public use areas at any covered property for which it had a role in the design and construction since March 13, 1991 other than the Tested Properties ("Remaining Portfolio") and assess the compliance of each with the accessibility requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C);
23

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 24 of 26 Pageid#: 24
2. report to the Court the extent of the noncompliance of the Remaining Portfolio with the accessibility requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C); and
3. bring each and every such apartment community in the Remaining Portfolio into compliance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and the applicable regulations. D. Enjoining the Remedial Defendants and the owner of any other covered apartment community in the Remaining Portfolio not presently known to Plaintiffs from failing or refusing to permit the survey of any of their covered properties that were designed and/or built by Defendant HHHunt and any retrofits ordered by the Court to be made at such property, to also comply with such procedures for inspection and certification of the retrofits performed as may be ordered by this Court and to perform or allow such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate any judgment against Defendant HHHunt. E. Award such damages as would fully compensate NFHA and Paralyzed Veterans for their injuries incurred as a result of the Design/Build Defendants' discriminatory housing practices and conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 36l3(c)(l)(a); F. Award such punitive damages against the Design/Build Defendants as is proper under law, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(l)(a); G. Award NFHA and Paralyzed Veterans their costs and attorneys' fees incurred herein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2); and F. Award NFHA and Paralyzed Veteran such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
24

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 25 of 26 Pageid#: 25

Dated this 15th day of March 2011.

Respectfully Submitted,
~ Virginia Bar No. 25141 Stephen M. Dane' Thomas J. Keary' Carrie Pagnucco'
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 728-1888 (202)728-0804 (facsimile) mallen@relmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

'Application for Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed

25

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 26 of 26 Pageid#: 26
DEFENDANTS HHHunt Corporation Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership Auston Chase I Limited Partnership Auston Chase II Limited Partnership Abberly Place-Garner-Phase I Limited Partnership Ashton Village Limited Partnership Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership Auston Woods-Charlotte-Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership Auston Grove-Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership Abberly Farms-Lexington Park-Phase I Limited Partnership Abberly Crest-Lexington Park-Phase II Limited Partnership Abberly Crest-Lexington Park-Phase III Limited Partnership Abberly Green-Mooresville-Phase I Limited Partnership Abberly Green-Mooresville-Phase II Limited Partnership Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership HHHunt Property Management, Inc.

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 1-1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 27

t:US 44 {Rev. ll/04)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

"The JS 44 civil oover sheel and the information contain~d herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law. except as provided by l~l3:i rules ofcourt Tius form. approved by the Judtciaf Conference ofthe United States in September 1974. is requrred for the useofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofmitiating
the ClVI! docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.

DEFENDANTS HHHunt Corporation et al. (See attached)

(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Richmond, Virginia
(EXCEPT TN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Montgomery County

(fN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDErvNATlON CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LA!\D JJ\VOLVED.

(c) Attorney's (Finn S:tUnc. Arld~s. and Telephone Number)
Michael Allen, Reiman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, 1225 19th Street N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)728-1888

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PI= m •.,.. in One Box Only)

LJ 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

:11 3 Fedcn!l. Question
{US_ Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL P ARTIES(P!•~ m "x·· in Ono Box r., P!oimiff

(For D:i\-"«Sity Cases Only)

and One Box f-or Defmdant)

CitizenofThisState

PTF DEF 0 I 0 1 Inc.orporatedo,.Principal Place

PTF DEF
0 4 LJ 4

ofBusines& ln This State

D 2 U.S. Govemmeru
Defendant

a 4 oinrs.~cy
(Indicate CitiZJ:nship ofParties in Itwl. UJ)

Cltiun of Aoother State

LJ 2

J 2 Incorponnerl and Principal PI~
of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of.a Fon:i C

0 6 CJ 6

LJ 110 !nsunmce

0 120 Marine

310 Airplane

0 130 Miller Act

315 Aliplanc Product

Cl lSO I 320 Libel 0 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

R~:,::.::!~';;;i:::~, LJ
& Enforcement

sA1assruaumlt,

&

LJ lSI Medicare Act

LJ 330Fcdeml Employers'

PERSOSAL INJURY
:J 362 Personal injury-
Med Malpractice
:J 365 PenonaJ lnjuzy -
Product Liability
::1 368 Asbestos P0£30!1&1
Injwy Product

LJ 61{; Agriculture

0 422 Appeal28 USC 158

400 State Reapportionment

LJ 6WOther Food& Drug LJ 62S Drug Related Seizure

0 423 Withdrawal
2& esc !57

4 LO Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking

r~~~~~~iiii:iiiL~O ofProperty 21 USC 881
0 630 Liquor Laws 0 640 R.R. & Truck

0 450 Commer-ce 0 446700 ORaqeKknettaeteiroInnfluenced and

0

Corrupt Organizations

0 152 Rccovel)' ofDefaulted

Liability

Liability

0

::J 480 Consumer Credit

Student Loans

C1 340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

::J 490 Cable/Sat TV

(Excl. VcteTans) Ll 153 Recovery ofOve;payment
ofVe~e<&n's Benefits

C1 345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motoc Vehicle

~~~~~!:~~~=trl~~~~i!liwE=1::J 0 370 Other Fraud

0 371 Truth In lending

0 380 Oth« Personal

~

::J il 0 Sel«:tive Service
asoESxccchuarnitgiees/Commoditicsi

Ll 160 Stockholders' Suits

35!1 Motor Vehicle

Property Damage

Aot

;:1 875 Customer Challenge

Cl 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

0 385 Property Damage

720 Labor!Mgmt. Relarioru~

l2USC3410

0 195 Contra<:t Product Liab!lrty

360 Other Personal

Product Liability

0 !%~~;:?.i~mm:r:::=Ril

730 LaboD'Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act
740 Raii'P.'BY Labor Act

890 Other Statuto!)· Actions 891 Agricultwal Act! 892 Ewoomic Stabili:wion Act

LJ 220 Foreclosure

Sentence

790 Other Labor Litigation 791 EmpL Ret. Inc.

893 Env-ironmental Matters 894 Energy AliOCtltion Act

0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

Habeas Cwpus:

Securi!y Acl

895 Freedom of lnfonnation

D 240 Torts to Land

530 Geneml

Aot

0 241"TortProductLiabi!iry
LJ 290 All Other Real Property

445 Amer, wiDlsabilities •

535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamtlll & Other

900Appeal ofFee Detcnninati.oo L'nder Equal A-cCCH

Employment

550 Civil Rights

to Justice

446 Amer, w!Disabllilies ·

55.5 Prison Conditton

950 Constitutiono.lrty of

0100

State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
«J I Original Pr in

{Place an "X" in 0~ Bo11 Only)

Cl 2 Removed from

0 3

State Court

Remanded from A Hat Court

0 4 Reinstated or

Cl

5

Transferred from another district

O 6 Multidistrict

R ned

s cif\r

Liti tion

sm~e.· f§~\5llr-1i~eT which YOU are filing {DO DOl tite jurisdidional StatuteS un)ess diversity):

Appeal to District

0

7

Judge from Magistrate

Jud ent

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION BVrwie[ldaensocrnipotir\lallcocfecsasuJs0e1:.1t.ty requi.rements ofthe Far.r Housm. g Act

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF TIHS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.RCP 23

DEMAND$

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
JURY DEMAND: i1J Yes 0No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S}

IF ANY

(See mstructions): JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
~EO~~~ .:1()\\

SIGNATIJREOF ATfORNEY OF RECORD
~.D @k !Jt--\S

3 s o RECEIPT# _ _ _ _ AMOU'IT

.Ct)

- - - - APPLYING IFP

Jt:DGE ffi/?K_

- - - - - - - MAG_ JUDGE

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. et al v. HHHunt Corporation et al, Docket No. 7:11-cv-00131 (W.D. Va. Mar 17, 2011), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name
Docket Number Court Nature of Suit

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. et al v. HHHunt Corporation et al
7:11-cv-00131
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Civil Rights: Housing/Accommodations

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LIMSNB82?documentName=1.xml

 
 Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 34 Filed 04/09/12 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 173
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FiLFD

AF2 2tr2212

UNITED STA TESD ISTRICT C OIJRT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRG INIA
RO ANO KE DIVISION

JULIA .DUDL , LERK BY:

N ATION AL FAIR HOU SIN G ALLIAN CE,IN C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
H HHUNT CORPOM TION etal., Defendants.

CivilActionNo.7:1l-cv-00l3l-jct

O RDER G R ANTIN G CO NSENT M OTIO N TO AM END C OM PLA INT A ND ADD A PARTY DEFENDANT
Thism attercamebeforetheCourtontheJointM otiontoAm end ComplaintandAdda Party Defendant.TheCourt,beingduly advisedon thepremises,now tindstheM otion should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED thatPlaintiffs'Am ended Com plaintattachedto its ConsentM otiontoA mend Com plaintand AddaParty Defendantishereby deem ed filedasof thedateofthefilingofPlaintiffs'consentm otion.

'
Dated'.

,201'y

*

? .

..>'

' Judge,United StatesD itrictCourt,

W esternD istrictofVirgtnia,

RoanokeDivision

 
 Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 1 of 7 Pageid#: 815

CLERK'SoFFlcE U.s.x 'rtcouq'r ATROANOKE,VA FILED

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT CO UR T W ESTERN DISTR ICT OF VIRG IN IA
R O AN OK E DIV ISIO N

d0V 12 2213

2U C.DU L CLERK

BK

'

R

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSW G ALLIANCE,INC.,)

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

HHHUNT CORPORATION,eta1,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CivilAdionNo.7:l1CV0013l
- - - 'PR O TECTIV E
öROER

In orderto preserveand maintaintheconfidentiality oftheinform ationcontained in

certain docum entstobeproducedby Plaintiffsand currentandformerDefendants,IT IS

ORDERED THA T:

1. ThisAgreedProtectiveOrdershallgovernthe useanddissem inationofa11 inform ation,docum ents,orm aterialsthatareproduced by thepartiesin thisactionand

designatedasConfidential.Thepartiesm ay designateastsconfidential''any such information,

docum ent,orm aterialthatthey reasonably and in goodfaithbelieveconstitutesorcontains

contidentialorproprietary inform ation,personalinform ation,inform ation protected from

disclostlreby contractualobligationsw iththird-party vendors,orisotherwiseprotectableunder

applicable1aw (''protectedMaterial'').Thedesignationdtconfidential''shallbemadebyaffixing
onthe docum entorm aterialcontainingsuch inform ation,and upon each pageso designated if

practicable,alegendthatinsubstancestates:StCON FIDEN TIA L''orotherw isein am anneras

agreed to by the parties. 2. Both theProtectedM aterialand the inform ationcontainedthereinshallbetreated

asconfdentialand shallbeused solely forthepum oseofprosecuting ordefendingthisaction.

(#1647200-1,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 7 Pageid#: 816

Exceptupon thepriorwritten consentoftheproducingparty orupon furtherorderoftheCourq

theProtected M aterialorinform ation contained thereinw hicharedesignatedast'Confidential''

m ay be shown,dissem inated,discussed,ordisclosed onlytothefollowing persons:

a. CounselofRecord in thisaction,otherm em bersofcounsel'slaw firm ,andany

othcrcounselassociated to assistinthepreparationortrialofthisaction',

b. Em ployeesofCounselofRecordorofassociated counsel,whoassisted in the

preparation ortrialofthisaction;

O utsidecxpertsandconsultantsretainedby anyparty in good faith forthisaction;

Currentorform eremployeesoragentsofthepartyorperson who produced the

Protected M aterialdisclosed by theparty orpersonwho produced theProtected M aterial;

e. Stenographicreportersengagedfordepositionsorproceedingsnecessarytothis

action;

Em ployeesofoutsidecopy servicesusedto m akecopiesofProtectedM aterial; g. TheCourtand itsstaff;
h. Authors,addressees/recipients,andpersonscopiedontheprotectedsubjectmatter
asshow n thereon orotherwiseknow ntohavereceived itinthenormalcourseofbusiness;

A ny person agreedtoby theproducing party;and

Thepartiestothisaction.

-

.

er ivin access 0 any O e roece a erlayOr eln Orma 1On

contained therein,thatwasprovided bytheopposing party,outsideexpertsand consultantswho

areretainedby any partyingood faith forthepreparationortrialofthisaction,shallbeadvised

oftheterm softhisProtectiveOrder,shallbegivenacopyofthisProtectiveOrder,and shall

agreeinwritingtobeboundbyitstermsandtobesubjecttothejm isdictionofthisCourt,by

(#1647200-1,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 3 of 7 Pageid#: 817

eithersigning acopyofthisProtective Orderora declaration in theform attached asExhibitA ,

or,ifduringadeposition,then by oraldeclarationontherecord in substantiallythesam e

languageasExhibitA .

N othinginthisProtectiveOrdershallrelieveany form eremployeeofany

producing partyorthirdparty ofanypreviousexistingobligationsto m aintain in confidence

inform ation ordocum entsobtained in thecourseofhisorherem ploym ent.

W ithinsixty(60)daysafterfinalterminationofthisaction,counselshallrettmlto
theproducing partytheProtectcd M aterialandal1copiesofthoscdocllm entsin thepossession of

counsel,hisorherclicnts,and counsel'sclients'consultingandtestifying experts.Counselshall

certifyin writingthatallsuch docum entsandcopiesthereofhavebeen returnedto theproducing

party and each expertwho received copiesofsuch docllm entsshallalsocertify thatheorshehas

destroyed al1notes,m em oranda,orotherdocum entscreatedbythatexpertfrom orcontaining

inform ation containedin theProtected M aterial.

lfitisremsonably necessary foranypartyto fleCON FIDEN TIA L or

PROTECTED M A TERIA L withtheCourtaspartofany pleading orotherdocum ent,theparty

seekingto filesuch docum entsshallsubm itwith them an accom panyingm otion to sealand shall

com ply with and otherwise begovernedby theprocedureandprovisionssetforth in Standing

OrderN o.2005-4,orW estern DistrictRule9,effectiveA pril8,2010.

-

i respec oany eposl1On, epr0 uclngP ym ay,On e recor an m ln 1 y

(30)daysafterreceiptofthetranscript,designateportionsofthetranscriptrelatingtothc informationspecifiedinparagraph 1aboveasProtectedM aterialast'ConGdential-subjectto
ProtectiveOrder''undcrthisProteotiveOrder.Ifaparty in good faithbelievcsthattestim ony

provided inadeposition willneed to bedesignatedçsconfidential''withinthem eM ingofthis

(#l64ï200-l,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 4 of 7 Pageid#: 818

Protective Order,counselforthatparty shallso stateatthetim eofthedeposition and shallbe

providedthirtydaysfollow ingreceiptofthetranscriptto designatethoseportionsto bem arked

Conûdential.Insuchcase,duringthefirstthirty(30)businessdaysfollowingreceiptofa transcript,theentiretranscriptshallbetreatedasttcontidential-subjecttoProtectiveOrder''.
However,thisprovisiondoesnotpreventthedeponentfrom rcviewingthetranscriptin

accordancewithFederalRuleofCivilProcedurc30(e).
Colm selforeachparty willmaintain alistofal1personswho wereprovidedwith

anyProtected M aterialthatwasprovided bytheopposing party,alongw iththesigned Protective

Orderordeclaration.Thelistand each signedProtectiveOrderordeclaration shallbeavailable

forinspectionby theCourtand,attheconclusionofthisaction,bytheproducing party.

8. Al1partiesreservctherightto apply totheCourtforan orderm odifying or

nm ending theterm softhisProtectiveOrder,eitheruponconsentofa11otherpartiesorupon a

showing ofgood causeand otherappropriate show ingundertheparticularcircum stances.

Aftertheterm ination ofthesem atters,theprovisionsofthisProtectiveOrdershall

continue to be binding.

10. ThepartiesagreethatthisCourtshallhavejurisdictionoverthcparties,their
attom eys,andexpertsforenforcem entoftheprovisionsoftheProtectiveOrderfollowingthe

term inationofthislitigationand,by theparties'stipulation to thisProtectiveOrder,hereby

-

sjuris icion.

ThisProtectiveOrdershallbebindingupon thepartieshereto,upon their

attorneys,andupontheparties'and theirattorneys'successors,executors,personal

representatives,adm inistrators,heirs,legalrepresentatives,assigns,subsidiaries,divisions,

4 (#1647200-1,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 5 of 7 Pageid#: 819
employees,agents,independentcontractors,orotherpersonsororganizationsoverwhich they have control.
12. n efailureto designateinform ationinaccordancew iththisProtectiveOrdershall notprecludesubsequentdesignation ofsuchinform ation asconfidential.ThisProtectiveOrder,
however,shallnotbeconstruedasawaiverofanyrighttoobjecttothefurnishingofinformation
in response to discovery. ThisO rdercontem platesthatthepartiesshallcontinuetoresolveany discovery
issuesbyagreem entofcounsel,and nothingherein shallpreventthepartiesfrom m ovingthe Courtforsuchm odificationoram endmenthereof,orchallengingtheconûdentialnatureofany so designated inform ation ordocum ents.The Partieshaveattem pted,thzoughthisProtective Order,toresolvem ostissuesthatcounselanticipatem ay ariseregardingConfidential lnform ation thatisproducedin thiscase.ThisProtectiveOrderdoesnotpum ortto predetermine thediscoverabilityofanydocum entorinform ation.Furtherm ore,itispossiblethattheParties m ightalsoencountersubsequentissuesregardingthescopeofdiscovery thatthey areunableto resolvewithouttheassistanceoftheCourt.Theentry ofthisProtectiveOrderdoesnot
constituteawaiveroftherighttoobjecttotheproductionofanydocum ent/informationand/or
seek an appropriateresolutionfrom theCourt.Furthermore,tmtiltheentryofthisorderbythe
Court(oramodifedversionattheCourt'sdirection)thepartiesagreetobeboundbythcse
N otwithstanding theforegoingprovisions,thisOrdershallnotrestrictinany m annerthe rightofanypartyto offeroruseasevidenceatthetrialofthisactionany ofthe
documentsorinformationsubjecttothisOrderandnothingcontainedhereinshallbeconstrued
5
(#1647200-1,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 6 of 7 Pageid#: 820

asawaiverofanyobjectionwhichmightberaisedastotheadm issibilityattrialofany
evidentiarym aterial. STIPULATED AN D A GREED HERETO BY :

/s/-l-hom asJ.Kearv M ichaelAllen Thom asJ.Keary
Relm an,Dane& Colfu ,PLLC3800 1225 19thStreetN W , Suite600 W mshington,D C 20036-2456

/s/christophcrW .Stevens ChristopherW .Stevens
W oodsRodgersPLLC 10 S.Jefferson St.,Suite 1400, Roanoke,V A 24011
(540) 983-7538 cstevens@woodsrogers.com

CounselforPlaintlfg
/s/scottPanishM oorenro hacvice ScottParrishM oore
AllisonD.Balus(VA#48825)
BA IRD HO LM LLP 1700Farnam St,Suite 1500 Om aha,N E 68102-2068 Phone:402-344-0500 Fax:402-344-0588
Email:spmoore@bairdholm.com

CounselforDe#ndantJ DavisArchitects,PLLC

AttorneysforFormerDefendants,SS SUAFCORPOM TIOR ABBERLFWFWEST
ASHLEY LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;ASH TON POIN TE PROPERTYLIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;/1USTON CHASE 1LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;WUSTON CHASE 11 LIM ITED PARTNERSH IP;ABBERLFPLACE -GARNER -PHASE 1LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP;XUVS FON V1LLAGE LIM ITED PARTNERSHIpy'A USTON W OOD -
CHARLO TWF -PHASE 1APARTM ENTS LIM ITED PARTN ERSHIP;WUSTON WO ODS CHAM O I'TE -PHASE IIAPARTM ENTS LIM ITED PARTNERSH IP;XUSTON GRO VE RALEIGH APARTM EN TSLIM ITED PARTNERSHIP,ABBERLFFARM S -LFX ING TON

PHASE 11LfAf/'fD PARTNERSHIP;ABBERLr CM 'ST -fE YING TON PARK-PHASE 111 LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP.ABBERLF GREEN -M O ORESVILLE PHASE 1LIM ITED PARTN ERSHIP;ABBERLJ'GREEN -M OORESVILLE PHASE 11LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP,TWIN HICK ORYAPARTM EN TS LJv f'ff PARTNERSH IP,and HH
ff* TPROPERTYm NAGEM ENT INC ,

6
(#1647200-1,999-999)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 74 Filed 11/12/13 Page 7 of 7 Pageid#: 821

ITISSOORDERED,this! dayofNovember2013.

' d

A

.//

;/J. .

x.jjr.j.jj!r.. .'

..,.

ited StatesD istrictCourtJudge

7
(#1647200-1,999-999)

 
 Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 75 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 825

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT C OU RT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA
R OA NO K E DIW SIO N
N ATION AL FA IR H OU SW G A LLIAN CE,lN C., et a1.,

a.E- :Ao1FFfcEU.s.œ mcotm RoANoe .vA Fu n
JAN 1i2111
QYJULIAC UDL . ERK
;
CLERK

Plaintils,

V.

CivilA ctionN o.7:11-cv-131

JDAVISARCHIW CTS,PLLC,

)

Defendant.

)

)

O R DER O F DISY SSA L W ITH PREJUDICE

Plainuffs,NationalFairHousingAlliance,Inc.andParalyzedVeteransofAm ericw lnc.,

andDefendant,JDavisAzchitects,PLLC,herebymoveforanOrderdism issingthiscmsew1t11

prejudice.
Itisaccordingly,Orderedthat:

'I'hisactionisherebydismissedwithprejudice.
Thisactionisherebystricken9om theactivedocketoftlzisCourt.

ENTEREDthis /h dayof

,2014.

J
UnitedStatesDistric Judge

(#1657549-1,113572-0* 01-01)

Case 7:11-cv-00131-JCT Document 75 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 826
W E ASK FOR THIS:
/s/M ichaelA llenM ichaelA llen Thom asJ.Keary Relman,Dane& Colfax,PLLC3800 122519*SkeetNW , Suite600 W ashington,DC 20036-2456
Counselfor Plaintp
SEEN Ar AGREED:
/s/Christophe-rW .Stevens
ChdstopherW .Stevens(VSBNo.41931)
W oodsRogersPLC P.O.Box 14125 Roanoke,VA 24038-4125
(540) 983-7538 Fax:(540)983-7711 cstevens@woodsrozers.com
CounselforJD avisArchitects,PLLC
2 (#16375494,113572.a*01-01)

 
 IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTE RN DISTRIC T O F V IR G IN IA
R O A N O K E D IVISIO N

eawwoAorrR:l-e:tip,n4smx tjw''
xi,vA
Fluen
JAN 2!2213
BYJut .D DL ,CLERK
;
PU LERK

N A TIO N AL FA IR H O U SIN G A LLIAN C E,INC .,etal.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

) C aseN o.:7:11-cv-00131-JC T ) ) ) ) ) M EM OM NDUM O PINION

HH HUNT CORPOM TION,etaI., D efendants.

By:Jam esC .Turk SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge

ThismatterisbeforetheCourtontheDefendantJ.DavisArchitects,PLLC'S(tçJ.Davis'')
M otion forPartialSllm maryJudgment.ECFNo.51.Plaintiffsfiledaresponse,ECF No.53,and D efendantsliled a Reply,ECF N o.56.The Courtheard argllm enton them otion on January 15, 2013,and the m atter is now ripe fordecision.The sole issue raised by the pending m otion is whetherthePlaintiffs'claim sagainstJ.DavisrelatedtotheapartmentcomplexAbberlyGreenPhase11m'e barred by theapplicablestatute oflimitationsin the FairHousing Act,orinstead should bedeemed tim ely based on thetscontinuing violation''doctrine.Forthereasonssetforth below ,the Courtconcludesthatthereare genuinedisputesofm aterialfactbased on thectlrrent record as to whether or not the Abberly Green-phase 11 claims are tim e-barred. Thus, Defendant'sM otionforPartialSumm aryJudgment,ECFNo.51isDENIED . 1. FA CTU A L AN D PR O CED UR AL BAC K G R O UN D
A. G enerally The m otion currently before the Courtinvolves a lim ited and discrete setoffacts and legalissues.Priorto turningtothoseissues,however,theCourtprovidesageneraloverview of the case.Plaintiffs,the N ational Fair H ousing A lliance, lnc.and the Paralyzed V eterans of

Am erica, Inc. are a nonprotk, public service organization and a nonprofit com oration,
respectively.ECF No.1,Compl.!! 10-11.Partofthe mission ofboth organizationsisto
advocate fortherightsofpeoplewith disabilitiesto accessiblehousing.Id.Plaintiffsfiledtheir originalComplaintonM arch 17,2011,nnm ingHHHO tCorporationand otherentitiesthatwere
eitherthedevelopersormanagersofvariousapartmentcomplexes.Ld..a !! 12-22.In boththeir
original Complaint and their Am ended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the com plexes contained a num ber ofdesign orconstruction featm esthatconstituted violations ofthe Fair Housing A ct,Title V l1I of the Civil Rights A ct of 1968, as am ended by the Fair H ousing
AmendmentsActof1988,42U.S.C.jj3601-3619(1THA'')andthatthosefeaturesrenderedthe
com plexesinaccessibleto disabledpersons.Seecenerally ECF N os.1,35. On April5,2012,PlaintiffsfiledanAm endedCom plaintaddingJ.Davisasaparty.ECF
No.35,Am.Compl.!11.TheAmendedComplaintallegesthatJ.Daviswasthedesignarchitect foronlyoneofthesubjectproperties,tt.k!20,butinlatercorrespondencePlaintiffsmadeclear
thatthey soughttopursue claimsagainstJ.Davisinconnection with threepropertiesnam ed in the law suit:A bberly Place in Garner,N orth Carolina,A uston Chase-phase 1,in Ridgeland, SouthCarolina,andAbberlyGreen-phaseII,in M ooresville,NorthCarolina.ECF No.52,atEx. B.
The parties have since clarified,in their respective flings on the motion for partial
summaryjudgment,thattheyareinagreementontwopoints.First,theyagreethatJ.Daviswas
notinvolved in,and hasno connection to,A bberly Place.See.e.c.,ECF N o.52.A ccordingly, Plaintiffstçconcedethey haveno claim sagainstD avisw ith respectto Abberly Place,andthereby abandon such claim s.''ECF No.53at2n.1.Second,they agreethat,astoAuston Chase-phaseI
CçAuston Chase''),theclaimsagainstJ.Davisaretimelyandshouldbepermittedtoproceedat
thisstage.SçeECF No.52at4.Theviabilityoftheclaim srelatedtothethirdcomplex,Abberly

Green-phase11(1fAG-1I'')isthusthesoleissueraisedbythependingm otion forpartialsllmm ary judgment,andisdiscussedinfurtherdetailbelow.
Theothernoteworthy developmentin thecaseisthat,subsequenttoaddingJ.Davisasa
party,PlaintiffsenteredintoasettlementandstipulatedjudgmentwiththeremainingDefendants.
ECF N os.44,45.Accordingly,only the claim sagainstJ.D avisrem ain in thelawsuit. B. FactsR elated to theTim elinessoftheA bberly G reen-phase11C laim s
Thepartiesagree(althoughJ.Davisdoessodçonlyforpurposesofthismotion,''seeECF No.52at7n.3)thatthestatuteoflim itationsbegan to runfortheAG-IIclaim sagainstJ.Davis
on D ecem ber 18,2007,w hen the lastCertificate ofO ccupancy w asissued forthatproperty.But
seeSentellv.RPM M cmt.Co.sInc.,653F.Supp.2d917,922(E.D.Ark.2009)(suggestingthat
thelim itationsperiod againstan architectcouldbegin to nm when heticompletedhislastactas
the architectforthe allegedly non-compliantbuildinf).Asdiscussed below,the applicable lim itationsperiod istwoyears.Seeinfraat4(quoting42U.S.C.j 3613(a)(1)(A)).TheOriginal
Com plainthere was filed on M arch 17,2011,and the Am ended Com plaint,which named J. Davis forthe firsttim e,w asfiled on A pril5,2012.Thus,itis clearthatin the absence ofthe application ofthe continuing violation theory,the claimsrelated to AG-l1are barred,since J. Davisw asnotsued within tw oyearsofD ecem ber 18,2007.
Plaintiffscontend thatthe continuing violation theoryapplieshere,and savestheAG-II
claims,becauseJ.DaviswasthearchitectresponsiblefordesigningbothAuston Chase(asto whichtherearetimelyclaims)andA G-II.AccordingtoPlaintiffs,J.Davis'sdesignviolationsat
both of these com plexes are sufficiently related so as to constitute tçflagrant,system atic and
continuingviolationsoftheFHA.''ECF No.35,FirstAm .Com pl.! 6',j.tlsat!(29 (referencing allegedFHA violationsthatrepresentevidenceGçofacontinuingpattern andpracticegconsisting otlfailttrestodesignand constructcoveredunitsandthepublicandcom monuseareasin accord

with''theFHA).Theythuscontendthatthecontinuingviolationdoctrinerenderstheirclaims
related to A G-IItim ely. II. AN ALY SIS
A. StandardsGoverning Sum m aryJudgm entM otions
The standards for evaluating a summary judgment motion are well established. Etsummaryjudgmentisappropriate only iftakingthe evidenceand a11reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom in the lightm ostfavorable to the nonm oving party, tno m aterial facts are
disputedandthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatterof1aw.'''Henrvv.Pum ell,652 F.3d 524,531(4thCir.2011)(enbanc)(quotingAusherman v.BankofAm.Corp.,352F.3d 896,899(4thCir.2003:;Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).Putdifferently,summaryjudgmentshouldbe enterediftheCourtfinds,afterareview oftherecordasawhole,thatnoreasonablejlzrycould
retum averdictforthenon-m ovingparty.SeeEvansv.Techs.Applications& Serv.Co.,80F.3d
954,958-59(4th Cir.1996).
B. TheFairH ousing A ct'sStatuteofLim itations
TheFHA allows$ûEa1naggrievedperson (tolcommenctacivilactioninanappropriate
United States districtcourtor State courtnotlater than 2 years after the occurrence orthe
termination ofan alleged discriminatory housing pradiceg.j''42 U.S.C.j 3613(a)(1)(A).In
addressing apriorversion ofthislim itationsperiod,1the Supreme Courtpreviously recognized thatacontinuingviolationtheorycould applytoclaimsofFHA violations.HavensRealty Corp.
v.Colem an,455U.S.363,380-81(1982).
lThewordsEçorthetermination''wereaddedbyCongressin 1998 andseveralcourtshavenotedthatthe am endm entwasintendedto clarify Congress'sintentto allow part:lesto recoverforearlieractsunderthe
FHA thatconstitutepartofanongoingpatternorqractice.See.e.M.,W allacev.ChicazoHousingAuth.,
321F.Supp.2d 968,972-73(N.D.111.2004)(citlngH.R.Rep.No.100-711,at33,reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.A.A.N.2173,2194).

ln Havens,which involved allegationsofa continuing pattern,practice, and policy of

unlaw

fulracialsteering 2 ,

the

Suprem

e

Courtheld

that w

here

a

plaintiff

alleges

çdan

unlaw

ful

m aetice that continues into the lim itations period,'' or a dtcontinuing pattern, practice, and policy,''asopposed to merely çtisolated incidents,''the continuing violation theorym ay apply.3

See. id.at380-81;seealsoNat'lAdver.Co.v.CitvofRaleigh,947F.2d 1158,1167(4thCir.

1991)(thecontinuingviolation isapplicablewheretheççstatutoryviolationdoesnotoccurata

single m oment but in a series of separate acts''so that tiif the sam e alleged violation was

2 Racialsteering, asdefined by theComplaintin Havens,isa (dpracticebywhich realestatebrokersand
agentspreserveandencouragepattel'nsofracialsegregationinavailablehousingbysteerinjmembersof racialandethnicgroupstobuildingsoccupiedgrimarilybymembersofsuchracialandethnlcgroupsand
away from buildingsand neighborhoodsinhablted prim arily by mem bersofotherracesorgroups.''455 U .S.at366 n.1.
3 Com mentatorsand courtsalikehaveidentifiedtwo sub-typesofdçcontinuingviolations.''Seegenerally
EveL.Hill& PeterBlanck,FutureofD isabilityRights:PartThree.StatutesofLim itationsin Americans
with Disabilities Acttr esign and Constuction Cases'',60 Syracuse L.Rev.125,143-145 (2009); M osekev.M iller& Smith.lnc.,202F.Supp.2d492,506(E.D.Va.2002).Thefirsttypewasdescribed
by theM osekeCourtasatscontinuingviolation''theory,and thesecond asa6scontinuing effects''theory.
The firsttypeoccurswheresom ehousingunitswereconstructedw ithin the lim itationsperiod and others
wereconstructedoutsidetheperiod,butthecontinuingviolation allowsalloftheactstoberemedied.Hill & Blanck,at 144-45.The second type çdfrequently involvesan actthat occurred long ago where the
effectscontinueintothepresent,''andthusiiallowsaplaintifftorecoverforlaterinjuriescausedbyanact
that,by itselfwouldbetime-barred.''1d.at145.A numberofcourts,includingtheN inth Circuitin Garcia
v.Brockway,526F.3d456(9thCir.2008)(enbanc),haverejectedthissecondtypeintheFHA design andconstructioncontext,becauseitwouldallow recoveryfortheeyectsofdiscriminationandnotactual discriminatoryactsthatoccurredwithinthelimitationsperiod.SeeGarcia,526F.3dat462(ttplaintiffs.. . confuse a continuing violation with the continuing effectsofa pastviolation....((ajcontinuing
violation is occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual iIl effects from an original
violation.''')(citationsandfootnoteomitted).Putdifferently,themerefactthatadesigndefectcontinues
torenderahousingunitorcomplex inaccessible(atleastuntilitiscorrected)doesnotmeanthatanew occurrenceoccurseachdaythedefectisIeû unaddressed.Asnotedbythecourtsthathaverejectedthe continuing effectstheory,dçrtlhestatuteoflimitationsprovisionwould essentially bemeaninglessifthe
continuing violationdoctrinewereagpliedtoclaimsassertedunderthatsection,becauseacompany
designingorconstructinganon-compllantbuildingcouldbesubjecttoliabilityindefinitely.''Kuchmasv. Towson Univ.,2007W L 2694186,at*5(D.M d.Sept.10,2007);seealsoM os-eke,202F.Supp.2dat 508(tllfthemereexistenceofaFHA non-compliantbuilding isacontinuingviolationundertheFHA
then there is no limitations period on a disability digcrim ination claim involving design and
construction.'').
Plaintiffs here have m ade clearthey are notadvocating forthe application ofthe dtcontinuing
effects''theory andthusthisCourtdoesnotaddressitsviability.SeeECFNo.53 at12-13 (tsplaintiffs'
claim sarenotbased upon the continuing effectsofpastviolationsbutratheron theongoing violations
themselves.').lnstead,onlytheviabilityofapurecontinuingviolationtheoryisatissuehere.

committedatthetimeofeachact,thenthelimitationsperiodbeginsanew witheachviolation''l; Ld.usat1166(aplaintiffestablishesacontinuingviolationby showingthatthettillegalactwasa fixedandcontinuingpractice'')(citationomitted).Astheforegoinglanguagefrom bothHavens
andN at'lAdver.Co.m akescltar,then,therem ustbesometypeofrelationship orconnedion between theactsthatoccurred within the lim itationsperiod and thosethatoccurredbeforethat
time.Seej.l.k Otherwise,the actsare,in the words ofthe Havens Court,merely ttisolated
incidents.''See455U .S.at381.Thenatureand closenessoftherelationship iswhatisatissue here.
C . V iability oftheC ontinuingV iolation Theory A stoPlaintiffs'A G -IIClaim s J.Davism akesseveralarguments in supportofitsclaim thatthe continuing violation doctrinecannotsavePlaintiffs'AG-IIclaim s.Theseincludean arglzmentthatthe Courtshould find the continuing violation theory inapplicable altogetherin the contextofFHA design and
construction claims(relying in parton Garcia),andthattheCourtshouldrefuseto apply the
continuing violation theory to allow otherwise tim e-barred claim s against an architect, as opposedto anom zerormanagerofahousingcomplex.
PlaintiffscounterthatGarciaisinapplicableon severalgrounds.First,asnoted supraat note 3,Plaintiffs are not asserting a claim based on the continuing effects of past ad s of discrim ination asthePlaintiffsinGarciawere.Additionally,PlaintiffsassertthatGarciadoesnot governtheresultherebecauseitinvolvedasinglepropertyanddidnotinvolveclaim sassertedin the m ulti-property context. Finally, Plaintiffs further posit that the continuing violation is properly applied againstarchitectsand that,although severalofthecasescited by J.Davisthat involved architectsrefused to apply the continuing violation theory,itwasnotprim arily because thedefendantstherewerearchitectsordesigners,butbecausetherewereno discriminatory acts w ithin thelim itationsperiod.

Asto theapplicability ofthecontinuing violation doctrine in general, theCourtagrees withPlaintiffsthatGarcia,even ifitwerebindingauthority, wouldnotcontroltheoutcomehere. Thisconclusion isbuttressed by m ostpost-G am iqcases,w hich haveinterpreted G arcianarrow ly.
Specifkally,they have read Garciqasrejectingonlythelçmodified continuing violation,''see supran.3,i.e.,asrejectingonlythetypeofcontinuingviolationtheorywheretheplaintiffseeks to use itto impose liability for eftècts ofallegedly discriminatory design and construction defects.SeeGarcia,526F.3dat462(discriminatorySéacts''inthedesign-and-constructionphast donotcontinueuntilanallegeddefectiscured);M oseke,202F.Supp.2dat507.Here,however,
Plaintiffs'theory is notbased on the effects of pastdiscrim ination.Instead,it is based on Plaintiffs' allegation thatJ.Davis engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination that
includedactsofdesign both outsidethetwo-yearlim itationsperiod (astoAG-Il)andwithinthe two-yearlim itationsperiod (astoAuston Chase),andthattheentirecotzrseofconductshouldbe
deem ed tim ely becauseitwaspartofa continuing pattern and practice.See.e.c.,ECF N o.53 at 12-13.
Thevastmajorityofcasestoaddresstheissuehaverecognizedtheapplicabilityofthe
continuing violation theory where there were allegations, in m ulti-property cases, that a developer,m anager,orow nerofm orethan oneproperty had apattern orpractice ofviolatingthe FHA asaresultofdesign orconstnzctiondefects.See.e.g.,TheEqualm ghtsCtr.v.Avalonbay
Cmtys.sInc.,2009W L 1153397,at*8-9(D.M d.M ar.23,2009)(t4A.valonbay'')(whereplaintiff
allegedthatDefendantsconstm ctedatleast100buildingsinviolationoftheFHA,thecontinuing violation theory applied to save claim srelated to 77 propertiesthatwere completed m orethan
twoyearsbeforesuitwasfiled);TheEqualRightsCtr.v.LionsGablesResidentialTrust,No. 07-cv-2358,at12-13(D.M d.Aug.13,2008),attachedasECFNo.53-3,Ex.1(itionsGables'') (denyingdefendants'motion to dismissclaimsrelated to propertiescompletedmorethan two

years prior because the continuing violation theory was applicable based on plaintiffs
allegations of a pattern and practice ofdiscriminationl;M emphis Ctr.forIndep.Livin: v. M akowskvConstr.Co.,No.01-2069,at4-6(W .D.Tenn.July 25,2003),attachedasECFNo.
53-3,Ex.2;C%M emphisCenter'')(denyingmotion forpartialsllmmm.yjudgmentand holding
thatpattem andpracticeallegationsofFHA violationsrenderedtimelyplaintiffs'claim srelated
to twoapartmentcomplexescom pleted morethantwo yearsbeforesuitwasfiled,whereathird
com plex wascompletedwithinthelim itationsperiod);EgualRightsCtr.v.Cam den Prop.Trust,
No.07-2357,2008 W L 8922896,at*8-*10 (D.M d.Sept.22,2008)(ltcnmden Property'')
(upholdingtheapplication ofthecontinuingviolationtheorytodesign andconstrudiondaims tmdertheFHA inmulti-propertycontext);SilverSta-teF-a-irHous.Council.lnc.v.Erasplnc.,362
Supp.2d 1218,1222 (D.Nev.2005) (çlsilver State'') (denying slzmmary judgment on
limitations issue because there was a dispute of fact ms to whether the same alleged FHA
violationsattw o apartm entcom plexes constituted a pattern orpradice ofFHA violations that
continuedintothelimitationsperiod);seealsoNat'lFairHous.Alliancev.A.G.SpanosConstr.. Inc.,542 F.Supp.2d 1054,1061-62 (N.D.Cal.2008)CtA.G.Spanos'')(holding thatthe
reasoning ofHavens was applicable to an alleged pattem or practice of construction-based
violationsoftheFHA,inamulti-property case).TheCourtfindsthereasoningofthesecases
persuasive and therefore concludes that the continuing violation doctrine can be applied in designand constnlctioncasesundertheFHA wheretherearem ultipleproperties4
.
4The Courtalso isunpersuadedby any argum entthatthedoctrine should notapply to J. Davis becauseitissim ply an architect,asopposedto adeveloperorbuilder.First,asPlaintiffsrightly pointout, the casesthatinvolved architectsin which courtsdetermined thatthe continuing violation doctrinewas inapplicable,those courts did notbase their decisions prim arily on the factthatthe defendantw asan architectinstead ofa developerorowner.lnstead,theirdecisionswere based on the respective courts' findingsthatno discrim inatory actoccurred w ithin thetwo-yearlim itationsperiod asto any complex. See.e.g.,Kuchmas,2007W L 2694186,at*4-*5;M oseke,202F.Supp.2dat508.Second,thetextofthe limitations period does not provide any principled reason for distinguishing between claim s against architectsordesigners,ontheonehand,andownersand managers,on theother.Indeed,thefactthatthe
8

Thequestion then becom eswhetherthe continuing violation theory isapplicablebased
ontherecordbeforetheCourt,i.e.,whetherthereissuftkientevidenceherefrom whichajul'y
could conclude thatthe alleged acts orviolationsatAG-IIand Auston Chase are sufficiently
related so asto constitute apattem orpractice, ratherthan merely <éisolatedincidents.''On this
point,there isconfliding evidence beforetheCourtcreating agenuinedisputeofmaterialfact
andrenderingsllmmaryjudgmentinappropriate.
J.D avism'guesthatin each ofthecasesPlaintiffspointsto wherethecontinuing violation
thtorywasapplied,thecastinvolved allegations(ifatthem otion to dism issstage)orevidenct
(ifatthesummaryjudgmentstage)thatthe differentpropertiesatissueshared antlmberof
sim ilarities or that the violations w ere sufficiently identical so as to constitute a continuing
practiceorpattem ,thereby supportingtheconnectionbetween thetim ely claim sand otherwise-
barredclaims.See.e.2.,A.G.Spanos,542F.Supp.2d at1062(denyingmotion todismisson
lim itations grounds w here com plaint alleged that the properties- 8z apartm ent com plexes
locatedin 10states,and allegedlydesignedand constructedbythedefendantsbetween 1991and
2007- ;&share(d)relevantcommon elementsofdesigns''had tlcommon bathroom and kitchen
designs,''hadétidenticalfloorplansin anum berofcomplexes,''andthatthedefendantsdçutilized
the sam e orsim ilartloorplans in the design and constnzction ofthousands ofcovered units''at
theproperties,anddistinguishingthecasebeforeitl;ECFNo.55,Ex.A at!!48,50(copyof
typeofcontinuing violationtheory theCourtisconsidering stillrequiresactswithin thelim itationsperiod thatare sufficiently related to acts thatoccurred beforethe lim itations period establishes a safeguard againstunlim ited liability.
M oreover,aspointed outbyPlaintiffshere,J.Davis'sinvolvem entinthetwocomplexesheredid notincludem erely drawing up plansandw alking away.Instead,J.D aviswascontractually obligatedto be arepresentative oftheownerofthe two complexes,visitthe constnlction sitesand becom efam iliar w ith the work perfonned,and to review and certify the amountgdueto the contractors.Additionallys
Davis'scertificationforaprogresspaymentwas:(areqresentationtotheOwner''that,ûçtothebestofthe
architect'sknow ledge,information and belief,thequallty ofthework isin accordance withtheContract
Documents.''ECFNo.52,Ex.A,MccamyAff.atEx.l(AG-l1contract).ForaIlofthesereasons,the
Courtconcludesthatthe merefactthatJ.Davisisan architecturalfirm doesnotpreclude application of the continuing violation theory to it.

ComplaintinA.G.Spanos);LionsGables,No.07-cv-2358,at12-13(denyingmotiontodismiss
w here the com plaint alleged the properties at issue ltw ere designed and constructed either simultaneously orseriatim ,''shared tçrelevantcom mon elem entsofdesign,''and had ttvirtually
identiealfloorplans''inmanyofthecomplexes;ECFNo.55,Ex.B !(!35-38(copyofComplaint in LionsGables);Camden Property,2008W L 8922896,(allowing claimsto goforward with regardto 106subjectproperties,despitethem beingcompletedmorethantwoyearsbeforesuit
w asfiled,where com plaintalleged sim ultaneousorseriatim construction and ûûvirtually identical
tloorplans''in manyofthecomplexes);ECF No.55,Ex.C !!36-41(copy ofComplaintin CamdenProperty;seealsoECFNo.55at4-5(discussingallegedsimilaritiesbetweencomplexes in othercases,includingAvalonbav,SilverState,and M akowskyConstr.,suprm)By contrast,J.
Davisarguesthatthesim ilaritiesherearemuch m orelimited,ifnotnon-existent,and thusthat the two complexes should notbe considered related forpurposes ofapplying the continuing
violation doctrine. ln reviewingthe sim ilaritieshere,the Courtconcludesthat,whileitisaclosecall,there
isatleasta dispute offactasto whetherthetwo complexes wererelated so thatthe alleged
violationsconstitutea continuingpattern orpractice.On theonehand,itistruethatthereisno evidencethatthearchitectlzraldesignsofthetwo propertieswereidentical.lnstead,insupportof itsm otion,J.Davis hassubmitted the affidavitofN.Bond M ccam y,who isa principalatJ.
Davis.M r.M ccnmy hasfiled an affidavitin which hediscussesJ.Davis'sinvolvementin the
both A uston ChasePhase Iand A G -1I.H e avers: The apartm entcom plexes atA bberly G reen Phase 11and A uston Chase Phase 1 are very different from each other and are not related.They weredesigned and constructed in differentcitiesand atdifferenttim es.Auston ChasePhase lislocated in a different
statefrom AbberlyGreenPhaseIl.Eachprojectisuniquefrom the
other.Thelayoutofthecom plexesisdifferentboth extem allyand internally.D ifferent designs and draw ings w ere m ade for each
10

com plex. The apartm ent com plexes w ere not designed or constructedon acontinuousbasis.
ECFNo.52,Ex.A !l2.
On theotherhand,both theallegationsin theComplaintand evidencesubm itted bythe Plaintiffs indicate thatthe snme orvery similar FHA violations occurred atboth properties. Specifically,Plaintiffshavesubm ittedadeclarationfrom W illiam Hecker,anarchitectwhoavers
hevisiteda11thepropertiesthata<ethesubjed ofthislawsuit.ECFNo.53,Ex.A,HeckerDed. at!! 5,12-13.Hisdeclarationalsoincludesareportthatliststhedesign featuresand alleged
violationshefotmdatthecomplexes.SeeHeckerDecl.,Exs.3& 4. Admittedly,M r.Hecker'sDeclarationitselfofferslittleinthewayofsim ilmitiesbetween
thetwo complexes.Indeed,aspointedoutby J.Davis,M r.Hecker'sDeclaration largelyfailsto distinguish between AG-II,which wasdesignedby J.Davis,andAbberly Green-fWfue1,which
wasnot.See.e.a.,ECF No.53,Ex.A,HeckerDecl.at!! 12-15 (repeatedly referring to ççAbberlyGreen''asasingletmit);i;sat!!16-17(referringtoStAbberlyGreen,Phase153.Even
where M r.Heckercom paresthe numberofallegedly inaccessible design features,M r.Hecker does so between Abberly Green-phaseIand Auston Chase,and itisthe architecturalplansof thosetwocomplexesthathehasreviewed.Abberly Green-phaseIwasnotdesignedbyJ.Davis, how ever,and so thatinform ation isirrelevant.
Buteven ifM r.Hecker'sstatementsinhisaffidavitarenotconsidered (becauseofhis faillzre to refer to AG-II specitkally),there is nonetheless record evidence thatallows a
comparison ofthetwocomplexes.Specifically,inaseparatepartofM r.Hecker'sreport,helists thealleged violationshe found atAG-IIand,in a laterportion,atAuston Chase.SeeECF No.
53-1at65-78(detailingviolationsatAG-1I);j;..sat80-95(detailing violationsatAustonChase).
On these pages,it becom es clear that there are substantially sim ilar FHA violations at both

properties.A ccording to thisreporqboth propertieshavethefollow ing violations:
* accessible routesfrom site arrivalpointsto the grotmd tloorunitentrances haveabruptlevelchangesgreaterthan 1/45'in severallocations;
* accessibleroutesfrom siteanivalpointstothebuildingentranceshadnmning slopesexceeding5.0% withouttherequiredrnmpfeatures;
* routes from site arrival points to building entrances have steep, inaccessible crossslopesin variouslocations;
* routes from site arrivalpoints to building entrances have clzrb rnm ps w ith steepinaccessiblerunning slopesinvariouslocations;
* at least one designated accessible garage at each property had exterior m aneuvering space thatw asnotaccessible becauseitw as steeperthan the2% m axim um allow ed;
* routesto certain common areas (the dog park,playground equipment,or picnicareas)werenotvalidlyaccessible;
* walk-in closetdoors orfoyercoatclosetsin ground floordwelling tmitsdid notofferthem inim um specified 32''clearpassage;
* abruptlevelchangeswerepresenton theexteriorsideofthethreshold ofthe prim aryentrancedoortoground floortmits,higherthan 1/4''andnotbeveled withamaximlzm of1:2ratioslope;
* abruptlevelchanges atthe cap etto hard floortransition of firsttloorunits thatw erenotproperly beveled;
* in som eground floordwelling units,kitchensdidnothavethespecified 305'x 48''clearfloorspace becausethe sinkswere mounted too nearto the inside
corneroftheadjacentangledcotmterreturn;and
@ in some grotmd floor dwelling units,m aster bathrooms did not have the specitied 30''x 48''wheelchair m aneuvering space outside the in-swinging bath door.
See generally ECF No.53-1at69-78 (detailing violationsatAG-1I);ii at84-95 (detailing
violationsatAustonChase).W hileitistnzethatM r.Hecker'sreportdescribesmore- andlikely
moresevere- violationsatAuston Chasethan atAG-I1,seeLd..;ECF No.53-1,HeckerDecl.
!14-15(describing thathefound ççsimilar''instancesofinaccessiblefeattlresatAuston Chase
and ûtA bberly G reem ''butdescribing those atAuston Chase asbeing Stm ore sedous and m ore
pervasiveascomparedto Abberly Green.''),therearenonethelesssufticientsimilarviolations
thatajurycouldconcludethetwocomplexesconstituteapattem ofviolationscontinuinginto

thelim itationsperiod. Additionally,this isnota case where there wasa significantgap in time between the
designing and constnlction ofthe two complexes.lnstead,there was a minimalgap,ifany, between J.Davis'sinvolvem entin thetwo complexes.Asnoted supraatnote4,J.Daviswas contractually obligated to be involved in the construction of both complexes,and the last certiticate of occupancy w as granted atA G -II in D ecem ber 2007.Three m onths later,on or aboutM arch 19,2008,J.Davis'ssubm itted theAuston Chastarchitectm alplansto HUD.ECF
No.53-2,Ex.B,Decl.ofJnmesNicholson at!! 10-11. Presllmably,J.Davisworkedonthe
plansforsom etimepriortotheirsubm ission,and thusJ.Davism ay evenhadhad overlapping involvem entatthetw o com plexes.
In short,while theevidencetying the two complexestogetherto establish apattern or practice certainly could be stronger,thetypesofalleged violationsatthetw o com plexes,andthe
timingoftheirdesign andconstnlction,aresuftk ienttoallow ajlzryto concludethattheFHA
violationsatthe tw o com plexeswasa pattern orpracticeofviolationsby J.D avis,and thusthat the continuing violation doctrine properly could be applied to allow the AG-II Claim s.
Accordingly,the motion forpartialsummary judgmentis DENIED atthis time.Itl after
additionaldiscovery by the parties,J.Davis adduces additionalevidence thatlm dercuts any relationship between theallegedviolationsatthetwo complexes,itm ay filearenewed motion
forsummary judgmenton thisissue.Fornow,however,Plaintiffs have presented sufficient
evidencetocreateadisputeofm aterialfactontheissue.5
5In lightoftheCourt'srulingdenyingthemotionforpartialsummaryjudgmenttheCourtneednot
addressPlaintiffs'argumentthatthe motion hereism oreproperly addressed asamotion to dism issand thatPlaintiffshavehadaninadequateopportunity toconductdiscovery.

111. C O N CLU SIO N For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants' M otion for Partial
Sum m ary Judgm ent.ECF N o.51.
ENTER:This2.% ayofJanuary,2013. J
H on leJnm esC.Ttlrk SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudg
14

 
 U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:11−cv−00131−JCT

CLOSED

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. et al v. HHHunt Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge James C. Turk Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/17/2011 Date Terminated: 01/14/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc.

represented by Michael Gerhart Allen RELMAN, DANE &COLFAX, PLLC SUITE 600 1225 19TH STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036−2456 202−728−1888 Fax: 728−0848 Email: mallen@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Joseph Keary Relman, Dane &Colfax, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: tkeary@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.

represented by Michael Gerhart Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Joseph Keary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
HHHunt Corporation TERMINATED: 10/26/2012

represented by Allison Dana Balus BAIRD HOLM LLP 1700 FARNAM STREET 1500 WOODMEN TOWER OMAHA, NE 68102 402−636−8254 Fax: 402−344−0588 Email: abalus@bairdholm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins

Defendant Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Auston Chase I Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012

BAIRD HOLM LLP 1500 WOODMEN TOWER 1700 FARNAM STREET OMAHA, NE 68102 402−344−0500 Email: rwilkins@bairdholm.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore BAIRD HOLM LLP 1700 FARNAM STREET 1500 WOODMEN TOWER OMAHA, NE 68102 402−636−8268 Fax: 402−344−0588 Email: spmoore@bairdholm.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Defendant Auston Chase II Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Ashton Village Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant

represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership TERMINATED: 10/26/2012
Defendant HHHunt Property Management, Inc. TERMINATED: 10/26/2012

Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison Dana Balus (See above for address)

Defendant J Davis Architects, PLLC

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Douglas Wilkins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Parrish Moore (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher W. Stevens Woods Rogers PLC 10 S. Jefferson St., 14th Floor Roanoke, VA 24038−4125 540−983−7538 Fax: 540−983−7711 Email: cstevens@woodsrogers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/17/2011
03/21/2011 03/21/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership (Filing fee $ 350.), filed by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. 100 Day Notice due by 6/25/2011 120 Day Service due by 7/15/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tob) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
2 Notice of Filing Deficiency − Lack of Corporate Disclosure Statement as to National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. − Pursuant to Standing Order dated May 15, 2000, and the adoption of Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, effective December 1, 2002, nongovernmental corporate parties are now directed to file the above statement with their first appearance, pleading, motion or response. We ask that you comply with this rule change in the future. The corporate disclosure statement form is available on our public website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov. The form is located under forms on this web page. This form should be electronically filed in this matter within three (3) business days. (tob)
3 Summons Issued as to Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership.(tob)

03/23/2011 05/02/2011
12/28/2011 12/28/2011 12/28/2011

4 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Allen, Michael)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Ashton Village Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Auston Chase I Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Auston Chase II Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; HHHunt Corporation waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; HHHunt Property Management, Inc. waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011; Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership waiver sent on 3/31/2011, answer due 5/31/2011.(Allen, Michael)
6 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,, and Affirmative Defenses by Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership.(Balus, Allison)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Scott P. Moore by Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Scott P. Moore, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Balus, Allison)
8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ryan D. Wilkins by Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston

12/29/2011 12/29/2011 12/29/2011 12/29/2011
01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/03/2012

Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan D. Wilkins, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Balus, Allison)
9 ORDER granting 7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Scott Parrish Moore. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 12/29/11. (med)
10 ORDER granting 8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ryan Douglas Wilkins. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 12/29/11. (med)
11 Magistrate's Notice to counsel. (med)
12 Notice of Filing Deficiency − Lack of Corporate Disclosure Statement as to All Defendants − Pursuant to Standing Order dated May 15, 2000, and the adoption of Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, effective December 1, 2002, nongovernmental corporate parties are now directed to file the above statement with their first appearance, pleading, motion or response. We ask that you comply with this rule change in the future. The corporate disclosure statement form is available on our public website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov. The form is located under forms on this web page. This form should be electronically filed in this matter within three (3) business days. (med)
13 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
14 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
15 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
16 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
17 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
18 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
19 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
20 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
21 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Ashton Village Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
22 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Auston Chase I Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
23 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Auston Chase II Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
24 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
25 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
26 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
27 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by HHHunt Corporation. (Balus, Allison)
28 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by HHHunt Property Management, Inc.. (Balus, Allison)

01/03/2012 03/15/2012
03/19/2012 03/19/2012 04/05/2012 04/05/2012
04/09/2012 04/13/2012 04/13/2012 04/16/2012 04/16/2012 04/18/2012 06/20/2012

29 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership. (Balus, Allison)
30 Rule 26(f) Agreed Written Plan by Defendants Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael)
31 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 1/30/2013 01:30 PM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. (med)
32 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/30/2013 01:30 PM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. Discovery due by 10/31/2012 and whatever else as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 3/19/12. (med)
33 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,,,, and Add a Party Defendant by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael)
35 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership, filed by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc..(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
34 ORDER granting 33 Motion to Amend Complaint and Add a Party Defendant. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 4/9/12. (med)
36 Notice of Correction − to add party re 35 Amended Complaint. Attorney failed to add party defendant to amended complaint. (med)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. re 30 Rule 26(f)Agreed Written Plan, Rule 26(f)Agreed Written Plan, Rule 26(f)Agreed Written Plan, Rule 26(f)Agreed Written Plan, Rule 26(f)Agreed Written Plan (Allen, Michael)
38 Notice of Correction − Docket #38 deleted by clerk; incorrect document filed by attorney. Attorney to refile correct document. (med)
39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. re 35 Amended Complaint,,, (Allen, Michael)
41 Summons Issued as to J Davis Architects, PLLC.(med)
42 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. J Davis Architects, PLLC waiver sent on 5/29/2012, answer due 7/30/2012.(sas)

07/26/2012 10/25/2012 10/26/2012
10/29/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 12/14/2012 12/14/2012 01/07/2013
01/08/2013 01/14/2013 01/15/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 08/08/2013 08/16/2013

43 ANSWER to 35 Amended Complaint,,, by J Davis Architects, PLLC.(Stevens, Christopher)
44 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Allen, Michael)
48 STIPULATED JUDGMENT as to National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. against Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Crest−Lexington Park−Phase III Limited Partnership, Abberly Farms−Lexington Park−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly Green−Mooresville−Phase II Limited Partnership, Abberly Place−Garner−Phase I Limited Partnership, Abberly at West Ashley Limited Partnership, Ashton Pointe Property Limited Partnership, Ashton Village Limited Partnership, Auston Chase I Limited Partnership, Auston Chase II Limited Partnership, Auston Grove−Raleigh Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase I Apartments Limited Partnership, Auston Woods−Charlotte−Phase II Apartments Limited Partnership, HHHunt Corporation, HHHunt Property Management, Inc., Twin Hickory Apartments Limited Partnership. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 10/26/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1−3)(med) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
46 NOTICE of Hearing: Discovery Hearing via Conference Call set for 11/1/2012 11:00 AM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. (med) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
47 Notice of Correction − docket entry #45 deleted by clerk; incorrect defendant selected by clerk; to be redocketed. (med)
49 In Chambers Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James C. Turk: Status Conference held on 11/1/2012. No order forthcoming. (med)
50 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2013 10:00 AM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. (med)
51 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by J Davis Architects, PLLC. (Stevens, Christopher)
52 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 51 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by J Davis Architects, PLLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stevens, Christopher)
53 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of William Hecker, AIA, # 2 Affidavit of James Nicholson, # 3 Affidavit of Michael Allen)(Allen, Michael)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. re 53 Response in Opposition to Motion, Amended (Allen, Michael)
55 REPLY to Response to Motion re 51 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by J Davis Architects, PLLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Stevens, Christopher)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James C. Turk: Motion Hearing held on 1/15/2013 re 51 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by J Davis Architects, PLLC. Ruling forthcoming. (Court Reporter Sonia Ferris.) (sas)
58 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 1/29/13. (med)
59 ORDER denying 51 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 1/29/13. (med)
60 NOTICE of Hearing: Seven−Member Jury Trial set for 5/5/2014 09:30 AM,5/6/2014 − 5/9/2014 09:00 AM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. (sas)
61 Notice Rescheduling Hearing previously set for 5/5/14− 5/9/14 at 9:30 AM before Judge James C. Turk in Roanoke: Jury Trial reset for 8/11/2014 − 8/15/2014 09:30 AM in Roanoke before Judge James C. Turk. (med)

08/19/2013 09/09/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013
09/10/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013
10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/28/2013
10/28/2013 11/12/2013 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/15/2014

62 SCHEDULING ORDER and whatever as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 8/19/13. (med)
63 Notice of Correction − Docket entry #63 deleted by clerk; incorrectly filed by attorney. Document to be refiled by attorney. (med)
64 Notice of Correction − Docket #64 deleted; Attorney filed incorrect event; to be refiled. (med)
65 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael)
66 ORDER granting 65 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Keary. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 9/10/13. (med)
67 RETURN of service of subpoena duces tecum on 10/15/2013 upon WSP Usa Corp(Stevens, Christopher)
68 AFFIDAVIT of Service for subpoena duces tecum on Design Resource Group served on Jim Guyton on 08/29/2013, filed by J Davis Architects, PLLC.(Stevens, Christopher)
69 RETURN of service of subpoena duces tecum on 10/18/2013 upon Debbie Breon of Auston Chase(Stevens, Christopher)
70 RETURN of service of subpoena duces tecum on 10/18/2013 upon Debbie Breon of Abberly Green(Stevens, Christopher)
71 RETURN of service of subpoena duces tecum on 10/18/2013 upon Debbie Breon of HHHunt Corporation(Stevens, Christopher)
72 AFFIDAVIT of Service for subpoena duces tecum to Barry Rymer served on Andrew Rymer of Land Resource Design Group on 10/18/2013, filed by J Davis Architects, PLLC.(Stevens, Christopher)
73 RETURN of service of subpoena duces tecum on 10/24/2013 upon Harry H. Hunt, IV(Stevens, Christopher)
74 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 11/12/13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(med)
75 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 1/14/14. (med) (Main Document 75 replaced on 1/15/2014) (med).
76 Notice of Cancellation of 8/11/14 − 8/15/14 Jury Trial (No Interpreter requested) (med)
77 Notice of Correction − Document 75 replaced and regenerated to correct filing year. (med)