UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- ---- - ---- - - - - -- - --------- - - - --- - - - -- - - -
CORINNE VARGAS, KISHA TRENT, ANNIE SMITH and R.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

)(
Case No.

Plaintiffs,
v.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

TOWN OF SMITHTOWN,

Defendant.

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

---------------------------------------- x

Plaintiffs Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, and R.G. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their undersigned attorneys, make the following representations for judicial relief:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. By this housing discrimination action, Plaintiffs seek redress for ongoing exclusionary housing policies and practices by Defendant Town of Smithtown (the "Town" or "Smithtown" or "Defendant"). This action challenges Defendant's ongoing discriminatory acts and long-standing practice of unlawfully restricting the ability of Black and Hispanic individuals ("minority individuals" or "minorities") to obtain federally funded Section 8 rental assistance in Smithtown, New York. By making housing opportunities "unavailable" to minority individuals because of race, color, and national origin and other illegal and discriminatory acts, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982; the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
II. INTRODUCTION 2. This class action is brought by four low-income minority individuals in need of affordable housing who live and work near Smithtown, New York. The Plaintiffs applied for the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, a federal housing assistance program administered by Smithtown. They are on Smithtown's Section 8 waiting list to receive such housing vouchers, but are unlawfully being denied an opportunity to obtain a Smithtown Section 8 housing voucher because of their race, color or national origin. They are all United States citizens. 3. Plaintiffs bring this case to enjoin the racially and ethnically exclusionary Section 8 policies and practices that Smithtown has adopted. These policies and practices illegally deny equal access to housing and discriminate on the basis of race, color and national origin in violation of the United States Constitution and federal civil rights laws. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. 4. Since the Section 8 program's inception, Smithtown has included an absolute preference for Town residents regardless of their housing needs (the "residency preference"). This means that a person who does not live or work in Smithtown cannot receive a Section 8 housing voucher through Smithtown's Section 8 program, until every person on the waitlist who lives or works in Smithtown has received a voucher.
2

5. Smithtown's residents are overwhelmingly White and non-Hispanic (over 93%). This is a significantly greater percentage of White, non-Hispanic residents than in most towns in Suffolk County and on Long Island.
6. The residency preference and racial makeup of Smithtown operate to ensure that minorities rarely receive Section 8 housing vouchers from Smithtown.
7. In 1997, after a review of Smithtown's Section 8 program and these facts, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HVD") wrote a letter to Smithtown recommending that Smithtown rescind the residency preference because of its racially exclusionary effect. Smithtown ignored this recommendation.
8. Smithtown has relied on its residency preference and related practices to deny Section 8 housing vouchers to minorities. The Town has improperly managed its Section 8 program to ensure that the waitlist always has a sufficient number of White, non-Hispanic residents to prevent Section 8 vouchers from being given to minority nonresidents. In this and other ways, the residency preference has actually operated as a residency requirement.
9. For example, in the summer of 2006, when the number of White, nonHispanic residents on the Section 8 waitlist began to dwindle, the Community Development Corporation of Long Island ("CDCLI"), which manages the Smithtown program under a contract with Smithtown, reopened the waitlist at Smithtown's direction despite the fact that there were several hundred names on the waitlist at the time, a majority of whom were minorities. The decision to reopen the waitlist was in contravention of Smithtown's written policy indicating that the waitlist will not be reopened unless there are fewer than 100 names on the waitlist.
3

10. Further, when CDCLI reached the lottery number of a minority nonresident Plaintiff who applied to Smithtown's Section 8 program in the summer of 2006, CDCLI sent a letter to that Plaintiff stating that she "must reside or work within the Town of Smithtown in order to be eligible for this program."
11. Smithtown's use of the residency preference as a residency requirement, as evidenced by its waitlist reopening practices and this letter, is a plain violation ofHUD regulation 24 C.F.R. § 982.207(b)(1)(i)'s prohibition on residency requirements in Section 8 waitlists.
12. On October 24 and November 28,2007, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under the Law and individual attorneys wrote to the Smithtown Town Council with an offer to explore a mutually acceptable resolution to these discriminatory practices without the burden of litigation. Smithtown refused this offer.
13. Because of these illegal policies and practices, Plaintiffs cannot compete for federally funded Section 8 vouchers on an equal basis with White, non-Hispanic applicants. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been and will continue to be deprived of the full opportunity to receive a fair share of Section 8 rental assistance as required by federal law.
14. Smithtown's actions violate: a) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; b) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; c) The Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982;
4

d) The Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983; and e) The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to: a) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States; b) 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which grants jurisdiction over cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; and c) 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a), because Smithtown's actions violate Plaintiffs' federal statutory rights to fair housing.
16. Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), because Smithtown is a municipality located within this jurisdiction and the events giving rise to the claims arose in this district.
IV. PARTIES 18. Plaintiff Corinne Vargas is a low-income, Hispanic woman who currently rents a home in Central Islip, New York in Suffolk County. Her current rent is subsidized by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services ("DSS") SHARP Program.
5

19. Ms. Vargas lives with her two minor children. Her oldest child is disabled. She was born with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. She is quadriplegic, uses a wheelchair, and requires constant assistance.
20. Ms. Vargas originally moved to New York from Florida for a job in Bellport, New York in Suffolk County. She missed work on several occasions in order to care for her daughter and was eventually fired from her job. Ms. Vargas has been unable to find employment that will allow her to care for her children. She remains the sole caregiver for her family.
21. As a result oflosing her job, Ms. Vargas and her family became homeless. In December 2005, they entered a homeless shelter located in Suffolk County, where they lived until August 2006.
22. While at the homeless shelter, Ms. Vargas applied for Smithtown's Section 8 program when the waitlist reopened in the summer of 2006. CDCLI informed her at that time that her waitlist number was 79.
23. On December 12, 2007, Ms. Vargas received a letter from CDCLI dated December 6, 2007 stating that the Smithtown Section 8 program was now able to serve her. The letter advised that she was scheduled for a meeting with CDCLI on January 8, 2008 to determine her eligibility.
24. The letter further indicated in bold, highlighted language that she "must reside or work within the Town of Smithtown in order to be eligible for this program."
25. Upon information and belief, Ms. Vargas currently qualifies for a Section 8 voucher notwithstanding this purported residency requirement, which is a plain
6

violation of HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. § 982.207(b)(1)(i)'s prohibition on residency requirements in Section 8 waitlists.
26. Plaintiff Kisha Trent is a low-income, African-American woman with two minor children. Ms. Trent rents a house in Shirley, New York in Suffolk County with a friend. Ms. Trent is currently responsible for her portion of the rent. She was previously receiving rent assistance from the Suffolk County Shelter Supplement Program ("SSP").
27. Ms. Trent became homeless approximately two years ago. She entered a homeless shelter in Suffolk County in spring 2006. While living there, she applied for a Section 8 housing voucher from Smithtown when the waitlist reopened in the summer of 2006. In early October 2006, she received a letter from CDCLI stating she was number 140 on the waitlist. She has received no further communications from Smithtown or CDCLI regarding the program and has not received a voucher. Upon information and belief, Ms. Trent currently qualifies for a Section 8 voucher.
28. Plaintiff Annie Smith is a low-income, African-American, disabled woman who currently resides with her adult child in Selden, New York in Suffolk County. Over the past five years, Ms. Smith has lived for periods of time in homeless shelters, including in Suffolk County. Ms. Smith's primary source of income during this time has been federal disability benefits through the Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") program.
29. Ms. Smith applied for a Section 8 housing voucher from Smithtown when the waitlist reopened in summer 2006. In October 2006, she received a letter from CDCLI stating that she was number 205 on the Smithtown waitlist. She has received no
7

further communications from Smithtown or CDCLI regarding the program and has not received a voucher. Upon information and belief, Ms. Smith currently qualifies for a Section 8 voucher.
30. Plaintiff R.G. is a low-income, Hispanic woman who currently lives in Suffolk County with her two minor children. She lived with her children in a homeless shelter in Suffolk County after she fled from her husband who physically abused her. She is identified in this lawsuit only by her initials because she is a victim of domestic violence and fears that her abuser will find and hurt her.
31. Some ofR.G.'s rent is currently paid by DSS under the SHARP program. However, R.G. has received notice that DSS is planning to halt her payments under this program. She is currently awaiting her opportunity for a fair hearing.
32. R.G. applied for a Section 8 voucher from Smithtown when the waitlist reopened in summer 2006. In October 2006, she received a letter from CDCLI stating she was number 324 on the Smithtown waitlist. Upon information and belief, R.G. currently qualifies for a Section 8 voucher.
33. Defendant Town of Smithtown is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal offices located at 99 West Main Street, Smithtown, New York 11787. It is located in Suffolk County within the Eastern District of New York. The Town is governed by the Town Supervisor and the Town Council. Smithtown's Section 8 Voucher Program is supervised by the Town Planning and Community DeVelopment Department. All references to defendant Town include any individual or entity acting on behalf of, or under the authority derived from, the Town.
8

34. As of the 2000 Census, the Town had a population of approximately 116,000. This population was 93% White, non-Hispanic, 1% African-American, and 3% Hispanic.
35. By comparison, Suffolk County's overall population as of 2000 was 79% White, non-Hispanic, 7% African-American, and 11 % Hispanic.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 36. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). 37. The class that the individual Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of: All Black and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work inside Smithtown, New York and who applied to or will apply to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program or who were or will be on the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program waitlist.
38. This class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. There are at least 150 minorities currently on the Smithtown Section 8 waitlist who have been harmed by Smithtown's discriminatory Section 8 Voucher Program policies and practices. The future minority applicants who will also be discriminated against are innumerable.
39. There are questions of law or fact common to all members of the class who are harmed by Smithtown's residency preference and exclusionary application procedures.
40. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of each class member they seek to represent.
41. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of each class member. The named Plaintiffs are all minorities who do not reside or work in Smithtown and who have applied to and are currently on the waitlist for Smithtown's
9

Section 8 Voucher Program. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under the Law and individual attorneys who are experienced in representing persons or classes of people in disputes of this nature and who will vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiffs know of no conflict of interest among class members.
42. Smithtown has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to class members; namely, Smithtown has adopted Section 8 residency preferences and practices that discriminate against or harm all members of the class.
43. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. FACTS The Section 8 Program
44. Congress established the Section 8 Existing Housing Program, which is the largest rent-subsidy funding source of the federal government, as part of the Housing and Community DeVelopment Act of 1974, P.L. 93-383, Title II, § 201(a), 88 Stat. 663, 662-66, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 11437f and Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Pub. L. Number 100-242 § 143, 101 Stat. 1814, 1850 (1988), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (0). Its purpose is to aid low-income families in obtaining decent places to live through the use of vouchers to subsidize their rent in the private market.
45. Low-income families and individuals may apply for Section 8 at any public housing agency ("PHA") in New York when the waiting lists are open. Each PHA's Section 8 program is open to all applicants, not just local residents.
10

46. PHAs have some discretion to prioritize or award admission "preferences" to applicants for the Section 8 program. This discretion is limited by federal housing laws, federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution.
47. With Section 8 rental assistance, renters pay approximately 1/3 of their incomes for rent, and the PHA, with federal funding, pays the remaining amount of rent to landlords. PHAs must administer this program within rules prescribed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HVD").
48. The Section 8 program is in many respects superior to other programs that offer rent payment assistance to low-income, including homeless, people in Suffolk County. Section 8 pays a higher percentage of rent and allows higher total rents per apartment than other programs available in Suffolk County, which increases the opportunities for Section 8 recipients to rent decent and affordable housing throughout the county.
49. A wider range of low-income households in varying circumstances are eligible for Section 8 vouchers than are eligible for other rental assistance programs in Suffolk County. This is because the Section 8 program has higher income eligibility limits than other programs available in Suffolk County, which allows families to obtain higher paying jobs while still remaining eligible for the Section 8 subsidy.
50. Likewise, a household may receive Section 8 rental assistance without losing food stamps. The other rental assistance programs in Suffolk County reduce food stamp benefits.
11

51. Furthermore, unlike some other rental assistance programs in Suffolk County, the Section 8 program is not time-limited. Households that receive a Section 8 voucher may continue to use it for as long as they meet the Section 8 criteria.
52. Although other rental assistance programs in Suffolk County are limited to that county, Section 8 vouchers are also portable, meaning that existing voucher holders have the right to move to any community where a PHA administers a voucher program.
53. Unlike other rental assistance programs available in Suffolk County, Section 8 voucher holders are guaranteed certain federally protected procedural and substantive due process rights. For example, Section 8 voucher holders cannot be evicted because the government erred in a rent payment, whereas recipients of other rental assistance programs available in Suffolk County can be evicted based on the county's non-payment of rent.
54. In addition, one subsidy administered by DSS, the SHARP award, is not even an official government subsidy; instead, it is a subsidy award resulting from an ongoing lawsuit that the court could choose to terminate at any time.
55. For these and other reasons, the Plaintiffs prefer to receive a Section 8 voucher rather than a subsidy from other Suffolk County rental assistance housing programs and are harmed by their inability to receive a Section 8 voucher because of their race, color, or national origin. Smithtown's Discriminatory Section 8 Residency Preference
56. Since at least 1985, Smithtown has participated in the federal Section 8 program. This program is funded by the federal government through HUD.
12

57. Smithtown's voucher program is supervised by the Town of Smithtown Planning and Community Development Department ("PCDD") and its administration is subcontracted to the Community Development Corporation of Long Island. CDCLI is a non-profit organization that subcontracts with various municipalities to administer their Section 8 programs according to the towns' administrative plans and instructions.
58. Since Smithtown began participating in the Section 8 program, it has utilized a residency preference for Town residents in the allocation of Section 8 vouchers. Pursuant to this preference, when an opening for a Section 8 voucher occurs, those who live or work in Smithtown are served before non-residents, irrespective of the length of time the non-residents have been waiting for a voucher.
59. Because Smithtown is approximately 93% White, non-Hispanic this preference has the effect of making Smithtown Section 8 vouchers effectively unavailable to minorities.
60. As of July 16, 2006, Smithtown had issued 102 Section 8 vouchers, 92 of which were held by White, non-Hispanic households, 7 of which were held by Black households, and 2 of which were held by Hispanic households. In contrast, minorities made up more than half of the then-current waitlist.
61. The discriminatory impact of the residency preference was known to Smithtown since at least 1997. In 1997, HUD's office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ("FHEO") conducted a review of Smithtown's housing programs, including its Section 8 program. It found that the demographics of the then-current Section 8 voucher holders "strongly suggest[ed] that the residency preference has a decided impact
13

on the lack of minority participation in and placement" in the Section 8 program. HUD therefore recommended that Smithtown rescind the residency preference.
62. Smithtown nonetheless continues to use the residency preference. Smithtown's Intentionally Discriminatory Operation of the Section 8 Program
63. To ensure that Section 8 programs are operated in a consistent and lawful manner, HUD requires that localities develop written Administrative Plans that set forth program eligibility rules, waitlist management policies, affirmative marketing efforts to ensure that underrepresented populations have program access, and other topics. In addition, in order to ensure that Section 8 programs are operated in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or other federally impermissible bases, HUD requires localities to adopt and implement an Affirmative Marketing Plan.
64. Smithtown operates its Section 8 program to intentionally prevent minorities from receiving Section 8 vouchers.
65. Smithtown's Affirmative Marketing Plan states that it will reopen its Section 8 waitlist only "when there are fewer than 100 applicants on the waitlist." In July 2006, there were at least 300 applicants remaining on Smithtown's Section 8 waitlist. However, in direct contravention of its Affirmative Marketing Plan, Smithtown reopened its Section 8 waitlist to solicit and accept additional applications on July 17, 2006.
66. Smithtown decided to reopen its Section 8 waitlist at a time when the proportion of White, non-Hispanic individuals on the waitlist was dropping. According to Smithtown's Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2005, the waitlist was over 2/3 White and less than 1/3 Black and Hispanic at that time. However, by July 2006, when Smithtown
14

decided to reopen the waitlist, White, non-Hispanic, individuals had decreased from more than 2/3 to less than 1/2 of the waitlist.
67. Smithtown also decided to reopen the waitlist at a time when the number of minorities receiving vouchers was increasing. Prior to the reopening of the waitlist in July 2006, nine of the total 102 Section 8 voucher holders in Smithtown were held by minorities. Yet, four of these nine minority voucher holders, or slightly less than 50% of those minority vouchers holders, received their vouchers between January and July of 2006. Thus, the six-month period before the reopening of the waitlist in July 2006 sustained a significant growth in the absolute number of vouchers issued to minorities by Smithtown.
68. Moreover, as of 2006, the Town's Affirmative Marketing Plan stated that reopening of the Section 8 waitlist would be advertised in Newsday, a publication that broadly reaches potential White, non-Hispanic and minority applicants. However, Smithtown ignored its obligation to advertise in Newsday, and instead limited its newspaper advertising to the publications that are likely to have a predominantly White, non-Hispanic readership.
69. In addition, instead of informing low-income minorities of the opportunity to apply for Section 8 vouchers, Smithtown recruited more White, non-Hispanic residents into its Section 8 program by targeting its outreach efforts towards applicants on existing waitlists for other Smithtown programs and other Section 8 waitlists with Smithtown residents.
70. Smithtown also intentionally discouraged minorities from applying to its Section 8 program through public representations that applicants were required to live or
15

work in Smithtown to be eligible for the program. For example, outreach letters advertising the Smithtown Section 8 program included language that the Section 8 program "provides a rental subsidy voucher to help low-income families, who live or work in the Town of Smithtown, with housing costs."
71. Likewise, e-mails sent to advertise the program to other towns and housing authorities stated in bold type that "preference will be given to families who reside in or whose head of household (or spouse) is employed in the Town of Smithtown. "
72. Furthermore, upon information and belief, shortly after closing the waitlist in 2006, the Town caused a form letter to be sent to applicants on the waitlist who had not yet received a voucher stating that if they did not confirm their current addresses they would be taken off the waiting list. This letter was inconsistent with Smithtown's policy stated in its Affirmative Marketing Plan that existing applicants will not be removed or required to reapply when the waitlist is reopened. This letter also included a reminder that applicants would receive a Section 8 voucher from Smithtown only after every Smithtown resident on the waitlist had received one.
73. In continuation of its efforts to purge non-resident minorities from the waitlist, CDCLI sent a letter to Plaintiff Vargas on December 6, 2007 indicating that even though it had reached her waitlist number, she would be ineligible to receive a voucher unless she lived or worked in Smithtown.
16

Smithtown's Long History of Racial Discrimination in Housing and Failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
74. Smithtown must certify compliance with the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing in its Section 8 program in both its 5-Year Plan and the Annual Plan. To be in compliance with this requirement, Smithtown must, at a minimum, examine and identify any impediments to fair housing choice within its Section 8 program, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available, and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
75. The plain numbers indicate that Smithtown's residency preference restricts the ability of Blacks and Hispanics to obtain Section 8 vouchers from Smithtown. Any analysis of Smithtown's residency preference would identify it as an impediment to fair housing.
76. Further, an independent HUD review of Smithtown's Section 8 program in 1997 revealed that the residency preference was an impediment to fair housing and recommended that Smithtown rescind the residency preference because of its racially exclusionary effect.
77. In derogation of its affirmative fair housing obligations, Smithtown continues to use the residency preference with clear knowledge of its racially exclusionary effect.
78. In derogation of its affirmative fair housing obligations, Smithtown decided to reopen the waitlist in July 2006, when the proportion of White, non-Hispanic individuals on the waitlist was dropping and the number of minorities receiving vouchers
17

was increasing, to prevent other minorities on the waitlist from receiving Section 8 vouchers.
79. In derogation of its affirmative fair housing obligations, Smithtown has limited the advertisement of the reopening of its Section 8 program to a narrow set of publications less likely to be read by potential minority applicants.
80. In derogation of its affirmative fair housing obligations, Smithtown discouraged minorities from applying to its Section 8 program through its public representations that applicants were required to live or work in Smithtown to be eligible for the program.
81. In derogation of its affirmative fair housing obligations, Smithtown sent letters to minority non-residents on the waitlist indicating that living or working in Smithtown was an eligibility requirement for the Town's Section 8 voucher program.
82. In addition to its use of a discriminatory residency preference and/or requirement in its Section 8 housing program, Smithtown has shown hostility toward minorities seeking housing in Smithtown for decades, in a variety of ways. These have included, but are not limited to, oppos ition to affordable and subsidized housing in Smithtown, and a long-standing history of violence against minorities looking for housing in the Town.
83. There are few rental housing opportunities, specifically opportunities that are affordable to low-income renters, in Smithtown. The housing stock in the Town is 87% owner-occupied and 13% renter-occupied compared to the countywide level of 80% owner-occupied and 20% renter-occupied housing.
18

84. Minorities disproportionately rely upon those limited number of rental units in Smithtown when seeking housing as compared to White, non-Hispanic persons. Thirty-three percent of Blacks and 28% of Hispanics in Smithtown live in rental units compared to 13% of White, non-Hispanics in the Town.
85. In 1971, the Smithtown Christian Interfaith Council and the local Smithtown NAACP chapter organized a series of meetings with the Smithtown Town Board to discuss developing a housing authority that could oversee the development of much-needed low- and moderate-income housing. The Board unanimously rejected such proposals citing the "pride of ownership" lacking in low-income housing projects.
86. At the time, Board member Robert Brady explained that he was sympathetic to low-income individuals but "the problems we now have have been created by the new people who have moved here. The only way to solve our problems is if (they) get on (their) bicycles and move back to Jamaica."
87. A 1978 study of Smithtown conducted by the Smithtown branch of the American Association of University Women found that the lack of adequate low-income housing blocked lower-income, minority families from finding homes or apartments in Smithtown.
88. In 1996, Councilwoman Jane Conway advocated for maintaining strict density requirements that would restrict the development of apartments in Smithtown. At a public meeting on the matter, she said: "I do not want Smithtown to turn into a community similar to that of Western Nassau or Queens." Both of these communities have much higher minority populations than Smithtown does.
19

89. In 2004, an editorial in a local newspaper noted that the opposition of local officials to affordable housing appeared to be racially based: "It seems they feel that the township is 'off limits' to certain racial and ethnic groups." The editorial also indicated that one councilperson had recently suggested that affordable housing affects only minorities, such as Hispanics.
90. Upon information and belief, Smithtown is the only town in Long Island not to have asked the Long Island Housing Partnership, an affordable-housing advocacy group, to assist with the development of affordable housing in the Town. Long Island Housing Partnership has helped develop 3,000 affordable-housing units in other communities on Long Island since being incorporated in 1988.
91. Upon information and belief, Smithtown is also the only town in Suffolk County not to participate in the Workforce Housing Commission, which was created to confront the mounting affordable-housing crisis facing Long Island's workforce. The mission of the Commission is to promote new rental and ownership housing opportunities through the development of various programs and incentives that encourage an expansion of workforce homes in Suffolk County.
92. Not only has Smithtown rejected affordable rental opportunities that may attract new minority residents, it has been consistently hostile to the extremely small percentage of minorities who have been successful in finding residence within the Town.
93. Continuing through at least the 1980s, some Black Smithtown residents were subjected to cross burnings and home arsons that were reported publicly.
94. In 1995, a real estate agent received a death threat for selling a home to an African-American couple. The seller of the home received similar threats.
20

95. On a Halloween night in the mid-1990s, the Trinity A.M.E. Church in Smithtown was vandalized. The windows were broken, eggs were thrown on the building, and the words "Go away nigger" were spray-painted on the outside of the church.
96. In 2004, minority residents had bricks thrown through their windows and received threatening phone calls and intimidating notes.
97. In 2005, an African-American woman and her family moved away from Smithtown after they received mail on which their last name was replaced with racial epithets and a typed message stating "Where's Hitler when you need him?" Their neighbors received mail in which their last name was replaced with the word "Niggerlovers."
98. Within the last 10 years, the Ku Klux Klan identified Smithtown as a potential source of new members and, among other things, proposed that it have a member-recruitment rally at a Smithtown-area mall.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) 99. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein. 100. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program make unavailable and deny rental housing because of race, color and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
21

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) 101. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein. 102. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of a dwelling because of race, color, and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983
103. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
104. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program violate the Town's duty to administer HUD programs in a manner so as to affirmatively further fair housing under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d) and (e)(5), Executive Order 11063,27 Fed. Reg. 11527 (November 20, 1962), Executive Order 12892, 59 Fed. Reg. 2939 (January 20, 1994) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1981
105. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
22

106. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program deny minority persons the same rights as are enjoyed by White citizens to make and enforce contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1982
107. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
108. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program deny minority citizens the same rights as are enjoyed by White citizens to lease, hold and otherwise enjoy real property in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, 42 U.S.c. § 1983 109. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein. 110. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program deny minority persons the equal protection of the law by discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin in the leasing of real property, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
111. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
23

112. Defendant's residency preference and practices in connection with the Section 8 program exclude minorities from participation in the federally funded Section 8 program in Smithtown, deny minorities the benefits of this federally funded program, and discriminate based on race, color, and national origin, in administration of this federally funded program in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
a) Assume jurisdiction of this case; b) Certify the class as requested by the Plaintiffs; c) Declare that the Defendant's actions violate the Federal Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982; the Civil Rights Act 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Civil Rights Act 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; d) Enter a permanent injunction forbidding the Defendant from utilizing residency preferences in its Section 8 program; e) Award such equitable relief so as to place the Plaintiffs and members of the Class in the position they would have been in but for the Defendant's impermissible conduct, including, but not limited to, the issuance of Section 8 vouchers and other remedial measures;
24

t) Award remedial relief in the form of damages to compensate the Plaintiffs and members of the Class;
g) Award the Plaintiffs and members of the Class their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 42 U.S.C. § 1988,42 U.S.C. § 3613(c); and
h) Grant the Plaintiffs and members of the Class such additional relief as justice may require.

December 13, 2007

Philip L. Gti am, Jr. (PG-5028) Stacey R. Friedman (SF-8877) Tyler J. Smith (TS-0878) Robin Nunn (RN-1908) 32nd Floor 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000
Joseph D. Rich* Nicole Birch* LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Avenue NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 662-8331
*Pro hac vice admission to be sought

25

 
 Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 365

C.::J:>f~ 2·07-cv-Ob202 JS-VVDVV Document 41

F1led 06130/2009 Page 1 of 7

PRELIMINARY ORDER. FQR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------
CORINNE VARGAS, KISHA TRENT, ~IE SMITH and R.G., on behalf of themselves and all oth~ similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

X
Case No. 07-CV-5202 (JS)(WDW)

v.

TOWN OF SMITHTOWN, Defendant.
---------------------------------------- X

PRELIMINARY ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION The parties to the above-captioned matter (the "Action"), having applied for an Order determining certain matters in connection with the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), in accordance with their Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 4, 2009 (the "Stipulation"), and for dismissal of the Action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, the tenns and definitions of which are incorporated herein by reference;

NOW, upon consent of the parties to the Action (collectively, the ''Parties'') and

on behalf of the Class as defined below, after review and consideration of the Stipulation filed

with the Court and the Exhibits aiUlexed thereto. and after due deliberation,

::Julj , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _j_ day of

2009, that:

I. The Court preliminary approves a settlement class of all African-American and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work in Smithtown, New York and who

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 366
Filed 06/30/2009 Page 2 of 7
applied to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program in 2002 or 2006 when the waitlist was opened and who subsequently were or would have been determined not eligible for the Program because they did not live or work in Smithtown. 2. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing'') shall be held on August 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Long Island Courthouse, I 00 Federal Plaza, Central !slip, New York 11722, to: 1. detennine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests ofplaintiffs in the Action ("Plaiotiffs'1 aod all merubers of the class (the "Class"), which is all African-American and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work in Smithtown, New York and who applied to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program in 2002 or 2006 when the waitlist was opened and who subsequently were or would have been determined not eligible for the Program because they did not live or work in Smithtown; and 2. rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. 3. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, including the consideration of Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement ofexpenses, without further notice of any kind other than oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof. 4. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing with such modification as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Class. 5. The Court approves the appointment ofBerdon Claims Administration LLC as Claims Administrator.
2

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 367 Cnse 2 07~cv~Ot.J202~JS-WOW Document 41-2 F1led 06/30/2009 Page 3 of 7
6. Within 5 days of the entry of this Order, Smithtown shall provide the Claims Administrator with its 2002 and 2006 Section 8 waitlists, including the names, addresses, and social security numbers ofindividuals on those waitlists.
7. The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to locate each individual who has been on the 2002 or 2006 waitlist for the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program and shall within 45 days of the entry of this Order cause a Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, and Settlement Hearing (the ''Notice") to be mailed by United States mail to the current address of such individuals, or, if the current address cannot be determined, the last known address of such individuals.
8. The Claims Administrator shall also provide notice to Long Island housing organizations as identified in Exhibit C to the Stipulation.
9. The form and method of the Notice specified herein: (a) is the best notice practicable; (b) shall constitute due notice of the Settlement Hearing to all entitled to receive such a notice; and (c) meets the requirements of Rule 23{e){l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to the Settlement Hearing, counsel for the Town shall file with the Court an appropriate affidavit with respect to the joint preparation of the Notice and the provision to the Claims Administrator of the 2002 and 2006 Section 8 waitlist.
10. Any member of the Class ("Class Member") may appear at the Hearing, in person or through counsel of his, her or its choice, to show cause why (i) the Settlement should not be approved, (ii) a judgment dismissing the Action on the terms contained in the Stipulation should not be entered, or (iii) the Plaintiffs' attorneys
3

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 368 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 4 of 7
should not be awarded their requested attorneys• fees and expenses. No Class
Member shall be heard, or be entitled to object to or otherwise contest the
foregoing, unless such class member, no later than August 14,2009, has filed
with the Clerk of the Court and served on each of the following counsel:
Stacey Friedman 32nd Floor 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Tel: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588
David Amtsen Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP 50 Route 111 Smithtown, NY 11787 (631 )724-8833
a written statement of all of such Class Member's objection(s) and all of the
grounds or reasons for such objection(s), including any briefs or affidavits in
support of such objection(s), and a statement indicating whether such Class
Member intends to appear at the Hearing, together with the
following information:
1. the name, address and telephone number of the Class Member and his, her or its counsel, if any;
2. the approximate date on which the Class Member applied for the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program; and
3. the race and ethnicity of the Class Member.
1. Any Class Member who does not file and serve a timely objection in the marmer provided herein shall be deemed to have waived any objection such Class Member might have had, and shall forever be barred, in these proceedings or in any other proceeding, from making any objection to or otherwise challenging the Settlement, the Stipulation or any provision thereof, the judgment dismissing the Action, the application and award of
4

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 369
2 07~cv~05202~JS~WDW Document 41~2 Fried 06/3012009 Page 5 of 7
attorneys' fees and expenses or any other proceedings herein, and shali have no right to appeal therefrom. 4. Any Class Member may opt out of the settlement by sending a letter via first-class mail, postmarked no later than August 14, to Smithtown Housing Discrimination Litigation, c/o Berdan Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, stating that the Class Member wants to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Vargas v. Smithtown, No. 07-CV-5202 and including the following information: a. Name; b. Address; c. Telephone number; and d. Signature. 5. If the Settlement, including any amendment made in accordance with the Stipulation, does not obtain Final Approval (as defined in the Stipulation) or does not become effective for any reason whatsoever, the Settlement and any actions taken or to be taken in connection with the Settlement (including this Order and any judgment created herein) shall be terminated and shall become void and of no further force and effect. In any such event, neither the Stipulation, nor any provision contained in the Stipulation, nor any action taken pursuant thereto, shall be deemed to prejudice in any way the respective positions of the Parties. Additionally, the Parties shall be restored to their respective positions as if the Stipulation never existed, and neither the existence of the Stipulation nor its contents shall be admissible in evidence or shall be referred to for any purpose in the Action or in any other litigation or proceeding and shall not entitle any party
5

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 370
Casu 2 Ol~cv~OS202~JS-VVOW Document 41-2 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 6 of 7
to recover from any other party any costs or expenses incurred in connection with the implementation of the Stipulation. 6. All proceedings in the Action. other than proceedings as may be necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Settlement, are hereby stayed and
suspended until further order of this Court. Pending final determination of
whether the Settlement should be approved, Plaintiffs and all members of the Class are barred and enjoined from commencing. instituting, prosecuting, instigating or continuing, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution ofany action asserting any Settled Claims, either directly, individually, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity against any of the Class, and are barred and enjoined from challenging the Settlement (other than in this Action in accordance with the procedures established by the Court). 7. The Stipulation and all negotiations, statements and proceedings in connection therewith shall not in any event be construed as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession by any Defendants or Plaintiffs or the Class, as defined in the Stipulation: (a) regarding the validity of the Settled Claims; or (b) of any fault, wrongdoing, omission or liability whatsoever. The Stipulation and all negotiations, statements and proceedings in connection therewith shall not be offered or received in evidence against any of the Parties, or, upon entry of this Scheduling Order, any Plaintiff or Class Member, in any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to conswnmate or enforce the Settlement, the releases executed pursuant thereto,
6

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/01/09 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 371
Case 2:0/-cv--05202-JS-WDW Document 41-2 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 7 of 7

and/or the Judgment Order. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Stipulation and the Exhibits hereto may be filed in any subsequent action brought against any Defendants or Plaintiffs or Class Member in order to support a defense or counterclaim by any Defendants or Released Persons of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction or any other theory of claim or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.

SO ORDERED.
f, o""'' :TvL, I ,2009
Central Islip, New ork

)~1 :TOANNA SEYBERT

mAN¥ ~HONORABLE

SEY=B=E::cRT=-

~ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

 
 Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------
CORINNE VARGAS, KISHA TRENT, ANNIE SMITH and R.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

X
Case No. 07-CV-5202 (JS)(WDW)

v.

TOWN OF SMITHTOWN, Defendant.
---------------------------------------- X

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE This Stipulation of Settlement and Consent Decree ( "Stipulation" or "Settlement") is submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Subject to approval of the Court, this Stipulation is entered into by and between Named Plaintiffs Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, and R.G. in the above-captioned Action for themselves and on behalf of the Class they represent, as defined below (together, "Plaintiffs"), on the one hand, and the Defendant Town of Smithtown (hereinafter referred to as the "Town", "Smithtown" or "Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, on the other hand (together, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, on December 13, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (the "Complaint"), which alleges claims against Smithtown for discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in administering the Smithtown Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (hereinafter referred to as "Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program") in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982; the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 156
Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
WHEREAS, Smithtown has denied, and continues to deny any and all liability for the claims alleged in the Complaint, but believes that the Stipulation is in its best interest to: (a) avoid further expense; (b) dispose of potentially burdensome and protracted litigation; (c) finally put to rest all claims the Plaintiffs may have arising from or relating to the allegations in the Complaint; and (d) support its continued effort to affrrmatively further fair housing.
WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in arm's-length negotiations with the assistance of Court-approved mediator Lela Love, and have agreed to the Stipulation, the terms of which are entirely set forth herein.
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Stipulation furthers their mutual goal of promoting non-discriminatory distribution of Section 8 housing vouchers and ensuring that any residency preference utilized in the provision of housing benefits does not result in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and among the Parties, through their respective attorneys, subject to approval of the Court, that all claims, as defmed below, shall be compromised, settled, released, and dismissed with prejudice, upon and subject to the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, as follows:
SECTION I DEFINITIONS
1. As used herein the following terms shall have these meanings: a. "Action" shall mean Vargas et al. v. Town ofSmithtown, No. 07-CV-5202 (JS)(WDW), pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and any and all cases now or hereafter consolidated therewith. -2-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 157
b. "Smithtown Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program" or the "Program" means the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, as provided by 24 C.P.R.§ 982, administered by Smithtown.
c. "Defendant" or "Smithtown" shall mean the Town of Smithtown and its directors, officers, agents, employees, former employees, attorneys, and predecessors.
d. The term "minority," as used herein, means Mrican-Americans and Hispanics. SECTIOND STIPULATION NOT AN ADMISSION
2. This Stipulation and all negotiations, statements and proceedings in connection therewith shall not in any event be construed as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession by Smithtown or Plaintiffs or any member of the Class: (a) regarding the validity of the Settled Claims; or (b) of any fault, wrongdoing, omission or liability whatsoever. This Stipulation and all negotiations, statements and proceedings in connection therewith shall not be construed as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission or concession that Smithtown, Plaintiffs, or, upon entry of the Preliminary Order, any Class member, has or has not suffered any damage in connection with this Action. This Stipulation and all negotiations, statements and proceedings in connection therewith shall not be offered or received in evidence against any of the Parties, or, upon entry of the Preliminary Order, any Class member, in any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce the Settlement, the releases executed pursuant thereto, and/or the Judgment Order. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Stipulation and the Exhibits hereto may be filed in any subsequent action brought against Smithtown in order to support a defense or counterclaim by Smithtown of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement,
-3-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 158
judgment bar or reduction or any other theory of claim or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.
SECTION III CONDITIONS TO FINALITY OF THE SETTLEMENT
This Settlement shall be final when each of the following conditions in this Section have been satisfied or waived by written agreement of the Parties.
3. Court Approval. The Settlement shall have been approved by the Court, as provided for in this Section. As soon as practicable following the signing of this Stipulation, the Parties shall jointly request that the Court enter an order and judgment approving this Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated hereunder. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith, which shall include taking all steps and making all efforts contemplated by this Stipulation that are reasonably necessary to secure preliminary and fmal approval by the Court of the Settlement, and any other steps or efforts which may become necessary by order of the Court (unless such order materially modifies the terms of this Stipulation), to carry out this Settlement Agreement, including the following:
a. Preliminary Approval of Settlement. As soon as reasonably possible upon the full execution of this Stipulation by the Parties, Plaintiffs will request that the Court enter a preliminary order of approval substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the "Preliminary Approval Order").
b. Class Certification. The Plaintiffs have asserted that the Action should be certified as a class action as defmed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes and to effectuate this Stipulation.
-4-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 159
Defendants will not object to such certification on the terms set forth in this Stipulation only and for no other purpose than as set forth herein.
c. Issuance of Class Notice. On the date and in the manner set by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, the Plaintiffs shall cause the Class Notice to be transmitted in the form and manner approved by the Court as directed in the Preliminary Approval Order.
d. The Fairness Hearing. Upon entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Parties contemplate that the Court will schedule and then conduct a hearing at which the Court will determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate (the "Fairness Hearing"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs will request that the Court make a fmal determination, on or after the date of the Fairness Hearing concerning the following: (i) whether the Notice methodology met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable laws; (ii) whether to enter judgment finally approving the Settlement (which judgment is referred to herein as the "Final Order"); (iii) whether the distribution of the Settlement Fund as provided in the Plan of Allocation should be approved; and (iv) what legal fees, compensation and expenses should be awarded to Class Counsel, and to Named Plaintiffs, as contemplated by Section XVIII of this Stipulation.
4. Final Approval. The approval by the Court of the Settlement proposed in this Stipulation shall be considered final ("Final Approval") upon the occurrence of all of the
-5-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 160
following events: (a) this Settlement is approved in all material respects by the Court and (b) the Court enters the Final Order, and the time to appeal or seek permission to appeal from any portion of the Final Order has expired, or, if appealed, the Final Order has been affirmed in its entirety by a court of last resort to which an appeal has been taken and the affirmance is no longer subject to further appeal or review.
SECTION IV RELEASE
5. Subject to the approval of the Court, any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, rights, liabilities, damages, losses, obligations, judgments, suits, matters, and issues of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, that have been or could have been asserted in this Action or in any court tribunal, or proceeding (including, but not limited to, claims of discrimination in housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982; the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), and any related charges or complaints, including all statutory, tort, contract or other claims which were or might have been asserted by Plaintiffs or on their behalf in any suit, grievance, charge of discrimination (whether federal, state or local) by or on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs or any members of the Class, and/or their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, against the Town of Smithtown and/or its directors, officers, agents, employees, former employees, attorneys, successors, and predecessors which Named Plaintiffs or any member of the Class ever had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have by reason of, arising out of, relating to or in connection
-6-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 161
with the allegations, facts, events, transactions, acts, occurrences embraced, involved, set forth or otherwise related, directly or indirectly, to the allegations in this Action (the "Settled Claims") shall be compromised, discharged, settled, released, and dismissed with prejudice upon and subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Stipulation. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the releases set forth in this Stipulation will remain in effect during the pendency of any appeal. Only if any appeal results in a reversal or vacation of the Final Order will the releases set forth in this Stipulation become void and lose their effect.
6. For avoidance of doubt, the Settled Claims include, without limitation, any unknown claims relating to or arising from the allegations in this Action that could have been brought in this Action which any Named Plaintiffs or Class member does not know or suspect to exist at the time of this Stipulation but which, if known, might have affected the decision to enter into this Stipulation. Named Plaintiffs acknowledge, and all Class members by operation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion in the Settled Claims of all unknown claims was separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement.
SECTIONV CLASS
7. The Parties shall use best efforts to have the Court certify a settlement class (the "Class") consisting of:
All African-American and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work in Smithtown, New York and who applied to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program in 2002 or 2006 when the waitlist was opened and who subsequently were determined not eligible for the Program because they did not live or work in Smithtown.
-7-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 162
SECTION VI EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
8. Defendant agrees to provide information in reasonable detail to all of its current employees and agents, including the Community Development Corporation of Long Island employees, involved with the Program regarding the requirements of non-discrimination set forth in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, and of the Defendant's policy of equal housing opportunity. The purpose of such action is to ensure that all such employees and agents of the Defendant understand and implement the policy of the Defendant's Section 8 voucher and affordable housing-related services in accordance with objective, non-discriminatory criteria.
9. Defendant agrees that within 120 days of signing of this Stipulation it will provide mandatory training (the "Training") to all of its current employees and agents involved with the Program, which shall cover the requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act, applicable local fair housing laws, Defendant's policy of equal housing opportunity, and the policies, operation, methods, and procedures governing the Program. The Training shall be provided to any new employee involved in the Program within 30 days of the start of their involvement in the Program. The Training shall be repeated every three years for all of Defendant's employees and agents involved in the Program. The first Training shall be provided by the Fair Housing Justice Center, at Smithtown's expense. Any subsequent trainings shall be provided by Smithtown.
10. At least 10 days prior to each presentation of the Training, Defendant shall provide a detailed summary of the Program to the Lawyers' Committee. Defendant agrees to make any reasonable changes to the content of the Training proposed by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (hereinafter "Lawyers' Committee"). The Lawyers'
-8-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 163
Committee shall also be entitled to observe any provision of the Training identified in the above paragraph.
11. Within sixty (60) days of the signing of this Stipulation, the Parties shall draft a mutually agreeable "Equal Opportunity Housing Statement," which shall then be attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit B. Defendant shall provide to all employees and agents who attend the Training a copy of the statement. Each employee who receives a copy of the statement shall sign an acknowledgment that he or she has read it and agrees to act in accordance with it. The acknowledgment shall state that the breach or failure to observe the guidelines in Defendant's "Equal Opportunity Housing Statement" will subject the employee or agent to disciplinary action, as would the breach of any duty or responsibility of his or her employment.
SECTION VII AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING
12. Defendant shall affirmatively market the Section 8 Program to minority persons during the term of this Stipulation. Compliance with this term of the Stipulation shall be deemed fulfilled by faxing a copy of every advertisement placed by the Defendant or notice sent by the Defendant, five (5) days prior to the date of its publication, to the Lawyers' Committee.
SECTION VIII ADVERTISING
13. Defendant shall inform the public of its non-discriminatory policies and its desire to serve all persons in a considerate and professional manner with respect to the Section 8 Program by displaying the local and federal fair housing posters at all offices where it conducts business, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Part 110.
-9-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 164

14. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the signing of this Stipulation, the

Defendant shall add to stationery, applications, and forms used in the Program a notice that the

defendant is committed to "equal housing opportunity."

15. Defendant shall include an equal housing opportunity slogan or logo in all future

newspaper or other printed advertising according to the following HUD standards:

Size of Advertising

Size of Logo or Slogan

112 page or larger 118 page to 112 page 4 column inches to 118 page Non-newspaper ad

2 inches x 2 inches 1 inch x 1 inch Y2 inch x Y2 inch proportionate to above standard

a. Alternatively, should the Defendant choose to use the equal housing opportunity slogan in 24 C.F.R. Part 109, such slogan shall be printed in typeface comparable in size to the other print in the advertisement.

b. For newspaper advertisements of less than four (4) column inches, the Defendant may include the phrase "equal housing opportunity" in place of the logo or slogan. All such slogans or logos shall be included in newspaper and other printed advertisements within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Stipulation.

16. Defendant shall comply in all of its advertising with the federal fair housing

advertising regulations issued by HUD. See 24 C.F.R. Part 109.

17. Other than the requirements agreed to above, Defendant shall place or retain a

statement of non-discrimination and equal opportunity policies on all Section 8 Program

materials.

18. Defendant shall provide individuals who receive or apply for Section 8 vouchers

with materials regarding fair housing laws and their rights.

19. Defendant shall continue its Section 8 affirmative advertising plan and shall

broaden its advertisement of Section 8 waitlist openings, including, at a minimum, in periodicals

and newspapers with general readership, such as Newsday, and minority publications and news

-10-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 165
sources that are likely to reach potential minority applicants in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In addition, Smithtown shall provide notification of waitlist openings to organizations agreed upon by the Parties, including, but not limited to, those identified in Exhibit C. Prior to any reopening of the waitlist, Smithtown will notify the Lawyers' Committee, which will provide updates to the list in Exhibit C. The Parties shall act in good faith and use reasonable efforts to agree upon specific provisions in the Town's affirmative advertising plan as part of the Stipulation. The Town shall submit this plan to HUD for review as required.
SECTION IX PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM
20. Defendant, on its own behalf and on behalf of those persons and entities over whom it has authority or control, agrees to the following:
a. It shall administer the Section 8 voucher program in a manner that makes vouchers available on an equal basis without regard to race, color, or national origin, in compliance with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. as provided by the terms of this Stipulation and its administrative plan.
b. It shall communicate with all prospective applicants or applicants concerning the availability and the requirements for obtaining a Section 8 voucher in Smithtown concisely and on an equal basis without regard to such person's race, color, or national origin.
c. It shall not enter into any agreement or contract that will require it to undertake obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation.
21. Defendant shall not retaliate against any person who has asserted rights under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, or under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.
22. Within sixty (60) days of the signing of this Stipulation, Defendant shall provide the Lawyers' Committee with a written description of the operating policies with respect to the
-11-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 166
Program, which shall then be attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit D. That description shall be consistent with the components set forth in the following paragraphs of this Section.
23. The Program shall be implemented, made available, and marketed to all persons in the geographic areas in which it is offered without regard to race, color, national origin, or residency status.
24. Defendant shall use uniform methods to inform all prospective applicants and applicants, without regard to race, color, national origin, or residency status, about the availability of the Program, the application procedures, the methods and procedures for distributing vouchers, and about the defendant's equal housing opportunity policy.
25. Defendant shall revise its Section 8 Administrative Plan (the "Plan") with respect to the operation of the Section 8 waitlist to ensure that it complies with civil rights and the fair housing law, and accurately reflects the terms of this Stipulation. In revising the Plan, Smithtown shall remove any language regarding a residency preference in the Section 8 application form, in any correspondence it has with applicants on the waiting list, and in any advertising or any other public documents describing the selection process for vouchers. Each reopening of the waitlist shall be for at least a one-month period. The Plan shall be revised to reflect that no applicant shall be removed from the waitlist unless (1) the applicant requests that his or her name be removed; (2) the applicant fails to respond to two written requests for information that indicate that a failure to respond may result in removal from the waiting list; (3) the applicant misses three scheduled appointments; or (4) the applicant does not meet Section 8 federal program eligibility criteria. Further, the Plan shall be revised to reflect that a voucherholder who does not have a domicile within the Town (and is therefore not statutorily guaranteed portability rights) shall make a diligent search for housing in Smithtown during the initial60-day
-12-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 167
term of the voucher, and shall document said search. If the voucher-holder is not able to locate suitable housing within Smithtown during that initial term, the voucher-holder shall be granted full portability rights. The Town shall resubmit this Plan to HUD for review as required.
26. Defendant may revise the methods and procedures of its Program at any time, provided they remain consistent with the terms and conditions of this Stipulation. The Defendant shall notify the Lawyers' Committee of any modification of the terms and conditions of the Program which are effective at any point during which this Stipulation is in effect.
27. After completion of the remediation provided for in Section XII, the Defendant, in administering the remainder of the 2006 waitlist, may use a residency preference whereby vouchers are awarded to eligible applicants in the order they appear on the Section 8 waitlist on a "one resident" to ••one non-resident" basis, i.e., alternating between the next eligible resident who receives a voucher followed by the next eligible non-resident who receives a voucher.
28. At the implementation of the residency preference and at each reopening of the Section 8 waitlist, the Town will examine its residency preference to ensure that:
a. The operation of the preference will not result in a selection rate for minority applicants that is less than four-fifths of what the selection rate would be expected to be for African-American and Hispanic applicants without consideration of a residency preference.
b. In the event that the makeup of any new waitlist is such that the current procedures will not result in that agreed selection rate, the process will be adjusted to require the selection of sufficient non-residents to achieve this result.
-13-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 168
SECTION X MONETARY SETTLEMENT
29. Defendant and/or its insurers shall pay Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($925,000) ("Settlement Fund") in consideration for settlement of the Settled Claims. The Settlement Fund shall be paid into an escrow account (the "Escrow Account") established and maintained by Berdon Claims Administration LLC (the "Escrow Agent"). Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) shall be paid into the Escrow Account within ten (10) business days following the date on which Plaintiffs' counsel provides the Defendant with written details of the Escrow Account number and routing information. Thereafter, within five (5) business days following entry of the Final Order and Judgment by the Court, the remaining Eight Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($895,000) shall be paid into the Escrow Account. The following shall be paid from the Settlement Fund: (a) any fees and expenses awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel by the Court, (b) any taxes, fees, and expenses associated with the Escrow Account, (c) costs and expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator in providing notice of the Settlement to Class members and administering the distribution of funds, and (d) as set forth herein, distributions to the members of the Class.
30. The Settlement Fund and all funds held by the Escrow Agent in connection with the Settlement shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such time as the funds shall be distributed. The Parties hereto agree that the Settlement Amount and all funds held by the Escrow Agent in connection with the Settlement (the "Escrow Property") is intended to be a Qualified Settlement Fund within the meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1 and will cooperate fully to have such Qualified Settlement Fund treatment apply to the Escrow Property as of the earliest possible date.
-14-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 169
SECTION XI CLAIMS AD:MINISTRATION
31. Plaintiffs designate Berdon Claims Administration LLC as Claims Administrator who, as provided by this Section, shall be responsible for (i) identifying potential Class members, (ii) providing notice of the settlement to potential Class members, (iii) making determinations as to the eligibility of potential Class members for distributions from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Plan of Allocation attached hereto as Exhibit E, and (iv) instructing the Escrow Agent to make distributions to Class members as provided by the Plan of Allocation.
32. The Parties shall work in good faith to provide the Claims Administrator a copy of any information necessary for administration of this settlement, promptly following execution of this Stipulation and as requested by the Claims Administrator thereafter.
33. As soon as reasonably practical, the Claims Administrator shall take reasonable steps to identify the current addresses or other contact information for potential Class members, which shall include all individuals on the Program waitlists from 2002 and 2006 through the present or who applied in this period. The Claims Administrator shall use the information described in the above paragraph, as well as public or proprietary databases, to conduct a reasonable search for the current address or other contact information of potential Class members.
34. Within forty-five (45) days following Preliminary Approval of the settlement, the Claims Administrator shall notify Class members of the settlement in a form substantially the same as that attached as Exhibit F. That notice will provide (i) an indication that Class members may be entitled to monetary compensation, (ii) a description of the class, (iii) the procedures by
-15-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 170
which Class members should apply to receive their monetary relief. Class members shall have one hundred fifty days (150) to send their application for relief following the date of the Fairness Hearing. For avoidance of doubt, applications for relief postmarked on the one hundred fiftieth day following the date of the Fairness Hearing shall be accepted as timely. The Claims Administrator shall review applications to determine whether each applicant is a member of the Class entitled to a distribution pursuant to the plan of distribution in accordance with the Plan of Allocation. The Claims Administrator shall complete the review of claims applications within six (6) months after the close of the application period.
35. The Claims Administrator, in its discretion, shall determine whether or not a person or group of people qualify as Class members entitled to monetary relief pursuant to the Plan of Allocation. It shall distribute the Escrow Property pursuant to the Plan of Allocation attached as Exhibit E.
SECTION XII PROVISION OF HOUSING VOUCHERS
36. Defendant shall give immediate priority for Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith and R.G. to receive the next available Section 8 housing vouchers, provided that at the time this Stipulation is executed they are eligible to receive a voucher. These vouchers shall be provided to them at no cost. Compliance with this term of the Stipulation shall be fulfilled by Defendant executing a mutually agreed upon voucher agreement between Smithtown and each Named Plaintiff.
37. The Town shall place the non-resident applicants for Section 8 vouchers, who were on the waitlists created in 2002 and 2006 and whose numbers have already been passed over, at the top of the current waitlist in the order they would have been assigned based on their
-16-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 171
original waitlist numbers. The Town shall also make reasonable attempts to identify and contact the non-resident applicants who were on the 2002 and/or 2006 waitlists who are not currently on the waitlist and restore those non-resident applicants to the current waitlist in the manner indicated by this paragraph.
38. The individuals added to the existing waitlist as described in this Section shall be served prior to the Town serving any other applicant on the waitlist and without regard to any residency preference.
SECTION XIII RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
39. Defendant shall maintain and preserve records, including but not limited to the records relating to the Program and all complaints of discrimination, beginning with the date hereof and continuing for the duration of this Stipulation, and shall make this information available for inspection by the Lawyers' Committee upon written request and at a mutually convenient time and place, but not more frequently than once every six months.
40. The Town shall provide reports annually to the Lawyers' Committee detailing the data collected pursuant to its record keeping responsibilities.
41. The Town shall also notify the Lawyers' Committee each time the waitlist is reopened during the life of the Stipulation.
SECTION XIV TERM OF STIPULATION AND COMPLIANCE REPORT
42. This Stipulation shall continue in force from the date on which it is approved by the Court until ten (10) years thereafter. Within ninety (90) days after approval of this Stipulation, Smithtown shall file a compliance report with the Court which enumerates the steps
-17-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 172
they have taken to implement the provisions of the Stipulation. Such report shall also be served on Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter during the term of the Stipulation, such reports shall be filed with the Court and served on Plaintiffs' counsel annually on January 1st. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the duration of this Stipulation.
SECTION XV FINAL ORDER
43. If, following distribution of the Notice pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation or the Court's Order and a Settlement Hearing as provided for in the Notice, the Court certifies the Class and approves the Settlement (including any modification thereto made with the consent of the Parties as provided herein) as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Class, the Parties shall jointly request that the Court enter an Order and Final Judgment substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G.
SECTION XVI DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
44. If approval of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") is required for implementation of any term of this Stipulation, the Town will institute all terms for which HUD approval is not required within a reasonable period of time, but not longer than ninety (90) days after the date of Final Approval, and will submit all other terms for HUD approval within a reasonable period of time, but not longer than ninety (90) days after the date of Final Approval.
45. In the event HUD indicates to either Party its disapproval or opposition to material items in this Settlement, Plaintiff agrees to cooperate and work with Defendant to
-18-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 173
overcome such disapproval or opposition. In the event such disapproval or opposition is not overcome, Plaintiffs or Defendant shall have the right to terminate the Settlement.
SECTION XVII TERMINATION
46. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Stipulation by providing written notice to the other Party of its election to do so within thirty days of any of the following: (a) the Court declining to approve the Settlement in any material respect; (b) disapproval by HUD as indicated in paragraphs 44 and 45; or (c) any other event that would preclude Final Approval. If this Stipulation is terminated or fails to become effective for any reason, each Party shall be restored to its respective position as if this Stipulation had never existed, and neither the existence of this Stipulation nor its contents shall be admissible in evidence or referred to for any purpose in this Action or any other litigation or proceeding.
SECTION XVIII ATTORNEYS' FEES
47. If the Settlement provided herein is approved by the Court, Plaintiffs intend to make an application to the Court for an allowance of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in prosecution of this Action in the amount of $200,000, to be paid out of, not in addition to, the Settlement Amount. Smithtown will not oppose the fee and expense application of Plaintiffs as described in this paragraph. Ten days after entry of the Judgment Order, the Escrow Agent identified in paragraph 29 of this Stipulation shall pay the attorneys' fees and expenses as ordered by the Court into an account (the "Fee Account") established and controlled by counsel for Plaintiffs.
-19-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 174
48. The payment to Plaintiffs' counsel of attorneys' fees into the Fee Account is subject to the obligation of Plaintiffs' counsel to refund to the Escrow Account the entire amount of the fees paid into the Fee Account plus accrued interest at the rate paid on the Fee Account by the financial institution holding it within five business days of any of the following occurrences: (a) Final Approval as defined herein is not achieved or reasonably achievable for whatever reason; or (b) the Stipulation is voided by any of the Parties or otherwise terminated as provided herein.
SECTION XIX EFFECT OF RELEASE
49. The release contemplated by this Stipulation extends to claims that Named Plaintiffs, for themselves or on behalf of the Class, do not know or suspect to exist at the time of the release, which if known, might have affected the decision to enter into this release. Upon entry of the Judgment Order, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class shall be deemed to: (a) waive any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of the United States or any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which governs or limits a person's release of unknown claims; and (b) relinquish, to the full extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. 50. In addition, upon entry of the Judgment Order, Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Class, also shall be deemed to waive any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code§ 1542. Plaintiffs
-20-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 175
acknowledge that they or members of the Class may discover facts in addition to or different from those that they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of this release, but that it is their intention, as Plaintiffs and on behalf of the Class, to settle and release-fully, finally, and forever-any and all claims released hereby, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which now exist, or heretofore existed, or may hereafter exist, without regard to the subsequent discovery of such additional or different facts.
SECTION XX FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
51. Pending the Court's consideration of the Settlement, the Parties agree that they will not engage in any further proceedings in this Action other than those incident to the Settlement. The Parties further agree to use their best efforts to prevent the entry of any interim or fmal relief in favor of any member of the Class in any other litigation against any of the Parties to the Stipulation that challenges the Settlement or otherwise involved a Settled Claim.
52. The Parties will request the Court order that, pending Final Approval of the Settlement, Named Plaintiffs and all members of the Class shall be barred and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, instigating, continuing, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any Settled Claims, either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity against Smithtown or challenging the Settlement (other than in this Action in accordance with the procedures established by the Court).
SECTION XXI MISCELLANEOUS
53. For avoidance of doubt, the Parties agree that the terms of this Stipulation shall apply to Smithtown, its employees, directors, officers, agents, related municipalities, successors,
-21-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 176
assigns and administrators, including the Community Development Corporation of Long Island employees to the extent they are acting as agents of or at the direction of Defendant.
54. As soon as practicable after signing of this Stipulation, the Parties shall prepare a joint statement for public release that will disclose in reasonable detail the terms of this Stipulation and shall otherwise keep the terms and conditions of this agreement confidential, subject to (a) disclosures and approvals that must be made to and obtained from HUD and/or the Court, and (b) those terms that will be made a part of the Smithtown Section 8 Program Administrative Plan.
55. The titles used in this Stipulation are non-substantive descriptions included solely for the Parties' ease of reference and shall not be construed to alter the substantive provisions of this Stipulation.
56. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of this Stipulation, except that any extensions of the time that relate to providing Notice to the Class shall be so ordered by the Court.
57. This Stipulation constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and may only be amended or any of its provisions waived by a writing executed by all Parties hereto.
58. This Stipulation, and all rights and powers granted hereby, will bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective agents, executors, heirs, successors and assigns.
59. Any failure by any of the Parties to insist upon the strict performance by any other Party of any of the provisions of this Stipulation shall not be deemed a waiver of any of the provisions hereof, and such Party, notwithstanding such failure, shall have the right thereafter to
-22-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 177
insist upon the strict performance of any and all of the provisions of this Stipulation to be performed by such other Party.
60. This Stipulation may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when such counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Parties. Signed signature pages of this Stipulation may be delivered by electronic or facsimile transmission, which will constitute complete delivery without any necessity for delivery of original, signed signature pages in order for this Stipulation to constitute a binding agreement.
61. This Stipulation shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of law provisions thereof. Any action to enforce or challenge the provisions of this Stipulation shall be filed exclusively in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
62. The Parties and their attorneys agree to cooperate fully with one another in seeking the Court's approval of this Stipulation and the Settlement, and to use their best efforts to effect, as promptly as practicable, the consummation of this Stipulation and the Settlement provided for hereunder and the dismissal of the Action, including any and all complaints filed in the Action, with prejudice and without costs to any Party.
-23-

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 31 Filed 03/04/09 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 178

63. The Parties recognize that questions may arise as to whether Defendant is

fulfilling its obligations as set forth herein. In the spirit of common purpose and cooperation

which occasioned this Stipulation, the Parties agree to try to resolve such disputes informally

before applying to the Court for resolution of any issue.

AGREED:

Dated: March 4, 2009 New York, New York

Is/ David H. Amtsen Jeltje deJong David H. Amtsen (DA-7472) Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP 50 Route 111 Smithtown, NY 11787 (631)724-8833
Attorneys for Smithtown

tlip L. G aham, Jr. (PG-5028) Stacey R. Friedman (SF-8877) Tyler J. Smith (TS-0878) Robin Nunn (RN-1908) 32nd Floor 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000

Joseph D. Rich Karlo Ng LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CNIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 662-8331

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-24-

 
 Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 49 Filed 08/28/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 723

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------·····················-·········
CORINNE VARGAS, KISHA TRENT, ANNIE SMITH and R.G., on behalfofthemselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

X
Case No. 07-CV-5202 (JS)(WDW)

v.

TOWN OF SMITHTOWN, Defendant.
·········-··•••••••••··················· X

ORDERANP FINAL JUDGMENI A Hearing (the ''Hearing'') having been held before this Court on August 28, 2009, pursuant to this Court's Order, dated July 1, 2009 (the "Scheduling Order''), on the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 4, 2009 (the "Stipulation''), and on the application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the Plaintiffs' attorneys as set forth in their fee application; and due and sufficient notice ofthe Hearing was given in accordance with the Scheduling Order; the respective parties having appeared by their respective attorneys, and such attorneys having been heard; all persons objecting having been heard in opposition to the Settlement and the fee application; the Court having heard and considered the matters, including all papers filed in connection therewith and the oral presentations of counsel; and the Court having made its findings offact and conclusions oflaw as set forth below:

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 49 Filed 08/28/09 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 724
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Capitalized tenns used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Action and personal jurisdiction over the Parties.
3. This action is properly maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure for the class of"all African-American and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work in Smithtown, New York and who applied to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program in 2002 or 2006 when the waitlist was opened and who subsequently were or would have been detennined not eligible for the Section 8 Voucher Program because they did not live or work in Smithtown" (the "Class'').
4. The form and manner of notice given to the Class, as previously approved preliminarily by the Court in the Scheduling Order, are hereby determined to have been the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive such notice in compliance with the provisions ofRule 23(e) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and the requirements ofdue process. A full opportunity has been offered to Class Members to object to the Settlement and the fee application and to participate in the Hearing.
5. The Plan of Allocation is approved as fair and reasonable, and Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator are directed to administer the Stipulation in accordance with its terms.

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 49 Filed 08/28/09 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 725
6. The Settlement, and all transactions preparatory or incident thereto, are found to be fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests ofall Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and the Settlement is hereby approved. The Parties are hereby authorized and directed to comply with and to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.
7. This Order and Final Judgment shall not constitute any evidence or admission by any party to the Action that any acts of wrongdoing have been committed by any ofthe Parties and should not be deemed to create any inference that there is any liability therefor.
8. The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Smithtown, without costs except as provided in the Stipulation. Any and all claims, demands, rights, actions or causes ofaction, liabilities, damages, losses, obligations, judgments, suits, matters and issues ofany kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, that have been or could have been asserted in this Action, by or on behalf ofPlaintiffs or any and all ofthe members ofthe Class, whether individual, class, derivative, representative, legal, equitable or any other type or in any other capacity against Smithtown, which Plaintiffs or any and all members ofthe Class ever had, now have or hereafter can, shall or may have by reason of, arising out of, relating to or in connection with the allegations, facts, events, transactions, acts, occurrences, or any other matter, thing or cause whatsoever, or any series thereof, embraced, involved, set forth or otherwise related, directly or indirectly, to the allegations in this Action (collectively, the "Settled Claims'') shall be discharged, settled, released and dismissed with prejudice upon and subject to the terms and conditions ofthe Stipulation.

Case 2:07-cv-05202-JS-WDW Document 49 Filed 08/28/09 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 726

t 9. CoWISel for Plaintiffs are hereby awarded $ .;{ 0 ():;7()

for

attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in the prosecution ofthe Action, which fees the Court finds to

be fair and reasonable and which shall be paid to counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with the tenns

ofthe Stipulation.

10. Jurisdiction is hereby retained for all matters relating to the Action, including the interpretation, effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation, the Settlement and this Order and Final Judgment.

11. There is no reason for delay in the entry of this Order and Final Judgment,
and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is directed pursuant to Rule 54{b) ofthe Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
~oplica h01 ~. 1l'l:? Cieri"; 0~ +h:?
I 'so ORDERED. +h~ mct..f+e'" ct ">.-d ·
Dated: ~~ 4k ~15 ,2009 Central !all , New York

-I.)/

JOANNA - .....-''

SEYBERT -

...

 
 PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 13, 2007

Contact: Joe Rich 202-662-8331

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against the Town of Smithtown, New York to Halt a Discriminatory Residency Preference in its
Section 8 Housing Voucher Program

SMITHTOWN, NY – A class action on behalf of Black and Hispanic persons seeking federally assisted housing vouchers was filed against the Town Smithtown, New York in Suffolk County on December 13, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and individual attorneys who have committed to provide their services on this matter pro bono publico. The lawsuit challenges the use of a residency preference for allocation of Section 8 vouchers by Smithtown, alleging that it has the intent and effect of discriminating against minorities in the allocation of Section 8 Housing Vouchers in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Smithtown maintains an absolute preference for Town residents, meaning that a person who does not live or work in Smithtown cannot receive a Section 8 housing voucher through Smithtown’s Section 8 program until every person on the waitlist who lives or works in Smithtown has received a voucher. Because Smithtown is overwhelmingly white (over 93%), the result of Smithtown’s residency preference is that Section 8 housing vouchers are effectively unavailable to minorities.

According to Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee, “Smithtown’s decision to exclude minorities from its Section 8 program results in government sponsored housing segregation.” She further stated that “cases such as this one are critical to our mission of eradicating segregationist housing policies and fostering residential racial integration.”

The complaint filed alleges that in implementing the discriminatory residency preference, Smithtown has improperly managed its Section 8 program to ensure that the waitlist always has a sufficient number of white residents to preclude Section 8 vouchers from being given to minority non-residents. For example, according to the complaint, in 2006, after a steep decline in the number of whites on the Section 8 waitlist and a corresponding increase in the amount of minorities obtaining vouchers, Smithtown reopened its Section 8 waitlist and engaged in a targeted advertising campaign to recruit more white residents and to avoid serving the approximately 150 minorities on the waitlist patiently awaiting the chance to receive a Section 8 voucher.

“Nearly four decades ago after passage of a federal fair housing law prohibiting discrimination, the Town of Smithtown continues to dispense federal housing vouchers by giving preference to local white residents,” said Diane Houk, Executive Director of the Fair Housing Justice Center. She added, “The legal challenge brought today by African Americans and Latinos puts all

suburban communities on notice to discontinue their use of local residency preferences that discriminate on the basis of race and national origin.”
The complaint further alleges that Smithtown’s residency preference and related discriminatory Section 8 practices and policies are part and parcel of Smithtown’s extensive history of racially exclusionary housing practices, such as the Town’s decades-long opposition to affordable housing, which it fears might attract and enable minorities to move to Smithtown. The Town’s discriminatory management of its Section 8 program is also emblematic of its significant history of racism toward the very few minorities who have been successful in finding residence within the Town, including cross burnings, vandalisms, and other intimidating notes, threats and tactics directed at minorities living in the Town and nonminorities who sell or rent to them.
The lawsuit seeks an order declaring that the residency preference violates the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws and enjoining Smithtown from utilizing the preference in their Section 8 programs.
For a copy of the complaint, please visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

 
 CLOSED,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−05202−JS−WDW

Vargas et al v. Town of Smithtown Assigned to: Judge Joanna Seybert Referred to: Magistrate Judge William D. Wall Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Mediator Lela P. Love

Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Date Terminated: 08/28/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Lela P. Love Benjamin Cordozo Law School 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 212−790−0365 Fax: 212−790−0256 Email: love@ymail.yu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Corinne Vargas

represented by Nicole Birch Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Avenue, Nw Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8303 Fax: 202−783−5113 Email: nbirch@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 10/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Philip L Graham Sullivan & Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−558−3842 Fax: 212−558−3588 Email: grahamp@sullcrom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin Linnett Nunn Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−558−4166 Fax: 212−558−3326 Email: nunnr@sullcrom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacey Friedman Sullivan & Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−558−4000

Plaintiff Kisha Trent
Plaintiff Annie Smith

Fax: 212−558−3588 Email: friedmans@sullcrom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Joseph Smith United States Attorneys Office Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 718−254−6186 Email: tyler.smith@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole Birch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip L Graham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Linnett Nunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Joseph Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole Birch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip L Graham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Linnett Nunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
R.G. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Joseph Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole Birch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip L Graham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Linnett Nunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Joseph Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Town of Smithtown

represented by Jeltje DeJong Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP 50 Route 111 Smithtown, NY 11787 631−724−8833 Fax: 631−724−8010 Email: J.dejong@devittspellmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David H. Arntsen Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP 50 Route 111 Smithtown, NY 11787 631−724−8833 Fax: 631−724−8010 Email: d.arntsen@devittspellmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/13/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (Receipt # 347207) against Town of Smithtown $ 350, filed by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/13/2007 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/03/2008 01/03/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/10/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008 02/05/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 02/08/2008 03/03/2008
03/19/2008 03/20/2008
05/01/2008 05/02/2008

Summons Issued as to Town of Smithtown. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
Case Ineligible for Arbitration (Bollbach, Jean) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeltje DeJong on behalf of Town of Smithtown (aty to be noticed) (DeJong, Jeltje) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
3 STIPULATION extending defendant's time to answer or move to January 17, 2008 by Town of Smithtown (DeJong, Jeltje) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
ORDER TO ANSWER re 3 Stipulation filed by Town of Smithtown. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Town of Smithtown answer due 1/17/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/3/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Tyler Joseph Smith on behalf of Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (notification declined) (Smith, Tyler) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Robin Linnett Nunn on behalf of Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (notification declined) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. Town of Smithtown served on 12/14/2007, answer due 1/17/2008. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
7 STIPULATION re 1 Complaint Time to Move or Answer Extended to February 5, 2008 by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
ORDER TO ANSWER re 7 Stipulation. The Stipulation is adopted and So Ordered. Town of Smithtown answer due 2/5/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/11/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Town of Smithtown. (DeJong, Jeltje) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Robin Nunn on Behalf of Nicole Birch Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 02070000000002778764. by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Robin Nunn in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit 2 Affidavit of Nicole Birch, # 3 Exhibit 3 (Proposed) Order Admitting Nicole Birch Pro Hac Vice, # 4 Exhibit 4 Certificate of Service by Regular Mail) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
Email Notification Test − DO NOT REPLY (Mahon, Cinthia) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave for Nicole Birch to Appear pro hac vice, contingent upon her payment of the required fee and registration for ECF. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 2/8/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: An Initial Conference will be held on April 3, 2008. See attached for additional orders. Any request to adjourn this conference must be filed as a letter motion and must provide alternative dates agreeable to all parties. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/3/08. (Attachments: # 1 WDW Individual Rules) (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
11 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference on consent of all parties by Town of Smithtown. (DeJong, Jeltje) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
ORDER granting 11 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The Initial Conference scheduled for 4/3/08 is adjourned to 5/2/08 at 10:30 a.m. If the parties believe that a settlement conference would be helpful, they should contact the court. Any request to adjourn the 5/2 conference must be made as a motion, with alternative dates acceptable to all parties set forth. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/20/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
12 Proposed Scheduling Order by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Initial Pretrial Conference held on 5/2/2008 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

05/02/2008 07/16/2008 07/17/2008 08/19/2008 08/21/2008 08/22/2008 09/10/2008
09/12/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008
09/23/2008 09/25/2008 10/02/2008

13 ORDER: The court adopts and so orders the parties' proposed scheduling order 12 . The pretrial conference will be held on 4/23/09. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 5/2/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
14 STIPULATION of Confidentiality and (Proposed) Protective Order by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 14 Stipulation filed by Kisha Trent, R.G., Annie Smith, Corinne Vargas. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 7/17/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
15 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney For Plaintiffs by Nicole Birch by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Birch, Nicole) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
16 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Scheduling Order by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
ORDER re 16 Stipulation filed by Kisha Trent, R.G., Annie Smith, Corinne Vargas. The Stipulation/Proposed Scheduling Order is So Ordered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 8/22/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
17 MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. By 9/24/08, Counsel are to select a Mediator, schedule the first mediation session, and electronically file (ECF) and confirm in writing to the ADR Administrator, Gerald P. Lepp, the name of the mediator, and the date, time, and place of the first mediation session. For a list of the EDNY Mediators and their qualifications, see the Court's website at "www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr". The Confidentiality Stipulation which is attached to this notice is to be signed at the mediation session by all participants, including the mediators, and sent by FAX (718) 613−2368 to the ADR Administrator. In accordance with Administrative Order 2004−08 (as of August 2, 2004) electronic filing became mandatory in the Eastern District of New York for all cases (pro se cases are excluded). (Luo, Xue) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
18 STIPULATION Regarding Mediation and (Proposed) Order by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 18 Stipulation filed by Kisha Trent, R.G., Annie Smith, Corinne Vargas. The terms of the Stipulation are so ordered, to the extent that they do not conflict with any requirements of the mediatior. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/15/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation on consent.Selection of Mediator due by 10/2/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/15/08. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
19 MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. Attached is Letter of Instructions. By 9/30/08, Counsel are to select a Mediator, schedule the first mediation session, and electronically file (ECF) and confirm in writing to the ADR Administrator, Gerald P. Lepp, the name of the mediator, and the date, time, and place of the first mediation session. For a list of the EDNY Mediators and their qualifications, see the Court's website at "www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr". The Confidentiality Stipulation which is attached to this notice is to be signed at the mediation session by all participants, including the mediators, and sent by FAX (718) 613−2368 to the ADR Administrator. In accordance with Administrative Order 2004−08 (as of August 2, 2004) electronic filing became mandatory in the Eastern District of New York for all cases (pro se cases are excluded). (Luo, Xue) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
20 First MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court's August 22 Order and Scheduling of 30(b)(6) Deposition by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to 5) (Smith, Tyler) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 First MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court's August 22 Order and Scheduling of 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Town of Smithtown. (DeJong, Jeltje) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
22 Letter Mediator Selection by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G., Town of Smithtown (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 10/02/2008)

10/08/2008 10/09/2008 10/10/2008
10/15/2008 10/17/2008
10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 12/22/2008 01/09/2009 01/27/2009 02/06/2009 03/04/2009

ORDER re 20 First MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court's August 22 Order and Scheduling of 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Kisha Trent, R.G., Annie Smith, Corinne Vargas. Oral argument will be heard on October 23, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/8/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting 23 Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 15 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Nicole Birch terminated; withdrawing 20 Motion to Compel. The court adopts and So Orders the Proposed Stipulation and Order. The pretrial conference scheduled for 4/23/09 id adjourned to 6/22/09 at 2:00 p.m. The oral argument scheduled for 10/23/08 is cancelled, inasmuch as the plaintiff has deemed the motion withdrawn pursuant to the stipulation. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/10/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. The first mediation session is to be held on November 20, 2008. The Mediator and Counsel are to select a place for the mediation session and inform the ADR Administrator, Gerald P. Lepp. Tel: (718)613−2577, Fax: (718)613−2368, Email: gerald_p_lepp@nyed.uscourts.gov. (Luo, Xue) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
24 SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Lela P. Love rep by Lela P. Love has been selected as Mediator. The first mediation session will be held on 11/20/2008 at 10:00 a.m. at 125 Broad Street, New York. One week before the first mediation session, Counsel shall file with the Mediator their clients mediation statement summarizing the facts, legal issues, particulars of any prior settlement discussions, and the name and title of the client or client representative with full settlement authority who will attend the mediation in person. Attendance in person is required of the trial attorney, insurance adjustor, and client or client representative with full settlement authority. The Confidentiality Stipulation which is attached to this electronic notice will be signed at the mediation session by all participants and the Mediator and returned to the ADR Administrator, Gerald P. Lepp, by fax (718) 613−2368. Contact information for the Mediator: Lela P. Love, Benjamin Cordozo Law School, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003, Phone: 212−790−0365, Fax: 212−790−0256, E−Mail: love@ymail.yu.edu. Report of Mediation due by 1/18/2009. (Luo, Xue) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
25 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Karlo Ng Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 02070000000003193740. by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
26 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Joseph D. Rich Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 02070000000003193756. by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave for Karlo Ng to Appear pro hac vice, contingent upon her payment of the required fee and registration for ECF. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/20/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
ORDER granting 26 Motion for Leave for Joseph D. Rich to Appear pro hac vice, contingent upon his payment of the required fee and registration for ECF. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/20/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
27 Letter Re: Status of Case Following Mediation by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
28 Letter Updating the Court on the Status of the Case by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
29 Letter status by Town of Smithtown (Arntsen, David) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
30 Letter status by Town of Smithtown (Arntsen, David) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
31 STIPULATION of Settlement and Consent Decree by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4

03/05/2009 03/27/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/12/2009 06/08/2009 06/08/2009 06/08/2009 06/09/2009 06/10/2009 06/10/2009 06/16/2009 06/29/2009
06/30/2009

Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
32 Letter Transmitting Courtesy Copy of (Proposed) Preliminary Order For Approval of Settlement of Class Action by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
33 NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference (for preliminary approval of class action settlement) set for 4/23/2009 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 1030 before Judge Joanna Seybert. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
34 MOTION to Certify Class , Preliminarily Approve the Class Action Settlement and Approve the Form and Manner of Notice and Plan of Allocation by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 MOTION to Certify Class , Preliminarily Approve the Class Action Settlement and Approve the Form and Manner of Notice and Plan of Allocation filed by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
36 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 34 MOTION to Certify Class , Preliminarily Approve the Class Action Settlement and Approve the Form and Manner of Notice and Plan of Allocation filed by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
37 NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference (for preliminary approval of class action settlement) set for 6/9/2009 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 1030 before Judge Joanna Seybert. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
38 MOTION to Adjourn Conference Currently Set for June 9, 2009 to a Date After June 15, 2009 − On Consent by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G.. (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Adjourn Conference. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 6/8/2009. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference (for preliminary approval of class action settlement) set for 6/16/2009 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 1030 before Judge Joanna Seybert. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
39 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Town of Smithtown. (Arntsen, David) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
ORDER granting 39 Motion to Adjourn Conference. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 6/10/2009. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference (for preliminary approval of class action settlement) set for 6/29/2009 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 1030 before Judge Joanna Seybert. (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
ORDER In light of the pending proceedings before Judge Seybert, the conference before Judge Wall scheduled for 6/22 is adjourned without date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/16/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
40 Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Joanna Seybert: Settlement Conference (Preliminary Class Action Approval Hearing) held on 6/29/2009; granting 34 Motion for preliminary approval of Class action settlement. Plaintiffs to submit proposed order which includes revisions directed by the Court. Settlement Conference (Final Approval Hearing) set for 8/28/2009 at 10:00am in Courtroom 1030 before Judge Joanna Seybert. (Court Reporter S. Picozzi) (Baran, Charles) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
41 Letter Submitting Revised Preliminary Order and Notice of Pendency by Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent, Annie Smith, R.G. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − (Revised) Preliminary Order for Approval of Settlement of Class Action, # 2 Exhibit B − Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/01/2009
07/01/2009 08/04/2009 08/12/2009 08/24/2009 08/25/2009
08/28/2009
08/28/2009 03/26/2010 09/27/2011

42 PRELIMINARY ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 1st day of July 2009, that: (1) The Court preliminary approves a settlement class of all African−American and Hispanic individuals who do not live or work in Smithtown, New York and who applied to the Smithtown Section 8 Voucher Program in 2002 or 2006 when the wait list was opened and who subsequently were or would have been determined not eligible for the Program because they did not live or work in Smithtown. (2) A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held on August 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Long Island Courthouse to determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Pltffs in the Action and all members of the Class. See Order for additional details. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 7/1/09. C/ECF (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
43 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING − A Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing is scheduled for 8/28/09 at 10:00AM. BY ORDER OF THE COURT dated 7/1/09. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
44 Letter from Juliette Johnson as potential class member. (Brienza, Lauren) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
47 Letter from Louis San Juan to Clerk of Court undated Re: 8/28/09 Fairness Hearing. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
45 AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION by Town of Smithtown (Arntsen, David) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
46 MOTION for Settlement by R.G., Annie Smith, Kisha Trent, Corinne Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Memorandum in Support, # 10 Affidavit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Affidavit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Memorandum in Support) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joanna Seybert:Settlement Conference/Final Approval Hearing held on 8/28/2009. Appearances: For plaintiffs: Robin Nunn, Karlo Ng, Tyler Smith. For defendants: David Arntsen, Charles Borghardt, Jeltje de Jong. Also present: Elaine Leanard from Town of Smithtown. Settlement approved as stated on record. Attorney fees approved as stated on record. Settlement order issued to parties following conference. (Court Reporter Dominick Tursi.) (Ryan, Mary) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
49 ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of R.G., Annie Smith, Corinne Vargas, Kisha Trent against Town of Smithtown; Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter closed. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/28/09. C/ECF (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
50 STATUS REPORT Compliance Report by Town of Smithtown (Arntsen, David) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
51 Letter Pursuant to the Order and Final Judgment dated August 28, 2009 by R.G., Annie Smith, Kisha Trent, Corinne Vargas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration Of Michael Rosenbaum, # 2 Exhibit B− Smithtown Settlement Chart, # 3 Exhibit C− Declaration of Joseph D. Rich) (Nunn, Robin) (Entered: 09/27/2011)