Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v. Reggie Collier and Kim Collier,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 08-cv-686

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

The United States of America alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce Title VIII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (Fair Housing

Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619. It is brought on behalf of Ronald and Sherrell Tucker pursuant to

Section 812(0)ofthe Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(0), and Section 814(a)ofthe Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.§ 1345, and 42 U.S.C.

§§ 3612(0) and 3614(a).

3. Venue is proper because the claims alleged herein arose in the Western District of

Louisiana.

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 2 of 10
PARTIES 4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Reggie Collier, a Caucasian resident of the state of Louisiana, managed the operation of the Camp Joy Marina, a residential community in Haughton, Louisiana, consisting of rental and owner-occupied condominiums and townhouses, a restaurant, and marina. 5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Kim Collier, a Caucasian resident of the state of Louisiana, was President and sole shareholder of Camp Joy Marina, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Camp Joy Marina, Inc., owned and/or controlled some or all of the land and improvements at Camp Joy Marina. Camp Joy Marina, Inc., was dissolved by the filing of an affidavit of dissolution on or about February 15, 2007. 6. Ronald and Sherrell Tucker, a Caucasian couple, owned the town house located at 4512 Camp Joy Road, in Camp Joy Marina. 7. lR. Burt, a Caucasian, is a real estate agent licensed under the laws of the State of Louisiana who was retained by the Tuckers to sell 4512 Camp Joy Road on or about May 2004. 8. Angela Tatum, an African American, is a real estate agent licensed under the laws of the State of Louisiana who was retained in 2004 by David and Nicole Bennett, a Caucasian couple, to represent them in the purchase of a home.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. On or about May 14, 2003, Ronald and Sherrell Tucker purchased the property located at 4512 Camp Joy Road, in Camp Joy Marina, pursuant to a "Contract for the Lease and
2

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 3 of 10
Purchase of Property." The Contract was signed by "Kim Collier, President." 10. The purchase price of 4512 Camp Joy Road was $65,000. As down payment for
the property, the Tuckers transferred to Camp Joy Marina, Inc., the title of their then-current residence at 4904 Camp Joy Road, which was valued at $25,000. They also paid Camp Joy Marina, Inc., $9,200 cash.
11. Under the terms of the contract, the Tuckers were further obligated to pay Camp Joy Marina $400/month until January 1,2017, at which time title of 4512 Camp Joy Marina would be transferred to them. The contract contained no prohibition on the prepayment of the balance due.
12. In May 2004, Ronald Tucker suffered two heart attacks, leading the Tuckers to decide to sell 4512 Camp Joy Road and move to Arkansas. They retained real estate agent J.R. Burt to list the property and represent them in the sale..
13. On or about September 20,2004, David and Nicole Bennett visited the Tuckers' property with their real estate agent Angela Tatum. That day they signed a "Real Estate Buy/Sell Agreement" to purchase 4512 Camp Joy Road for $55,000. The Tuckers accepted the offer on September 27,2004.
14. On or about September 28,2004, Ms. Tatum received a telephone call from Reggie Collier. He told Ms. Tatum that he had seen her and the Bennetts at 4512 Camp Joy Road and that he did not want "those kind of people" moving in. During that call, he demanded the buyers' names, social security numbers, their places of employment, and a copy of their
drivers licenses in order to conduct abackground check on them. Ms. Tatum refused this
3

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 4 of 10
request. 15. Ms. Tatum understood Mr. Collier to be expressing a preference against having
African Americans live at Camp Joy Marina. 16. Also on or about September 28, 2004, Mr. Collier spoke with lR. Burt by
telephone and demanded from him identifying information about the Bennetts purportedly to conduct a background check on them. He told Mr. Burt that he did "not just allow anyone to live in Camp Joy Marina." He also told Mr. Burt that Mr. Burt "may sell the property, but I [Mr. Collier] don't have to turn on the sewage and water." Mr. Burt refused to provide the information requested by Mr. Collier.
17. 'Mr. Burt u.n.gerstood Mr. Collier to be expressing a preference against having African Americans live at Camp Joy Marina.
18. Sherrell Tucker called Mr. Collier on October 2,2004, to inform him about the sale of 4512 Camp Joy Road. During that call, Mr. Collier asked Ms. Tucker for the names of the buyers, which she did not know. Mr. Collier then told her that he had found out that the buyers were African Americans, and that he would cut off their water and sewer service if they purchased the house.
19. Later that week, Ms. Tucker attempted to cQntact Mr. Collier to determine whether they should make their October payment of $400 in light of the pending sale. Mr. Collier never returned Ms. Tucker's telephone calls, and the Tuckers mailed their payment to him on or about October 12,2004.
20. Ms. Tatum informed her clients the Bennetts about Mr. Collier's statements to
4

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 5 of 10
her. On October 12,2004, the Bennetts withdrew from their September 22,2004, Real Estate Buy/Sell Agreement because of Mr. Collier's discriminatory statements.
21. On or about October 22,2004, movers from Smith's Moving Company arrived at 4512 Camp Joy Road at the direction of the Tuckers to pack and ship the Tuckers' possessions to their home in Arkansas. The movers, who were African American, observed Mr. Collier turn off the water to the property.
22. On or about October 31,2004, the Tuckers traveled to their property at Camp Joy Marina to pick up their remaining belongings. When they arrived, they found that the locks to 4512 Camp Joy Road had been changed, the "For Sale" signeq. removed, and the realtor's lock box cut off.
23. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Tucker placed a "stop payment" request on the $400 October payment. The check was never cashed.
24. Sometime during the second week of November 2004, the Tuckers received a letter dated October 29,2004, from an attorney representing Camp Joy Marina, Inc., stating that the Tuckers were in default of their lease purchase contract because they had defaulted on their payments and had abandoned the property.
25. The Tuckers never regained control of 4512 Camp Joy Road. They were never permitted to reenter or sell the property. They also were never refunded any of their down payment or monthly payments to Camp Joy Marina, Inc.
26. . On other occasions, Mr. Collier has stated words to the effect that he would not allow African Americans to live at Camp Joy Marina.
5

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 6 of 10
BUD INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE 27. On November 4,2004, Ronald and Sherrell Tucker filed a complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that Reggie and Kim Collier discriminated against them in violation of the Fair Housing Act by interfering with the sale of their townhouse because of the race of the buyers. 28. As required by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3610(a) and (b), the Secretary ofHUD conducted an investigation of the Tuckers' complaint~ attempted conciliation without success, and prepared a final investigative report. Based on the information gathered in this investigation, the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g), determined that reasonable cause exists to believe that illegal discriminatory housing practices had occurred. Therefore,· on or about April 16, 2008, the Secretary issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g), charging the Defendants with discrimination on the basis ofrace in violation ofthe Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and (c) and 3617. 29. On April 20, 2008, Complainant Sherrell Tucker elected to have the claims asserted in HUD's Charge of Discrimination resolved in a federal civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a). 30. On April 22, 2008, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Election and terminated the administrative proceeding on the HUD complaint filed by the Tuckers. 31. Following this Notice of Election, the Secretary of HUD authorized the Attorney
6

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 7 of 10

General to commence a civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(0).

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

32. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1-31, above.

33. By the actions and statements referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants

Reggie and Kim Collier have:

(a) Refused to sell or rent, refused to negotiate for ~he sale or rental, or otherwise

made unavailable, a dwelling because of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

(b) Discriminated in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale or rental of a

dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, on

the basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b);

(c) Made, printed, or published one or more notices, statements, or advertisements,

with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation,

.

~

or discrimination based on race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c); and

(d) Coerced, intimidated, threatened or interfered with persons in the exercise or

enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, their rights

under the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

34. Ronald and Sherrell Tucker have suffered damages as a result of Defendants'

discriminatory conduct.

35. Defendants' actions described in the preceding paragraphs were intentional,

willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of the Tuckers.

7

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 8 of 10
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 36. Plaintiffre-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-35, above. 37. Defendants' conduct described above constitutes: (a) A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment ofrights granted by the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(b), 3604(c) and 3617, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a); or (b) A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(b), 3604(c) and 3617, which raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). 38. In addition to the Tuckers, there are other victims of Defendants' discriminatory actions and practices who are "aggrieved persons" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i), including Mr. Burt, Ms. Tatum, and the Bennetts. These persons may have suffered actual injury and damages as a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct. 39. Defendants' actions were intentional, willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of others, including Mr. Burt, Ms. Tatum, and the Bennetts. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the court enter an ORDER that: 1. Declares that Defendants Reggie and Kim Collier's policies and practices, as alleged herein, violate the Fair Housing Act; 2. Declares that Defendants Reggie and Kim Collier have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, or have denied rights under the Fair
8

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 9 of 10
Housing Act to a group of persons raising an issue of general public importance; 3. Enjoins Defendants Reggie and Kim Collier, their officers, employees, agents,
successors and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from discriminating on the basis ofrace in violation of the Fair Housing Act;:
5. Awards monetary damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(0)(3), 3613(c)(1), and 3614(d)(1)(B) to all persons harmed by the Defendants Reggie and Kim Collier's discriminatory practices; and
6. Assesses a civil penalty against Defendants Reggie and Kim Collier in an amount authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C) and 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(b)(3) to vindicate the public interest.
9

Case 5:08-cv-00686 Document 1 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 10 of 10

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests ofjustice may

reqUIre.
Dated: Itw../ Z-o I

, 2008

DONALD W. WASHINGTON United States Attorney

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY Attorney General

lsI John A. Broadwell
JOHN A. BROADWELL (LA # 01733) Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana 300 Fannin Street, Suite 3021 Shreveport, LA 71101 Tel: (318) 676-3600 Email: John.BroadweU@usdoj .gov

}hM; ~ 1!uIwv/dfW
GRACE CHUNG BECKER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
LH.~/r'k
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section

eputy Chief JOSEPH GAETA Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice Housing and Civil Enforcement
Section - G Street 950 Pemlsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 . Tel.: (202) 353-9062 Email: Joe.Gaeta@usdoj.gov
10

 
 Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 823

,...., :",...... 7"""-:~- '":':; ~.:"'"'-
.,f'/c:.... ~::...'" :::=:"'"'":1'-:- c'-- '_'2'.. '~':\~;:'
R[Cr:'lC8 - -,::r.RFVEP(';'-,T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SI=P 2 8 7010 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
versus
REGGIE COLLIER AND KIM COLLIER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0686 JUDGE TOM STAGG

MEMORANDUM RULING Having heard the oral testimony presented and read the exhibits submitted by the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and rules as follows:
Ie FINDINGS OF FACTI This case can be summarized as a "battle of the witnesses." It is a classic example of what happens when the result turns on credibility determinations. The testimony offered by the defendants was in conflict with the testimony ofeach ofthe witnesses presented by the government. In some cases, credibility may not be a reflection upon the integrity of the individual witnesses and there are justifiable differences of opinion. In a case such a this, no such justifiable difference ofopinion exists.

IThe findings of fact are drawn from a combination of the parties' stipulations and facts found by the court from the testimony and exhibits presented.

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 824
Reggie Collier ("Mr. Collier"), a Caucasian male, was involved in the management and operation of the Camp Joy Marina, a residential community in Haughton, Louisiana, consisting of rental and owner-occupied condominiums and townhouses, a restaurant and marina. Kimberly Collier ("Mrs. Collier") was president and sole shareholder of Camp Joy Marina, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Louisiana. Camp Joy Marina, Inc. owned and/or controlled some or all of the land and improvements at Camp Joy Marina.
Mr. Collier managed Camp Joy Marina from January 1,2000, until the property was sold on June 8, 2005. He also resided there. Mrs. Collier assisted in managing Camp Joy Marina. She did not directly engage in any discriminatory conduct with respect to Camp Joy Marina from January 1, 2000, until the property was sold on June 8, 2005. Camp Joy Marina, Inc. was dissolved by the filing of an affidavit of dissolution on or about February 15,2007. A. The Tucker Transaction.
On or about May 14, 2003, Ronald and Sherrell Tucker ("the Tuckers"), residents at Camp Joy Marina, entered into a "Contract For The Lease And Purchase Of Property" in connection with the real property located at 4512 Camp Joy Road in Camp Joy Marina for a purchase price of $65,000.00. The contract was signed by "Kim Collier, President." As down payment for the property, the Tuckers transferred to Camp Joy Marina, Inc., the title of their then-current residence at 4904 Camp Joy Road, which was valued at $25,000.00. They also paid Camp Joy Marina, Inc. $9,200.00 in cash.
2

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 825
Under the terms of the contract, the Tuckers were obligated to pay Camp Joy Marina $400 per month until January 1, 2017, at which time title of 4512 Camp Joy Marina would be transferred to them. The contract contained no prohibition on the prepayment of the balance due. The contract did provide that if "Purchaser fails to pay said lease by the monthly due date and go more than 30 days past due, Seller may exercise eviction rights." Trial Ex. 1 at 1. As of October 2004, the Tuckers did not own 4512 Camp Joy Road because they had not yet satisfied the terms ofthe contract.
In May of2004, Ronald Tucker ("Mr. Tucker") suffered a heart attack, and the Tuckers decided to sell 4512 Camp Joy Road and move to Arkansas. They retained J.R. Burt ("Burt"), a Caucasian real estate agent licensed under the laws of the state of Louisiana, to list the property and represent them in the sale. When the Tuckers first purchased 4512 Camp Joy Road, Mr. Collier indicated that he wanted a right of first refusal on the property ifthe Tuckers ever decided to sell. Therefore, Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Collier of his intention to list the property with a realtor. Mr. Collier did not want to purchase the home at that time. According to Mr. Tucker, Mr Collier then told Mr. Tucker to "go ahead and list it with a real estate agent of your choice, but don't sell to blacks, there will be no blacks at Camp Joy Marina." Transcript of Mr. Tucker's Video Deposition at 12. When questioned at trial about this exchange, Mr. Collier denied making this statement. See Trial Transcript Vol. II at 226.
Thereafter, Erin Wilson ("Wilson"), a Caucasian woman, signed a contract to purchase the Tuckers' home. A "sold" sign was placed at the property on top of the original "for sale" sign that had Burt's telephone number on it. Wilson later withdrew
3

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 826
her offer to purchase 4512 Camp Joy Road because she concluded the property was too far from Shreveport. Notably, Burt testified that no one called him to ask for Wilson's personal identifying information while the contract was pending. Mr. Collier testified that he did not know Wilson and was never notified that Wilson signed a contract to purchase 4512 Camp Joy Road.
Sometime prior to September 20, 2004, David and Nicole Bennett ("the Bennetts"), both Caucasians, visited the Tuckers' property with their real estate agent, Angela Tatum ("Tatum"). Tatum, an African American, is a real estate agent licensed under the laws of the state of Louisiana, who was retained in 2004 by the Bennetts to represent them in the purchase of a home.2 Mrs. Bennett was visibly pregnant at the time she viewed the Tuckers' home. Tatum and Mrs. Bennett both testified that while visiting the home, they were not introduced to anyone and did not meet anyone. However, they both testified that during their visit, some neighbors gathered outside who were "rather observant" and "staring." Trial Transcript Vol. I at 130 and 183. They visited the Tuckers' home and another home while at Camp Joy Marina that day.
The Bennetts wanted to look at the Tuckers' home a second time and contacted Tatum to schedule another showing. Tatum and the Bennetts visited Camp Joy a
2Tatum and Burt worked for the same realty company but in different office locations.
4

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 827
second time.3 Again, they did not meet or speak to anyone but both women again testified that people in the neighborhood were "staring" and "watching." Trial Transcript Vol. I at 132 and 183.
On or about September 20,2004, the Bennetts made an offer to purchase the Tuckers' home at 4512 Camp Joy Road. The Tuckers accepted the offer on September 27, 2004. Again, a "sold" sign was placed at the property. In addition, Mrs. Tucker contacted Mr. Collier to inform him of the pending sale.
After learning about the proposed sale, Mr. Collier called Burt and requested information about the prospective purchasers. Mr. Collier informed Burt that before Camp Joy Marina would execute any deed, he wanted some identifying information about the purchasers. The testimony was consistent from both Burt and Mr. Collier that during this phone conversation, Mr. Collier told Burt that he "did not want those kind of people" living at Camp Joy. Trial Transcript Vol. I at 164-65 and Trial Transcript Vol. II at 32. Burt testified that he understood that statement by Mr. Collier to refer to African Americans. Trial Transcript Vol. I at 172. Burt, however, also admitted that he was aware of the fact that Tatum was African American and presumed that her clients were also African American in light of Mr. Collier's comments about "those kind of people." See id. at 175.
Mrs. Collier testified that she was present at the time of the phone call from
3Tatum testified that on the second visit, she and the Bennetts were accompanied by another family member of the Bennetts. Mrs. Bennett testified that only she and her husband were present for the second viewing of the home.
5

~------~~-~-----------
Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 828
Mr. Collier to Burt and that Mr. Collier specifically mentioned wanting to exclude sex offenders and drug dealers before he used the phrase "those kind of people."4 Trial Transcript Volume II at 285. Mr. Collier also testified to this effect. See id. at 233. Mr. Collier also testified that he told Burt that he needed information on the prospective purchasers in order to draw up a maintenance agreement. See id. Burt did not have any recollection of Mr. Collier providing either of these reasons for
needing background information on the purchasers. This court does not find the testimony of either Mr. or Mrs. Collier credible as to this issue.
Burt did not have the information that Mr. Collier was seeking but he gave Mr.
Collier Tatum's phone number and Mr. Collier called Tatum. During that call, Mr. Collier again requested the buyers' names, social security numbers, their places of employment, and a copy of their drivers' licenses. When Tatum refused to give Mr. Collier the identifying information he was seeking, Mr. Collier became irate and again stated that he "did not want those kind of people" living at Camp Joy. Trial
Transcript Vol. I at 130-32. Mr. Collier also threatened to refuse to provide utilities
4Mrs. Collier testified that she wanted Mr. Collier to obtain the personal information on potential purchasers at Camp Joy because she was particularly concerned about sex offenders living at the property. The Colliers' ten year old daughter would stay at the property with her father and Mrs. Collier was concerned for her daughter's safety. Mrs. Collier emotionally explained to the court that she had been sexually abused as a child and was concerned for her daughter. Although the testimony was compelling, the court is concerned about its veracity as it relates to the issue at hand. The Colliers both admitted that they did not conduct background checks on all potential renters or owners at Camp Joy. This fact alone refute Mrs. Collier's testimony. However, even more telling is the fact that there was a registered sex offender residing at Camp Joy and both of the Colliers knew about him.
6

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 829
to the buyers. See id. at 152. Like Burt, Tatum also presumed that Mr. Collier was referring to African Americans when he referred to "those kind of people." Interestingly, Tatum did not clarify to Mr. Collier that her clients where white. Notably, both Burt and Tatum concluded, independent of each other and based on different phone calls, that Mr. Collier's comments about "those kind ofpeople" were based on race. Again, Mr. Collier testified that he specifically mentioned wanting to exclude sex offenders and drug dealers. Trial Transcript Volume II at 235. Tatum had no recollection of any mention of sex offenders or drug dealers.
The testimony regarding what happens next diverged. According to Tatum, she informed the Bennetts about her conversation with Mr. Collier but did not mention anything about her suspicion that Mr. Collier's comments were racially motivated. See Trial Transcript Vol. I at 154. The Bennetts were still willing to go through with the sale and they signed an acknowledgment to that effect on October 4, 2004. See id. at 140. Mrs. Bennett, however, testified that Tatum only mentioned something about utility fees and homeowners' dues prior to the Bennetts signing the document.
Tatum testified that she later learned from Burt that the Tuckers had told Burt that Mr. Collier had changed the locks on the Tuckers' home and had taken down the for sale sign.5 See Trial Transcript Vol. I at 140. At that point, Tatum testified that
STatum's testimony was also inconsistent with other evidence. Tatum testified that the water had been cut off and the locks had been changed before the Bennetts withdrew from the contract. The Colliers assert that these inconsistencies cast doubt on the accuracy of Tatum's memory and her lack of recollection that Mr. Collier
7

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 830
she informed the Bennetts of the actions by Mr. Collier and recommended that they withdraw from the contract, which they did. See id. Mrs. Bennett, however, testified that Tatum told her about the remarks made by Mr. Collier regarding "those kind of people" and her perception ofracial overtones and that Tatum's report ofthe remarks was the reason the Bennetts withdrew from the contract. See id. at 197.
On October 12,2004, the Bennetts withdrew their offer to purchase 4512 Camp Joy Road. The Bennetts terminated their offer in a written document that read: "David L. Bennett & Nicole L. Bennett chose to withdrawl [sic] from the contract offer due to the degrading actions, threats, & comments of the land owner on Camp Joy Rd. We chose not to go through because we did not want to deal with these for any extended period of time!" Trial Ex. 6.
After learning about the Bennetts' withdrawal from the sale, Mrs. Tucker sent a check for October rent to Camp Joy Marina. On or about October 22,2004, movers from Smith's Moving Company arrived at 4512 Camp Joy Road at the direction of the Tuckers to pack and ship the Tuckers' possessions to their home in Arkansas. In the interim, Mr. Collier contacted his attorney to take action to take possession ofthe Tucker home for allegedly a default in the terms of the lease. This action was taken despite the fact that the contract specifically provided:
IfPurchaser fails to pay said lease by the monthly due date
mentioned sex offenders and drug dealers during their conversation before referring to "those kind of people." Record Document 53 at 13. The court disagrees, and instead finds that these inaccurate recollections reflect the memory of a person in the business of showing numerous pieces of real estate to multiple clients.
8

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 831
and go more than 30 days past due, Seller may exercise eviction rights. Trial Ex. l. Mr. Collier's attorney wrote to the Tuckers on October 29, 2004. See Trial Ex. 3. In the letter, the attorney advised the Tuckers that Camp Joy had taken possession of the Tuckers' house because of non-payment of rent and due to abandonment of the premises. See id. The thirty days provided for in the contract had clearly not yet expired at this point. Sometime between October 22,2004, and October 31,2004, Mr. Collier caused the locks to be changed at 4512 Camp Joy Marina, and the "for sale" sign to be removed.6 Mr. Collier also removed the realtor lock box. When the Tuckers arrived at Camp Joy on October 29 to obtain the remainder of items they had left in their home, they had not yet received the letter from Mr. Collier's attorney. They instead arrived to find that the locks on their home had been changed and that the "for sale" sign had been removed. After the Tuckers returned to Arkansas, they received the letter from Mr. Collier's attorney. Mrs. Tucker then stopped payment on the October rent check. The Tuckers never regained control of4512 Camp Joy Road. They were never refunded any oftheir down payment or monthly payments to Camp Joy Marina. B. Policy Of Excluding Through Other Actions. The testimony established that Mr. Collier consistently expressed his
6The timing of this event clearly occurred after the Bennetts had withdrawn from the contract instead of prior to the withdrawal, as testified to by Tatum. See supra fn. 3.
9

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 832
displeasure with having African Americans at his property. As previously mentioned, Mr. Tucker testified that Mr. Collier expressly told him, "Don't sell to blacks, there will be no blacks at Camp Joy Marina." Transcript ofMr. Tucker's Video Deposition at 12. Although Mr. Collier denied making this statement, the court again notes that it finds Mr. Tucker's testimony to be more credible. See Trial Transcript Vol. II at 226.
Terry Watts ("Mr. Watts") was another witness called by the government. Mr. Watts does masonry work. He moved to Louisiana in 1999 to do masonry work for Whitaker Construction and brought a crew of fourteen to fifteen men with him. He and his crew initially rented motel rooms, but they eventually moved to Camp Joy Marina. See Trial Transcript Vol. I at 59. Mr. Watts ultimately rented six cabins at Camp Joy. He also decided to lease and operate the bar and restaurant at Camp Joy Marina, after he had lived there for around six to seven months.
In 2004, Mr. Collier and Mr. Watts became involved in a dispute that resulted in Mr. Collier tendering a five-day eviction notice to Mr. Watts for the bar and restaurant. The dispute had evolved from a construction project that the two men had worked on together. Mr. Collier was angry because he believed that Mr. Watts was bidding work against him, so Mr. Collier fired Mr. Watts from the construction project. This led to an ownership dispute over scaffolding that had been purchased together by the men.7
7The defendants contend that Mr. Watts is "extremely biased" against Mr. Collier. Record Document 53 at 22. While it is true that the two men had a turbulent
10

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 833
When Mr. Watts was asked by the government whether he was aware of any policies that Mr. Collier had regarding African Americans at Camp Joy Marina, he responded that Mr. Collier "didn't want no one of color on his property." Trial Transcript Vol. I at 69. When asked how he learned about this policy, Mr. Watts explained that Mr. Collier expressly told him about the policy:
Q: When did Mr. Collier tell you about that policy?
A: I had some African Americans come down as customers, and he come told me that -- he heard it and he come the next day and told me that he didn't want them on his property. But that isn't the words he used.
Q: What were the exact words Mr. Collier used?
A: He said he didn't want no damn niggers on his property.
Id. Mr. Collier denied making this statement. See Trial Transcript Vol. II at 218. The government's questioning of Mr. Watts continued and revealed another telling exchange between Mr. Watts and Mr. Collier:
Q: Did you -- were you made aware at any other point of Mr. Collier's policy regarding African Americans?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And how at other times were you made aware of that policy?
Q: As I was moving my crew in there -- I was getting cabins as they
history of business dealings, this court, after listening and evaluating both the testimony of Mr. Watts and Mr. Collier, accepts the testimony of Mr. Watts as more credible. The defendants' attempts to discount Mr. Watts's testimony are unavailing.
11

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 834
come available. And I was moving men out of the motel rooms, which generally was two men in each room with double beds. And we finally got another cabin ready, and I brought some men over there. And they was black people. And he seen that, and he come told me they wasn't living there.
A: What, exactly, did Reggie Collier say --
Q: He said, "There's no niggers gonna live on this property, in these cabins."
Trial Transcript Vol. I at 70 [sic]. The questioning of Mr. Watts continued: Q: You testified earlier that a few months after you started operating the bar and restaurant Mr. Collier made you aware again of his policy regarding African Americans. Did he at any point after that tell you on any other occasions about his policy regarding African Americans?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: About how many times did he tell you about that policy?
A: Two to three times. And then he had other people come tell me.
Q: What, exactly, did Mr. Collier say on the other occasions he told you about his policy?
A: Repeated his self, except a little more -- a little more unkind with his words and what have you.
Q: What did --
A: Towards me for continuing to let them come.
Q: What exact words did he use to you?
12

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 835
A: He did not want no niggers on his property and he meant it. Q: Did he give you -A: And he threatened to pull my lease. Q: I'm sorry? A: He threatened to pull my lease. Q: He threatened to pull your lease for what? A: If I allowed African Americans come on the property. Id. at 71-72. Mr. Watts also testified that he lived at Camp Joy Marina for about four years and that he never saw any African Americans living there. See id. at 73 and 75. Tyler Watts was also called as a witness by the government. Tyler Watts is the son ofMr. Watts. Tyler Watts moved to Shreveport and lived with his father at Camp Joy Marina. Tyler Watts also worked at the Camp Joy Marina Bar. While working at the bar, Tyler Watts heard Mr. Collier tell his father, "I do not want any niggers on my property." Trial Transcript Vol. I at 104. Tyler Watts also heard Mr. Collier out on the deck area ofthe bar stating, "You niggers need to get off of my property." Id. at 106. Tyler Watts testified that Mr. Collier made these statements to some African American patrons who were coming up from the deck to the back of the bar. Tyler Watts further testified: When we would have African American patrons come inside the bar, he would start saying derogatory terms loud enough to where they could overhear him, things such as "you niggers shouldn't be here," and just a magnitude of things on that level.
13

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 836

Id. at 106-07. When asked if he recalled any specific incidents when Mr. Collier

made comments like the one just described, Tyler Watts responded: "Specific? Just

about every time that African Americans would come in the bar, he would just start

spurting 'nigger' very loudly to where they could hear." Id. The questioning ofTyler

Watts by the government continued:

Q: Mr. Watts, did you ever hear Reggie Collier say anything directly

to your father about excluding African Americans from Camp

Joy?

"

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And what did you hear Mr. Collier say to your father?

A: It was just simply, "I would" -- "I do not want any niggers on my property."

Id. at 108-09. Tyler Watts also testified that he did not ever see any African Americans living in cabins at Camp Joy Marina during the two and a half years that he lived there. See id. at 109-10. In addition, the testimony established that between 2002 and October of 2004, no black person owned or leased a cabin at Camp Joy Marina.8

8However, the testimony differed regarding whether a black person ever lived at Camp Joy Marina. As mentioned, both Mr. Watts and Tyler Watts testified that neither saw an African American living at Camp Joy Marina while they resided there. Mr. and Mrs. Collier testified that a black male by the name of "Roderick" lived at Camp Joy Marina as a roommate of a person named Brandon Severance. Brandon Severance was the nephew of Mrs. Collier.
14

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 837
C. Complaint, The Response And The Lawsuit. On November 4, 2004, the Tuckers filed a complaint with the United States
Department ofHousing and Urban Development ("HUD"), alleging that the Colliers discriminated against them in violation of the Fair ,Housing Act ("FHA") by interfering with the sale of their townhouse because of the race of the buyers. On November 15, 2004, Mrs. Collier wrote to HUD in response to the claim made by the Tuckers. See Trial Ex. 14. In her letter, Mrs. Collier stated, in pertinent part, that Mr. Collier
did contact the real estate agent in an effort to explain to the agent that Camp Joy Marina, Inc. has various agreement forms that potential buyer's and/or renter's must sign before the marina provides services to them.... [Mr. Collier] also tried to explain to the agent that Camp Joy Marina, Inc. was the actual owner ofthe property, not the Tucker's. The agent would need to know this because when it came down to an actual sell, the buyer would really be buying it from the marina. The agent would not acknowledge this information.
Id. (errors in original). Notably, there was no mention whatsoever of the purported need to acquire background information about the potential buyers to conduct a background check on them for any reason. The letter made no mention of concerns regarding sexual predators or criminals of any kind, nor that the Colliers were concerned for the safety of their young daughter. See id.
As required by the FHA, the Secretary of HUD conducted an investigation of the Tuckers' complaint, attempted conciliation without success, and prepared a final investigative report. The Secretary determined that reasonable cause existed to
15

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 838
believe that illegal discriminatory housing practices had occurred, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g). Therefore, on or about April 16, 2008, the Secretary issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination, charging the Colliers with discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the FHA. On April 20, 2008, Mrs. Tucker elected to have the claims asserted in HUD's Charge of Discrimination resolved in a federal civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a). On April 22, 2008, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Election and terminated the administrative proceeding on the HUD complaint filed by the Tuckers. Following this Notice of Election, the Secretary of HUD authorized the Attorney General to commence a civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(0).
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The government filed a two-count complaint against the Colliers alleging (1) that the Colliers violated sections 3604(a), (b), and (c) and section 3617 of the FHA when Mr. Collier discriminated against the Tuckers and (2) that the Colliers engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the FHA or denied to a group of persons rights granted by the FHA under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a) and injured the Tuckers, Burt, Tatum and Mrs. Bennett. The government contends that Mr. Collier caused the proposed sale from the Tuckers to the Bennetts to fail and, in the process, violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b), (c), and 3617 by his course of conduct in connection with the proposed sale of the Tuckers' home. The Colliers counter that Mr. Collier never refused to negotiate or "otherwise make unavailable" a dwelling to the Bennetts. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
16

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 839
Mr. Collier did, however, request identifying information, including names, social security numbers and driver's license numbers, for the Bennetts as a condition to executing a deed on behalf of Camp Joy Marina. The testimony was consistent as to this request. The Colliers attempt to conclude that no violation of section 3604(a) occurred because no witness testified that Mr. Collier would have refused to execute a deed to the Bennetts had the information been provided. This conclusion is specious at best.
The Colliers are, however, correct that there is no direct evidence that Mr. Collier knew or thought that either Tatum or the Bennetts were black. The government asserts that this court can infer from all of the circumstances that Mr. Collier thought that the prospective purchasers were black. The testimony ofTatum and Bennett revealed that many unidentified persons observed Tatum and Bennett on both visits to the Tuckers' home. In addition, the evidence indicated that the Tuckers' home was visible from Mr. Collier's residence. Most telling is that the evidence established that Mr. Collier behaved differently with respect to the sale of the Tuckers' home than he had with respect to the sale of any other home at Camp Joy.
As the parties are well aware, there are two types of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Indirect evidence is defined as the proof of circumstances that tend to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence ofcertain other facts. It is well established that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that the factfinder find the facts from a preponderance of all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial.
17

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 840
The government points out that Mr. Collier was frequently at Camp Joy Marina and moved about the property. Mr. Collier also resided at Camp Joy. The government, therefore, concludes that Mr. Collier must have seen Tatum and must have believed that she was the purchaser. There is, admittedly, no direct evidence before the court that Mr. Collier was at Camp Joy Marina at the time of either visit by Tatum.9
Although the Colliers suggest that Mr. Collier did not think that the purchasers were black, there is indirect evidence to the contrary. For example, Anita Shows ("Shows"), a real estate agent who sold properties at Camp Joy Marina, testified that she was not aware ofany background checks related to her sales at Camp Joy Marina. The Colliers try to distinguish this fact by pointing out that the Colliers already knew the prospective purchasers in the sales involving Shows and that they were friends with Shows, so they perceived that they had access to the information if they needed it. However, one of the questions before the court is why the Colliers would need such information or why they would need it in this instance as opposed to other instances when no requests were made.
The government is not required to establish that the denial of housing was motivated solely by racial discrimination. See Marable v. H. Walker & Assoc., 644 F.2d 390, 395 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing four other Fifth Circuit cases for this
9The Colliers claim that a person who saw Tatum with a white couple when the white female was visibly pregnant would assume that it was the couple who would be the prospective purchasers. On the second visit, according the testimony, Tatum was accompanied by both of the Bennetts and another white person.
18

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 841
proposition). "It is sufficient that race was one significant factor considered by the defendants ...." United States v. Pelzer Realty Co., 484 F.2d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 1973).
This court concludes that the defendants asserted reasons for Mr. Collier's actions are a pretext for racial discrimination. The comparative evidence of the unequal treatment by Mr. Collier in this instance as opposed to other instances of sales or rentals at Camp Joy Marina demonstrate that the defendants' reasons for Mr. Collier's actions are a pretext. The information requested by Mr. Collier as to the sale of the Tuckers' home was shown by the testimony to be subjective, especially when compared to other transactions. Furthermore, the defendants admitted that no black person had ever owned or leased a townhome at Camp Joy Marina.lO The unequal application of criteria by Mr. Collier demonstrates disparate treatment on the basis of race in violation of the FHA.
"The provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 are to be given broad and liberal construction, in keeping with Congress' intent in passing the Fair Housing Act of replacing racially segregated housing with 'truly integrated and balanced living patterns.'" Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205,211,93 S. Ct. 364,368 (1972) (quoting statement of Senator Mondale, 114 Congo Rec. 2706). "It is no defense ... under the Fair Housing Act that racial animus was not a defendant's sole
lOThis has been found to be a significant evidentiary factor in other housing discrimination cases. See United States V. Reddoch, 467 F.2d 897, 889 (5th Cir. 1972) and United States V. West Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d221 (5th Cir. 1971).
19

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 842
reason for denial of housing. PlaintiffIs] need only prove that race was one significant factor in defendant's dealings with them in order to establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act." Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198, 1202 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing numerous Fifth Circuit cases in support). As in Woods-Drake, the record in this case clearly shows that race was a significant factor in the actions of Mr. Collier. A. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) And § 3604(b).
In its complaint, the government first alleged that the Colliers violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). This section makes it unlawful "to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race [or] color." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Prohibited practices under this section include imposing different sales prices for the sale of a dwelling, using different qualification criteria, and evicting tenants, because of their race. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.60(b). A discriminatory act that prevents a person from selling or buying residential property may state a claim under section 3604(a). See Evans v. Tubbe, 657 F.2d 661,663 n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). Although the Tuckers are white, the government asserts that Mr. Collier's conduct injured the Tuckers. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that denying whites housing because oftheir association with African Americans violates the FHA. See Woods-Drake, 667 F.2d at 1200-01.
The government next alleges that the Colliers violated section 3604(b) of the FHA, which makes it unlawful "[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms,
20

--------- ---------------
Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 843
conditions, or privileges ofsale or rental ofa dwelling ... because ofrace [or] color." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Prohibited practices under this section include using different provisions in leases or contracts, and failing to process an offer for the sale of a dwelling because of race. See 24 C.F.R. § lOO.60(b). Instituting different requirements for prospective purchasers because of their race can be a violation of section 3604(b). See Pelzer Realty, 484 F.2d at 444.
The government contends that Mr. Collier interfered with the sale of 4512 Camp Joy Road because ofthe presumed race ofthe buyers and that he made housing unavailable to the Tuckers and the Bennetts by (1) making discriminatory statements and threatening to refuse to provide water and sewage services, (2) applying different criteria, based on race, and (3) ultimately forcing the Bennetts to back out of a sale to which they had agreed. The court agrees and finds that Mr. Collier's actions violated section 3604(a) by effectively making housing unavailable to the Tuckers and the Bennetts because of race.
The government further alleges that Mr. Collier violated section 3604(b) by demanding identifying information on the, Bennetts so a background check could be conducted on them. The testimony before the court, including that by both Mr. and Mrs. Collier, illustrated that demanding this type ofinformation was not the standard practice ofMr. Collier or anyone at Camp Joy. Both Mr. and Mrs. Collier admitted that no request for information was made when Wilson, a white woman, offered to purchase 4512 Camp Joy Road. Mrs. Collier admitted that in ten years of living at Camp Joy Marina, she conducted only five background checks and that she did not
21

~---~-

~---------------

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 22 of 31 PageID #: 844

do a background check on every person who leased or purchased a home at Camp Joy Marina. See Trial Transcript Vol. II at 299-300. By imposing this additional qualification to purchase a property at Camp Joy Marina, Mr. Collier imposed a different term or condition on the sale of property on persons he believed to be African American in violation of section 3604(b). B. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful: to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination.
42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). As to this issue, the court is presented with a credibility decision.
The government contends that the facts set forth establish that Mr. Collier violated section 3604(c). He told both real estate agents that he did not want the property to be sold to "those kind of people." He made a similar but more clear statement to Mr. Tucker. As previously mentioned, Mr. Tucker testified: "I told him that I was going to list it with a real estate agent. And he informed me that if I did, that I could not sell it to blacks, that there would be no blacks at Camp Joy Marina." Transcript of Mr. Tucker's Video Deposition at 12. Mr. Collier, of course, denied making the statement to Mr. Tucker. However, this court has already found Mr. Tucker's statement to be more credible.
22

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 23 of 31 PageID #: 845
The government also contends that Mr. Collier made statements to Mr. Watts with respect to the rental of a dwelling at Camp Joy Marina, indicating an intention to exclude blacks from renting cabins at Camp Joy, in violation of section 3604(c). Mr. Watts testified that Mr. Collier told him that no blacks would be allowed to live in the cabins at Camp Joy Marina. Mr. Tucker, Mr. Watts and Tyler Watts all testified to statements made by Mr. Collier that established that it was Mr. Collier's policy, and the policy of Camp Joy Marina, through his actions, to exclude African Americans from Camp Joy.
As the government succinctly and accurately argued, "[i]n making these statements, Mr. Collier did not simply express a preference about the kind of neighbors or community that he wanted, but he affinnatively threatened, and had the power, to prevent 'those kind of people' from moving in by turning off water and sewer services." Record Document 50 at 34. This court agrees with the government's assertion that the statements of Mr. Collier when viewed as a whole express Mr. Collier's intent to prevent African Americans from buying property or living at Camp Joy Marina. Thus, this court concludes that Mr. Collier's statements constitute a violation of section 804(c) of the FHA.
c. 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
Section 818 of the FHA makes it: unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by
23

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 24 of 31 PageID #: 846
section 803, 804, 805, or 806 of this title. 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Mr. Collier's demands for background information on the buyers of 4512 Camp Joy Road, threats to refuse to tum on water and sewer services, and repeated statements that he would not allow "those kind of people" to live at Camp Joy Marina interfered with the sale of 4512 Camp Joy Road in violation of section 818 of the FHA. D. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
Count two of the government's complaint alleges that the defendants injured Burt, Tatum and Mrs. Bennett, as well as the Tuckers, when they violated section 3614. Under section 3614(a), the Attorney General may obtain relief upon a finding that the FHA has been violated, and that either (1) there has been a "pattern or practice ofresistenceto the full enjoyment ofany rights granted by [the FHA]," or (2) where a violation of the FHA denies a group of persons rights guaranteed under the FHA and the Attorney General certifies that the denial raises an issue of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
To establish a pattern or practice ofdiscrimination, the government must prove that the defendants either (1) engaged in repeated, individual acts of discrimination or (2) maintained a discriminatory policy. See Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324,360, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 1867 (1977). "The words 'pattern or practice' were not intended to be esoteric words of art. There is nothing magic in their meaning." United States v. West Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221,227 (5th Cir. 1971 ) (citation omitted). "The number of blacks actually turned away or
24

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 25 of 31 PageID #: 847
discriminated against is not determinative." Id. (citation omitted). However, the discrimination must result from more than an isolated or accidental or peculiar event. See id. However, "[n]o mathematical formula is workable, nor was any intended. Each case must tum on its own facts." Id.
The government contends that it has proven that Mr. Collier "both engaged in repeated, individual acts of discrimination and maintained a discriminatory policy" by interfering with the sale of the Tuckers' home as part of a pattern or practice of excluding African Americans from Camp Joy. Record Document 50 at 36-37. The government further refers to Mr. Tucker's testimony that Mr. Collier told him not to sell his home to an African American, evidence that Mr. Collier threatened to cut off utility service for the prospective purchasers ofthe Tuckers' home because he did not want "those kind of people" at Camp Joy, and testimony from Mr. Watts and his son that Mr. Collier told them on numerous occasions not to permit African Americans at the marina and restaurant in support of the existence of a policy.
The Colliers, in their post-trial brief, attempt to distract the court from the issue by stating that "there still is not a single African American who testified that he or she was denied the righ[t] to purchase or rent a dwelling by Mr. or Mrs. Collier." Record Document 53 at 25. The Colliers then devote time to the specious argument that "the best evidence that there was no pattern or practice ofracial discrimination in housing" is the "total lack of any response to newspaper advertisements" the government ran in Shreveport and Bossier City. Id. at 26. The advertisement stated:
If you believe you or someone you know has tried to rent or purchase 25

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 26 of 31 PageID #: 848
property at Camp Joy Marina Residential Community, but was discouraged or prevented from doing so because ofrace, the Department of Justice would like to talk with you.
Trial Exhibit D-2. The government did not receive any responses. However, the court is well aware that many people do not subscribe to the newspapers in which the government ran its ads. Logic does not thus dictate that the absence of a response indicates a lack ofa pattern or practice ofdiscrimination. The Colliers then conclude that "the major part of the 'pattern or practice' case rests on uncorroborated statements of persons with substantial motives to harm Mr. or Mrs. Collier or to benefit themselves financially, and no other victims." Id. at 27: While this argument may be true in the abstract, this court was called upon as the trier of fact to make credibility determinations following the presentation of evidence and has concluded that the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Collier is simply not credible. In addition, the Colliers' own witness, Lester Bush, an African American male, testified that Camp Joy Marina is not the "type of place where [an African American] would probably hang out." Trial Transcript Vol. 2 at 204.11
Mr. Collier's actions and statements were "a disingenuous scheme or device to exclude blacks ... and [are] additional evidence of a ... pattern or practice of
lIThe government also asserts that a single, isolated incident may entitle it to reliefwhere a group ofpersons is denied rights under the FHA, citing a district court case from the Northern District of Ohio. This court need not reach the question of whether there was reason to believe that a group of persons had been denied rights by the FHA in view of this court's finding that a pattern or practice of discrimination existed. See Pelzer Realty Co., 484 F.2d at 445.
26

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 27 of 31 PageID #: 849
racial discrimination." West Peachtree, 437 F.2d at 228. Mr. Collier's actions regarding the Tucker transaction were a departure from normal practice. Mr. Collier's demand for background information was discriminatory treatment and this discriminatory treatment was racially motivated. As the district court found (and the Fifth Circuit quoted) in United States v. Pelzer Realty Company. Inc., 484 F.2d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 1973), "these circumstances would not have occurred in a proposed sale to a white." Additionally, this case is not based upon a single remark or an offhand comment made to one person on a single occasion. The actions taken by Mr. Collier occurred over a period of time and to different people. "[I]t is not necessary to show that [Mr. Collier] intended to deprive [anyone] of rights granted by the Act. A violation occurred because his words had that effect." Pelzer Realty Co., 484 F.2d at 443 (citations omitted).
III. DAMAGES A. The Tuckers.
Having concluded that the defendants violated the FHA, the court now turns to the issue of damages. The financial loss to the Tuckers was $14,107.67, the' amount they would have received from the sale to the Bennetts, less commission and related charges, plus the amount ofthe stop payment order on their check for October rent, which was $16.00. The Tuckers are also entitled to the amount of$I,099.98 in advance lot-rental payments for which they had not yet received the benefit. The Tuckers also testified as to loss of property inside of their home at 4512 Camp Joy. However, there was no testimony or evidence as to the value of that property. Thus,
27

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 28 of 31 PageID #: 850
the court believes that the amount of $500 is sufficient in light of the lack of supporting evidence as to the value of the property.
The Tuckers also testified to emotional distress that they suffered due to the discrimination by Mr. Collier. The testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Tucker can, without question, be categorized as emotional. However, the emotional distress suffered by the Tuckers was not solely based upon violations of the FHA. Instead, it was largely based upon their business dealings with Mr. Collier. In light of their testimony, the court awards emotional distress damages to Mr. and Mrs. Tucker in the amount of $3,000.00 each, for a total of $6,000.00. Therefore, the total amount of damages awarded to the Tuckers is $21,723.65. B. Tatum.
The financial loss to Tatum is the loss of her share of the commission on the potential sale ofthe Tuckers' house, or $1 ,650.00. With respect to emotional distress suffered by Tatum, the court is cognizant ofher testimony regarding her single phone call with Mr. Collier, and the lasting effects ofthe conversation. However, the court is not swayed that this brief encounter rises to the level of compensable emotional distress damages. Thus, the court declines to award Tatum any damages for emotional distress. C. Burt.
The financial loss to Burt is the loss of his share of commission on the sale of the Tuckers' house, or $1,650.00, plus the loss ofproperty, specifically the lock box and sign, worth approximately $245.00, for a total of$I,895.00.
28

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 29 of 31 PageID #: 851
D. Mrs. Bennett. The government asserts that Mrs. Bennett is entitled to damages for emotional
distress. However, the testimony given by Mrs. Bennett does not lead this court to conclude that any emotional distress suffered by her rises to the level ofcompensable.
Therefore, the court declines to award damages to Mrs. Bennett.
E. Mrs. Collier's Liability. The Colliers acknowledge
that, if the Court finds that Mr. Collier violated the Fair Housing Act, Camp Joy Marina, Inc., would be vicariously liable for the compensatory damages awarded to the aggrieved parties. Moreover, Mrs. Collier, although not directly liable for any asserted damages personally, would be liable for the compensatory damages that Camp Joy Marina, Inc., is obligated to pay by virtue of her being the sole shareholder of the corporation and having assumed the obligations of the corporation by dissolving the corporation by affidavit in accordance with La. R.S. 12:142.1. Record Document 53 at 32. Thus, Mrs. Collier is, by admission, vicariously liable
for the compensatory damages.
F. Civil Penalties. The government also seeks civil penalties in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
3614(d)(1)(C)12 and 28 C.F.R. § 85.13 The Colliers contend that "in light of the
12This section instructs as to the relief which may be granted in civil actions under subsections (a) and (b) by stating that the court:
(C) may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the respondent--
(i) in an amount not exceeding $50,000, for a first
29

- -----------------------
Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 30 of 31 PageID #: 852
relatively small economic loss, and the fact that this would be the first adjudication of discrimination by Mr. Collier, any civil penalty should not exceed $10,000, the amount that could have been awarded in civil penalties by an administrative law judge pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3)(A)." Record Document 53 at 33. The government, however, seeks a civil penalty in the amount of$55,000. The court finds that a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 is warranted in this case. G. Punitive Damages.
The government also seeks an award ofpunitive damages. "[T]he question for the availability of punitive damages is whether the defendant[] acted with malice or reckless indifference that [his] actions might violate a federal statue ofwhich [he was] aware." Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283,291 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotations and citation omitted). The court finds that punitive damages are not warranted in this case. H. Remaining Forms Of Relief.
The government also seeks various other forms of relief, including injunctive relief and mandatory education. The court finds that injunctive relief is warranted and the judgment will reflect such relief. All other forms of relief sought by the government are denied.
A judgment consistent with the terms ofthis Memorandum Ruling shall issue
violation.... 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(l)(C).
I3This section increased the amount of civil penalties available from $50,000 to $55,000. See 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(b)(3).
30

--------------
Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 59 Filed 09/28/10 Page 31 of 31 PageID #: 853

~ herewith. THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this

,. . day of

September, 2010.

31

 
 Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 60 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 854

I 1 ~ -;, ..... - - . , .~:.- ~~ :.-~'---

.. '.::'--;- ... :::,'- \': \ ~\.'.--; ~'""'..,'

,-:~-

~:::...:'~t

R:::C::::'v'z"_O - :,t-li'C.\':C::?:)~T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~F? 28 7010 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

k i """ f~\, '~--d -"''~~->--"~"~bEPU7-Y-

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
versus
REGGIE COLLIER AND KIM COLLIER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0686 JUDGE TOM STAGG

JUDGMENT This matter having come on for a bench trial before the undersigned and based on the foregoing Memorandum Ruling; IT IS ORDERED that judgment be rendered in favor ofthe plaintiff, the United States of America, and that damages be awarded in the following amounts: Within thirty (30) days of the date of this judgment, Reggie Collier and Kim Collier ("the Colliers") shall pay a total of $25,000.00 to the United States as a civil penalty, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1 )(C). This payment shall be delivered to counsel for the United States payable to the "United States Treasury." Within thirty (30) days of the date of this judgment, the Colliers shall pay a total of$21,723.65 to Mr. and Mrs. Ronald and Sherrell Tucker ("the Tuckers"). Within thirty (30) days of the date of this judgment, the Colliers shall pay a

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 60 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 855
total of $1 ,650.00 to Angela Tatum. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this judgment, the Colliers shall pay a
total of$I,895.00 to J.R. Burt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reggie Collier, his agents, employees,
successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with him are hereby ENJOINED, with respect to the sale or rental of dwellings, from:
(1) Refusing to allow the sale or rental of, or the negotiating for the sale or rental of, or otherwise making unavailable or denying, a dwelling to any person because of race;
(2) Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race;
(3) Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination; or
(4) Coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account ofhis or her having
2

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 60 Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 856
exercised or enjoyed, or account of his or her having aided or encouraged any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act. Reggie Collier's responsibilities under this Judgment shall apply to each and every dwelling unit in which he has an ownership, management, or other financial interest, and to any and all dwelling units governed, controlled, or regulated in any way by Reggie Collier. During the period in which this Judgment is in effect, Reggie Collier shall notify counsel for the United States in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any written or oral complaint against Reggie Collier or his employees or agents regarding race discrimination in housing.l lfthe complaint is written, Reggie Collier shall provide a copy of it with the notification. The notification shall include the full details of the complaint, including the complainant's name, address and telephone number. Reggie Collier shall also promptly provide the United States all information it may request concerning any such complaint and shall inform the United States
'Unless otherwise specified, all documents or other communications required by this Judgment to be sent to counsel for the United States shall be addressed as follows: Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, DJ 175-33-153, United States Department of Justice, 1800 G Street, NW, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20006, or as otherwise directed by the United States.
3

Case 5:08-cv-00686-TS-MLH Document 60 Filed 09/28/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 857

within fifteen (15) days of any resolution of such complaint.

This Judgment is effective immediately upon its entry by the court and shall

remain in effect for five (5) years, unless the United States moves this court to extend

or shorten the five year period.

-

__

THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana this thelgday of

September, 2010.

4

 
 Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 1 of 6
U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Shreveport) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:08−cv−00686−TS−MLH

CLOSED

U S A v. Collier et al Assigned to: Judge Tom Stagg Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby Demand: $0 Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff
USA on behalf of Ronald Tucker on behalf of Sherrell Tucker

Date Filed: 05/20/2008 Date Terminated: 09/28/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Sean R Keveney U S Dept of Justice Housing &Civil Enforcment Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W G St Washington, DC 20006 202−514−4838 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: sean.r.keveney@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph R Gaeta U S Dept of Justice Civil Rights Div (Penn Ave) 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W Rm 4034 Washington, DC 20530 202−353−9062 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: joe.gaeta@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/31/2008

V. Defendant Reggie Collier

represented by M Thomas Arceneaux Blanchard Walker et al P O Drawer 1126 Shreveport, LA 71163−1126 318−221−6858 Fax: 318−227−2967 Email: tarceneaux@bwor.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
B Slattery Johnson , Jr Blanchard Walker et al P O Drawer 1126 Shreveport, LA 71163−1126 318−934−0237 Fax: 318−227−2967 Email: sjohnson@bwor.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerry Edwards Blanchard Walker et al P O Drawer 1126 Shreveport, LA 71163−1126 318−221−6858 Fax: 318−227−2967

Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 2 of 6

Email: jedwards@bwor.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kim Collier

represented by M Thomas Arceneaux (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B Slattery Johnson , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerry Edwards (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/22/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/30/2008 09/03/2008
10/14/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008
12/30/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil cover sheet)(aty,Gaeta, Joseph) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
CASE Assigned to Judge Tom Stagg and Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby. (crt,Thigpen, M) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by U S A. Reggie Collier served on 6/10/2008, answer due 6/30/2008. (crt,Reasor, Mary) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by U S A. Kim Collier served on 6/10/2008, answer due 6/30/2008. (crt,Reasor, Mary) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
5 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Certificate of Service by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier.(aty,Arceneaux, M) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
6 ORDER: Rule 26 Conference between parties to take place before 10/1/2008. Initial Disclosure due by 10/15/2008. Rule 26 Report due by 10/15/2008. Scheduling Conference set for 10/22/2008 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 9/3/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Case Management Report Form)(crt,Reasor, Mary) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
7 RULE 26(f) Report. (aty,Gaeta, Joseph) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
8 MINUTES: A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE was held before Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on October 22, 2008. (crt,Cassanova, M) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
9 SCHEDULING ORDER: At the October 22, 2008 Scheduling Conference before Magistrate Judge Hornsby, the following dates were set on the docket of Judge Stagg: A Bench Trial is set for 8/31/2009 at 09:30 a.m. A Pretrial Conference is set for 7/31/2009 at 11:00 a.m. Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings due by 11/21/2008. Plaintiff's Expert Info/Reports due by 3/31/2009. Witness Lists due by 3/31/2009. Discovery due by 5/29/2009. Defendants' Expert Info/Reports due by 5/29/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2009. Expert Depositions due by 6/19/2009. Conference/Meeting of counsel to prepare pretrial order to be held by 7/1/2009. Motions in Limine due by 7/16/2009. Pretrial Order due by 7/21/2009. Trial Depositions due by 8/10/2009. Trial Brief/Pretrial Submissions due by 8/21/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 10/22/08. (crt,Cassanova, M) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
10 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Sean R. Keveney in place of Joseph R. Gaeta by USA. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 3 of 6

12/31/2008 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009
07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009
07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/21/2009 07/21/2009 07/21/2009

11 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Sean R Keveney for USA. Attorney Joseph R Gaeta terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 12/31/2008. (crt,Reasor, Mary) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
12 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Character Witnesses by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
13 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Conviction by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
14 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendants' Submitted Photgraphs by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
15 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to trial setting of 8/31/2009 regarding 12 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Character Witnesses, 13 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Conviction, 14 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendants' Submitted Photgraphs Motions referred to Tom Stagg.(crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
16 Joint MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Deadline to Take Trial Deposition with consent by USA. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order, # 2 Affidavit)(aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 7/16/2009 to edit text (Keifer, K). (Entered: 07/16/2009)
17 MOTION in Limine with Certificate of Service by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(aty,Johnson, B) Modified on 7/17/2009 to edit text (Reasor, M). (Entered: 07/16/2009)
18 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to trial setting of 8/31/2009 regarding 17 MOTION in Limine. Motions referred to Tom Stagg.(crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
19 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Deadline to Take Trial Deposition. It is ordered that the Scheduling Order is modified to permit the parties to depose Ronald Tucker on or before 8/17/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 7/17/2008. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Conviction, 14 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendants' Submitted Photgraphs, 12 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Character Witnesses with consent by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(aty,Johnson, B) Modified on 7/20/2009 to edit text (Reasor, M). (Entered: 07/17/2009)
Motions Transferred regarding 20 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION in Limine, 14 MOTION in Limine, 12 MOTION in Limine. Motions referred to Tom Stagg. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 17 MOTION in Limine with Certificate of Service filed by USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
22 ORDER granting in part 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 12 MOTION in Limine, 13 MOTION in Limine, 14 MOTION in Limine. Responses due by 7/27/2009 at 12:00 PM. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 7/20/2009. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
23 Joint PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER by Kim Collier, Reggie Collier, USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 7/21/2009 to add filers and edit text (Reasor, M). (Entered: 07/21/2009)
24 EXHIBIT LIST for Defendants Kimberly and Reggie Collier by USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
25 EXHIBIT LIST for Plaintiff, United States by USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 4 of 6

07/21/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/30/2009 07/30/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009
08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/27/2009 08/28/2009

26 Joint WITNESS LIST filed (restricted access) by Kim Collier, Reggie Collier, USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 7/21/2009 to add filers (Reasor, M). (Entered: 07/21/2009)
27 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Conviction filed by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Edwards, Jerry) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
28 RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Character Witnesses filed by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Edwards, Jerry) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
29 RESPONSE to Motion re 14 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendants' Submitted Photgraphs filed by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Edwards, Jerry) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
30 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 12 Motion in Limine; denying 13 Motion in Limine; granting 14 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 7/30/2009. (crt,McDonnell, D) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
31 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying in part 17 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 7/30/2009. (crt,McDonnell, D) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
32 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Tom Stagg: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 8/4/2009. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Bench Trial set for 9/1/2009 09:30 AM in Shreveport, Courtroom 1 before Judge Tom Stagg. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
33 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Arceneaux, M) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
34 TRIAL BRIEF by USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
35 TRIAL BRIEF (Summary of Witnesses) by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Arceneaux, M) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
36 WITNESS LIST filed (restricted access) by USA. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
37 OBJECTION re 24 Exhibit List Defense Exhibit 2 by USA. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 8/25/2009 to more accurately identify pleading submitted and create link to appropriate pleading (Reasor, M). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
NOTICE of Corrective Action to Sean R Keveney on behalf of USA regarding 37 OBJECTION re 24 Exhibit List Defense Exhibit 2. Action taken: Modified entry to more accurately identify pleading submitted. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
38 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Lester Bush by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
39 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to trial setting of 9/1/2009 regarding 38 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Lester Bush. Motions referred to Tom Stagg. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
40 RESPONSE re 37 OBJECTION to Defense Exhibit 2 by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Arceneaux, M) Modified on 8/26/2009 to edit text and create link to appropriate pleading (Reasor, M). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
41 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier re 34 Trial Brief. (aty,Arceneaux, M) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
42 MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING 37 Objection to Defense Exhibit 2. The 2 advertisements will be allowed as evidence. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 8/27/2009. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
43 RESPONSE to Motion re 38 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Lester Bush filed by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Johnson, B) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 5 of 6

09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009
09/02/2009 09/02/2009 09/02/2009 09/15/2009
10/02/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009
10/23/2009 11/06/2009 03/08/2010

44 WITNESS LIST filed (restricted access) by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Johnson, B) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
45 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Tom Stagg: denying 38 Motion in Limine; BENCH TRIAL held on 9/1/2009. Court will resume on 9/2/2009 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter: Marie Runyon) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
46 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Tom Stagg: BENCH TRIAL completed on 9/2/2009. On or before 10/2/2009, the government shall file its written closing argument, containing specific citations to record evidence that support each element of its claims. On or before 10/16/2009, the defendants shall file their response, containing specific citations to record evidence that support their defense. On or before 10/30/2009, the government shall file a rebuttal.Court Reporter: Marie Runyon) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
Set Deadlines: Government shall file it's written closing arguments on or before 10/2/2009. Defendants shall file it's response on or before 10/16/2009. Government shall file it's rebuttal on or before 10/30/2009. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
47 WITNESS LIST filed (restricted access) by USA, Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
48 EXHIBIT LIST by USA, Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
49 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings for Bench Trial held September 1−2, 2009, before Judge Tom Stagg. Court Reporter: Marie Runyon, Telephone number (318) 222−9203. Volume I, pages 1−200. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 10/6/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/16/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Trial Volume II, pages 201−311)(crt,Runyon, M) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
50 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order, # 2 Exhibits 1)(aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
51 Unopposed MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Deadline for Closing Arguments With consent by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(aty,Arceneaux, M) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
Motions Transferred regarding 51 Unopposed MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Deadline for Closing Arguments With consent. Motions referred to Tom Stagg. (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
52 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 51 Motion to Extend. IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants REGGIE COLLIER and KIM COLLIER to file written closing argument be and it hereby is extended from October 16, 2009, to October 23, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing a rebuttal written closing argument by the United States be and it hereby is extended from October 30, 2009, to November 6, 2009. (jud,Hornsby, Mark) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
53 TRIAL BRIEF Written Closing Argument by Reggie Collier, Kim Collier. (aty,Johnson, B) Modified on 10/26/2009 to edit text (Reasor, M). (Entered: 10/23/2009)
54 RESPONSE to Defendants' Closing Argument by USA re 50 Proposed Findings of Fact. (aty,Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
55 Joint MOTION to Supplement Trial Record by USA, Kim Collier and Reggie Collier. Motions referred to Mark L Hornsby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Exhibits Trial Testimony of Ronald Tucker)(aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 3/9/2010 to add filers and indicate proposed order is e−filed as document 56 (Smith, C). (Entered: 03/08/2010)

Case: 5:08-cv-686 As of: 12/21/2011 08:17 PM CST 6 of 6

03/08/2010 03/09/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010
09/28/2010 09/28/2010 12/16/2010

Motions Transferred regarding 55 Joint MOTION to Supplement Trial Record. Motions referred to Tom Stagg. (crt,Smith, C) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
56 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT by USA re 55 Joint Motion to Supplement Trial Record. (aty,Keveney, Sean) Modified on 3/9/2010 to edit text (Smith, C). (Entered: 03/09/2010)
57 ORDER granting 55 Joint Motion to Supplement Trial Record. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 3/15/10. (crt,Smith, C) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
58 SUPPLEMENT TO TRIAL RECORD: Transcript of video deposition of Ronald Tucker filed by Kim Collier, Reggie Collier, USA. (crt,Smith, C) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
59 MEMORANDUM RULING. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 9/28/2010. (crt,Keifer, K) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
60 JUDGMENT in favor of plaintiff, United States of America. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 9/28/2010. (crt,Keifer, K) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
61 NOTICE of Intent to Destroy Exhibits in a civil case by Clerk of Court (crt,Reasor, M) (Entered: 12/16/2010)