Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 1 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 01-3766-CIV-HURLEY MARY REESE et al.,
plaintiffs, vs. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al.,
defendants. ___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The case is before the court on the parties’ amended cross-motions for summary judgment [DE ## 336, 337, 347 and 349]. A hearing upon this matter was conducted on October 7, 2009. For reasons set forth below, the court has determined to grant the defendants’ motions and enter final summary judgment.
I. Procedural Background Scott Homes and Carver Homes (collectively “Scott-Carver Homes”) are two public housing developments located in Liberty City, Miami. Built in 1954 and 1964, respectively, the projects were situate in Miami- Dade County and operated at all material times by the Miami- Dade County Housing Agency (MDHA). Plaintiffs, former residents of Scott Homes, filed this class action lawsuit in 2001 against defendants Miami-Dade County and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging that the defendants discriminated against them on the basis of race in the approval, funding and implementation of a revitalization plan for Scott-Carver Homes. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Scott-Carver Homes contained 850 public housing units and 99%

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 2 of 42
of its residents were African-American.1 At the inception of the lawsuit, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking
to halt the demolition of Scott Homes units and prevent the “forced or voluntary” relocation of any Scott Homes residents in the County’s implementation of its revitalization plan. A predecessor judge denied the requested injunctive relief, finding no likelihood of success on the merits on any of plaintiffs’ federal claims. Reese v Miami Dade County, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2002), aff’d, 77 Fed. Appx. 506 (11th Cir. 2003). After that ruling was affirmed on appeal, defendants proceeded forward with demolition of the Scott-Carver Homes project.
On September 30, 2003, the predecessor judge ordered a continuance of trial based on the then pendency of the parties’ original summary judgment motions (filed in November 2002). [DE# 299]. Although this order expressed the court’s intent to reset the case for trial by separate order, there was no further activity in the file until October 27, 2008, when the case was reassigned to this division. [DE# 299].
Following reassignment, this court ordered submission of updated summary judgment motions and denied the parties’ original summary judgment submissions as moot. [DE# 308]. The parties have since filed amended summary judgment motions [DE# #336, 337, 347 and 349] which are ripe for disposition.
II. The Complaint Under their current complaint, plaintiffs press forward with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the planned redevelopment of the Scott-Carver project. Specifically,
1The certified class consists of all African- American residents of Scott Carver Homes as of September 17, 1999.
2

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 3 of 42
they seek an injunction requiring the defendants to develop and implement a revitalization plan for Scott-Carver Homes which does not have a disparate impact on African-American families, does not result in a forced, permanent relocation of former Scott Homes residents, and replaces all demolished public housing units on a one-to-one basis (850 units) in the Liberty City neighborhood around the original Scott Homes site.
They assert following constitutional and statutory claims: 2 • Fair Housing Act (42 U. S. C. §§ 3604 (a), (c), 42 U.S.C. § 3608 (e)(5)) (Title VIII) • Title VI of Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d) • Equal Protection Claims ( Fourteenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment) • Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) ( 42 U.S. C. §1437v) • Housing and Community Development Act (42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(i)) The complaint names two sets of defendants – the “County defendants,” consisting of Miami-Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Director of the County’s Miami-Dade Housing Agency (“MDHA”),3 and the “Federal defendants,” consisting of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Secretary of
2 The predecessor judge dismissed plaintiffs’ claim against the County Defendants under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 [DE# 137]. In their current summary judgment papers, plaintiffs express an intent to drop their corresponding claim against the Federal defendants (Count 14) and their FHA claim against the County defendants for intentional discrimination based on family status (Count 2).
In an earlier pretrial stipulation, plaintiffs voluntarily dropped their claim under the National Environmental Policy Act (Count 15). Pursuant to plaintiff’s voluntary notice of dismissal, these claims, Counts 2, 14 and 15, shall be dismissed with prejudice.
3 Rene Rodriguez was originally named as defendant in this capacity. The County defendants note that he is succeeded by current Interim Director Cynthia W. Curry, and request a corresponding substitution of party defendant.
3

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 4 of 42
HUD.4 The thrust of plaintiffs’ complaint is that the Defendants’ configuration of the Liberty City
HOPE VI project was consciously designed to discourage African-Americans from living in the redeveloped Scott Homes neighborhood, and that the County’s revitalization plan, as approved by HUD, will result in “the destruction of desperately needed affordable housing for very poor families in the Scott Homes community, who are overwhelmingly African-American” and the “forced displacement of the predominantly African-American residents of the Scott Homes community.”
III. Facts In 1992, the Congressional Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing was established to identify severely distressed or obsolete public housing developments and to offer solutions for their revitalization. The result of the Commission’s inquiry was the “Homeownership and Opportunities for People Everywhere” or “HOPE VI” program, a competitive grant program designed to prompt public housing agencies to develop and implement innovative strategies for the revitalization of their most troubled public housing projects and surrounding neighborhoods. In 1999, the HOPE VI program was codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1437v, when the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Housing Reform Act) amended section 24 of the 1937 Act. The goal of this legislation is to stimulate positive socio-economic change by: (1) improving the living environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration or replacement o (2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public housing dwelling units) on which
4 Mel Martinez was originally named as defendant in this capacity. The federal defendants note that he is succeeded by Shaun Donovan, and request a corresponding substitution of party defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
4

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 5 of 42
such public housing projects are located and contributing to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood; (3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very lowincome families; and (4) building sustainable mixed income communities. 42 U.S.C. § 1437v(a)(1)-(4). HOPE VI effected numerous policy changes, including elimination of federally mandated admission preferences, repeal of “one for one replacement” requirements on demolished units, and transfer of admission standards to the control of local housing authorities. In addition, site selection restrictions were lifted for HOPE VI grantees, allowing recipients to redevelop housing on the footprint of previously distressed public housing developments and in surrounding neighborhoods. HUD is charged with responsibility for carrying out the Congressional purposes of the HOPE VI statute. Toward this end, it has developed a competitive funding process that rewards applicants who best demonstrate the intent and ability to reduce concentrations of very low income populations and create mixed income communities. 42 U.S.C. §1437v(e). 5 The statutory purposes, eligible activities and application procedures of the HOPE VI program are enumerated in 42 U.S.C. § 1437v(a), (d) and (e). In 1996, HUD published a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) seeking HOPEVI grant applications from public housing authorities around the country. Miami-Dade County determined that Scott Homes would be a good candidate for a HOPE VI revitalization grant because of its age, structural defects, infrastructure defects and high population density and
5Through § 1437v(e)(2), Congress provided to the Secretary of HUD the authority to establish selection criteria for the award of HOPE VI Grants.
5

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 6 of 42
accordingly submitted its first application for HOPE VI funding in 1996. Following HUD’s rejection of its 1996 application, County defendants met with Bob
Prescott, a Deputy to the HUD Director of the HOPE VI program, who debriefed the County on the reasons for the failure of its application. Prescott advised that the 1996 application was unsuccessful because it would result in a project that was “still almost 100% single head of households, nonworking, mostly AFDC, 97% African-American, a homogenous concentration of like families.” [DE# 355, Ex. 5, DE# 200, pp. 33-37]. Prescott also expressed concern over the “lesser amount of demolition and not changing the tenant body... there was not that dramatic a change either physically or socially.” The County sought to address these concerns in new HOPE VI grant applications submitted in 1997 and 1998, but these applications, too, were unfunded.
On February 26, 1999, HUD issued a “Super Notice of Funding Availability” (“Super NOFA”) announcing the availability of approximately $523 million in HOPE VI revitalization funds. The Super NOFA identified the following qualifying criteria for successful applicants:
(a) The proposal must be designed to lessen the concentration of low income households, create opportunities for desegregation, and offer viable housing choices in the design of the new development;
(b) The proposal must affirmatively further fair housing and encourage diversity by physical design of the revitalized units; location of the new units, and marketing of housing types;
(c) The applicant must certify that it has matching funds, which could be combined with HUD funds to carry out the revitalization efforts;
(d) The applicant must comply with requirements of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act.
6

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 7 of 42
HUD’s 1999 Super NOFA included a section explaining the five “rating factors” used to review and score HOPE VI grant applications:
(1) Capacity (20 possible points) (2) Need (20 possible points) (3) Soundness of Approach (40 possible points) (4) Leveraging Resources (10 possible points) and (5) Comprehensiveness and Coordination (10 possible points). Each rating factor is subdivided into a number of subfactors, and each subfactor is assigned a maximum point total. Of particular relevance here, under the third rating factor, “soundness of approach,” is a sub-factor entitled “affirmatively furthering fair housing” (sub-8) which provides for a maximum sub-score of five points. To receive maximum points under this subfactor, the HUD Super NOFA and corresponding application kit explain that the applicant “must affirmatively further fair housing though the physical design of the revitalized units, the location of new units, and marketing of housing that will encourage diversity.” Under a subdivision (8)(b), captioned “diversity,” HUD further advises: To receive maximum points, program activities must aid a broad diversity of eligible residents, including the elderly, the disabled, etc. HUD will also evaluate your efforts to increase community awareness in a culturally sensitive manner through education and outreach, as applicable. Describe specific steps to address the elimination of impediments to fair housing that were identified in your jurisdiction’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, remedy discrimination in housing, or promote fair housing rights and fair housing choice. Your marketing and outreach activities should be targeted to all segments of the population on a nondiscriminatory basis, promote housing choice and opportunity throughout your jurisdiction, and contribute to the deconcentration of minority and low income neighborhoods. [DE# 352-4, p. 34]
7

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 8 of 42
Rating factor number 3, “soundness of approach,” also includes a sub-factor entitled “lessen concentration,” allowing for a nine point maximum sub-score. To receive maximum points under this subfactor, the applicant’s revitalization plan “must reduce the isolation of low -income residents, create opportunities for desegregation, and offer viable housing choices.” [DE# 352-4, p. 27]. This subfactor factor is further divided into two additional components - “physical plan and design” (6 possible points) and “Section 8" (3 possible points).
Under “Physical Plan and Design,” [¶ (3)(a)], HUD’s 1999 Super NOFA explains in pertinent part that maximum points are available to the applicant showing that :
(i) The physical plan and design of the proposed on site housing will significantly reduce the isolation of low income residents and/or significantly promote mixed income communities in well functioning neighborhoods. (ii) Any plans for off site housing will lessen concentration of low income residents and create opportunities for desegregation by activity ensuring that locations of housing will not be in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and/or high concentrations of minorities. (You do not have to have selected the precise location of site units in your application to receive full points for this element) According to the unrebutted affidavit of Susan Wilson, Director of HUD’s Office of Urban Revitalization,6 the reference to “desegregation” in the HUD Super NOFA and corresponding Application Kit “refers to the desegregation of low income households, a congressionally mandated purpose of the HOPE VI program, 42 U.S.C. 1437v(a)(3),” [WILSON AFFIDAVIT, at ¶11 [DE# 334-2], while the “Section 8" component of the “lessening de-concentration” factor concerns
6 Wilson has held this post since 2006. She was involved in review and scoring of HOPE VI grant applications nationwide during fiscal years 1997-98 and 2000-2008, and was “Team Leader” at the time the subject grant was awarded to MDHA.
8

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 9 of 42
provision of relocation assistance for residents receiving Section 8 certificates and vouchers.7 In 1999, HUD developed a “Guidance” for evaluation of HOPE VI applications by the Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity and Public and Indian Housing Office. This Guidance mirrors the language of the Super NOFA, including the advice that “locations of offsite housing will not be in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and/or high concentrations of minorities.” [DE# 167] It also encourages specific actions such as “selecting sites for replacement housing that have the effect of deconcentrating minority persons...” and “reduc[ing] the existence of racially identifiable projects.” [DE# 167]
In May, 1999, the County submitted its fourth HOPE VI grant application. At that time, 99% of Scott-Carver Homes residents were African-American, while African- American families comprised 64% of the total households in MDHA public housing, and 20% of the general population in Miami-Dade County.
The County’s 1999 application proposed to dramatically lessen on-site density at Scott Carver by 56%, calling for demolition of all 850 public housing units and replacement with 371 on-site units [80 public housing units, 135 public housing rent-to-own units, and 156 affordable homeownership units] and 91 off-site units of affordable homeownership. The 1999 Revitalization Plan contemplated relocation of all Scott -Carver Homes residents over a four year period to alternative housing through Section 8 vouchers and other MDHA public housing, homeownership
7 The “Section 8 Voucher Program” is a portable, tenant based federal subsidy that families use to rent housing in the private rental market. It is administered through various state housing agencies, such as Miami-Dade Housing Agency
9

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 10 of 42
and rent- to-own programs. 8 Under a section of the 1999 application captioned “We cannot control,” the County states
in pertinent part that “We cannot control HOPE VI requirements mandated by HUD” which require the County to “lessen the concentration of poverty,” and “discourage concentrations of minorities in undesirable neighborhoods.” In this same section, the application references the “Adker Decree,” a consent decree entered by Judge Paine in Adker v United States Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Case No. 87-00874, which required the County to desegregate its Section 8 and public housing programs.
The County’s 1999 Revitalization Plan included a commitment of approximately $65 million in additional resources to complete the proposed revitalization. Of this amount, the County’s Office of Community and Economic Development (“OCED”) committed $2 million in Community Development Block Grants (“CDBG”).
HUD approved the County’s 1999 HOPE VI application, and, on August 15, 1999, awarded the County a $35 million HOPE VI grant for revitalization of Scott-Carver Homes. The award was based on a point score of 96/100 on the MHDA’s application, with nine out of nine possible points assigned for the “lessening concentration” sub-factor. According to HUD, the MHDA’s proposed deconcentration of low income families was crucial to the success of its application.
8 The County defendants predicted that 469 of the original 850 Scott Carver Homes families would be forced to permanently relocate using Section 8 vouchers , while 178 families would be forced to permanently relocate to other public housing projects. [DE# 167].
They estimated that 44 of the original 850 would qualify to purchase one of the planned 149 homeownership units, where the minimum “qualifying income” for three bedroom home was estimated between $19,000 and $21,500 and a four bedroom between $23,596 and $24,330.
10

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 11 of 42
Shortly after the award was announced, Scott-Carver residents complained to the MiamiDade Board of County Commissioners about the limited amount of planned replacement housing. In response, on April 10, 2001, the Board adopted Resolution R-376-01, authorizing the transfer of $6 million to the Miami- Dade Housing Finance Authority for the construction of one hundred and fifty (150) single family homes for purchase by public housing residents, with a right of first refusal to Scott -Carver displacees.
On May 8, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution R- 495-01, authorizing the MDHA to construct an additional 175 units of Section 8 based affordable rental housing units to accommodate Scott Carver Homes residents displaced as a result of the HOPE VI Project.
To facilitate ongoing relocation of Scott-Carver displacees, the County defendants allowed large, multi-generational families to split up, with each family group offered alternative MHDA public housing or Section 8 vouchers. Over 1170 families were relocated in this fashion. By 2004, the Scott-Carver site was essentially vacant.
Meanwhile, reconstruction at the site came to a standstill. A 2004 internal audit ordered by the County found that only one “in -fill” home had been constructed with funds designated by R376-01, and only seven Scott-Carver families had been granted mortgages.
In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners vacated R-376-01 and transferred the remaining funds to the MDHA Development Corporation along with the vacant lots. However, this entity also failed to move forward with construction, prompting the Board to ultimately retrieve the funds and seek return of the lots.
11

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 12 of 42
By 2007, 846 of the original 850 Scott-Carver Homes had been demolished,9 and all residents relocated. Although the County had originally pledged a sophisticated tracking database to follow and assist displaced families, the promised database was never developed, and, by 2006 the County had lost track of hundreds of relocated families. [DE# 17]. In response to the community outcry, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution R-1436-06 in 2006, promising to fund a coordinated “public relations,” media and intergovernmental campaign to track the lost Scott-Carver residents.
Community organizers, such as The Miami Workers Center, undertook their own efforts to find displaced residents, and through door-to-door canvassing and billboard advertising, eventually found hundreds of “lost” families, many of whom by then were homeless, doubled up with relatives, or living in cars. For a brief period, the MDHA worked with these community leaders to reintegrate one hundred-forty “found” families back into public housing.
In 2006, the Miami Dade County Inspector General did an internal audit of the MDHA HOPE VI housing revitalization plan, finding gross fiscal mismanagement and lack of oversight in its administration. For example, of the $3,509,697.00 budgeted for support to relocatees, it found 85 cents on the dollar spent for inadequate program administration, and 15 cents on the dollar for actual program services. [DE# 335, Ex. 24, 25] Partially due to this mismanagement of the HOPE VI program, the federal government placed the MDHA into receivership in 2007 and assumed control over its operations.
In 2008, the County entered into a Master Development Agreement with a new developer, McCormack Baron Salazar Inc., to complete the project. Under the proposed McCormack plan,
9At the residents’ request, four units were left standing for historical purposes. 12

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 13 of 42
devised with input from former Scott-Carver residents and community groups, the revitalized project would contain 177 traditional public housing units and 177 rental units. The County defendants’ request for approval of this revision is still pending before HUD.
In December, 2008, the Miami Dade Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution R-1416-08, requiring the County to use its “best efforts,” to replace Scott-Carver housing on a one-for-one basis in the surrounding neighborhoods through project-based Section 8 vouchers that would be affordable to relocated residents. This Resolution calls for the Mayor to identify up to 850 annual contribution contract equivalent units in the expanded HOPE -VI target area, with a right of first refusal to Scott- Carver displacees. To date, however, no funds have been allocated for its implementation.
More than half of the County’s $35 million HOPE VI grant for the Scott-Carver revitalization project is now spent, and there is no completed construction at the site except for a small section of single family homes (57 homes) built by Habitat for Humanity under contract with the County. Of these, forty-one homes have been purchased by former Scott-Carver Homes residents, nine by public housing residents, three by Section 8 residents, and four by individuals living within the HOPE VI target area.
IV. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is “material” if it is a legal element of the claim under applicable substantive law that may affect the resolution of the action. Anderson v Liberty Lobby,
13

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 14 of 42
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if the record, taken as a whole, could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. Id.
The movant may meet this standard by presenting evidence demonstrating the absence of a dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party has not presented evidence in support of an element of its case on which it bears the burden of proof. Celotex Corp v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-33, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L. Ed.2d 265 (1986). It is not necessary for the moving party to supply affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim. Id.
Once the movant meets its initial burden of proof, the nonmovant must “go beyond the pleadings” and by affidavit, deposition testimony, answers to interrogatories and admission, designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2552-53. The nonmovant need not present evidence that would be admissible at trial, but “must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505.
At the same time, credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are the function of the jury, and therefore the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505. The nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference, but only of every reasonable inference. Brown v City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1988).
Finally, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made at the preliminary injunction stage in this case are not binding on the Court in this subsequent summary judgment proceeding.
14

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 15 of 42
Texas v Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (19801); McArthur v Firestone, 817 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1987); ABC Charters Inc. V Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
V. Discussion The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, pursuant to Congress’ Thirteenth Amendment powers, with the declaration that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, “for fair housing” throughout the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 3601; United States v Starrett City Associates, 840 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 488 U.S. 946 (1988). The statute bans discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” in connection with the sale and rental of housing and other private real estate transactions, subject to limitations imposed by the statute. 42 U. S. C. §§ 3604, 3605. Under the Act, the Secretary is required “to administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of” the statute. § 3608(e)(5). The Secretary must study the nature and extent of “discriminatory housing practices,” §3608(e)(1), and report annually to Congress “data on the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap and family characteristics “of persons who participate in, benefit from or who may benefit from HUD programs.” § 3608(e)(6). The Secretary must also confer with State and local officials on “the extent, if any, to which housing discrimination exists” in states and localities and how “State or local enforcement programs might be utilized to combat such discrimination.” §3609. While “the Act was designed primarily to prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, financing, or brokerage of private housing and to provide federal enforcement procedures for remedying such discrimination so that members of minority races would not be condemned to
15

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 16 of 42
remain in urban ghettos in dense concentrations where employment and educational opportunities were minimal,” the Act also requires the Secretary of HUD to consider “the impact of proposed public housing programs on the racial concentration in the area in which the proposed housing is to be built.” Otero v New York City Housing Authority, 484 F.2d 1122, 1133-34 (2d Cir. 1973).
The Act bans practices that are motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose as well as those that disproportionately affect minorities. Starrett City, 840 F.2d at 1100. It is designed to ensure that “no one is denied the right to live where they choose for discriminatory reasons.” Id., citing Southend Neighborhood Improv. Ass’n v County of St. Clair, 743 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1984). Overall, “Congress saw the anti-discrimination policy [embodied in the Fair Housing Act] as the means to effect the antisegregation-integration policy.” Id.
Under § 3608(e)(5), HUD has an obligation administer its programs and activities in a manner which “affirmatively furthers” fair housing. This affirmative obligation may subject it to liability in two types of situations – first, when HUD takes discriminatory action itself, such as approving federal assistance for a public housing project without considering its effect on the racial and socio-economic composition of the surrounding area, and second, when it is aware of a grantee’s discriminatory practices and makes no effort to force it into compliance with the FHA by cutting off existing federal financial assistance to the agency in question. Anderson v City of Alpharetta, Ga., 737 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1984), citing Shannon v HUD, 436 F.2d 809, 811 (3d Cir. 1970) and Gautreaux v Romney, 448 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971). See also N. A. A. C. P. v Secretary of HUD, 817 F.2d 149, 155 (1st Cir. 1987)(Breyer, J.) (Congress intended for HUD to “use its grant programs to assist in ending discrimination and segregation, to the point where the supply of genuinely open housing increases”); Darst-Webbe Tenant Assoc. Bd v St. Louis Housing Authority,
16

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 17 of 42
339 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2003); M & T Mortgage Corp. v White, 2006 WL 47467 *8 (E. D. N. Y. 2006).
A. County Defendants 1. Fair Housing Act (FHA) Claim (42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq., Title VIII of Civil Rights Act of 1968) Section 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act , 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq., Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides that it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny ... a dwelling to any person because of race ...” Section 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act provides it is unlawful to “make, print or publish ... any notice, statement or advertisement with regard to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race ...” In order to prevail on a claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must show “unequal treatment on the basis of race that affects the availability of housing.” Jackson v Okaloosa County, Florida, 21 F.3d 1542 (11th Cir. 1994). Unequal treatment “based on race” in this paradigm can be established by showing intentional discrimination, or discriminatory impact. Schwartz v City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008); Hallmark Developers, Inc. v Fulton County, Ga., 466 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). 10
10 The majority view holds that a violation of the FHA can be established without a showing of discriminatory intent. See e.g. Affordable Housing Dev. Corp v City of Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); Cox v City of Dallas, Tex., 430 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. den., 126 S. Ct. 2039 (2006); Charleston Housing Authority v United States Dept. of Agriculture, 419 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2005); Tsombanidis v West Haven Fire Dept, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003); Oti Kaga, Inc. v South Dakota Housing Dev. Authority, 342 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2003); Macone v Town of Wakefield, 277 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002); Langlois v Abington Housing Authority, 207 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2000); 292 Sherman Ave Tenants’ Ass’n v District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
17

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 18 of 42
To prove intentional discrimination, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defendant acted intentionally, or was improperly motived in its decision to discriminate against persons protected by the FHA. Bonasera v City of Norcross, 2009 WL 2569097 (11th Cir. 2009)(unpub). This can be accomplished with evidence that the decision making body acted for the sole purpose of effecting the desires of private citizens, that racial considerations were a motivating factor behind those desires, and that members of the decision making body were aware of the motivations of the private citizens. Hallmark Developers, Inc. v Fulton County, Ga., 466 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006).
In contrast, to establish a prima facie disparate impact claim, it is sufficient for plaintiff to demonstrate that the challenged action results in, or can be predicted to result in, a disparate impact upon a protected class compared to the relevant population as a whole. Bonasera v City of Norcross, supra, citing Jackson v Okaloosa County, 21 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994); Oti Kaga, Inc. v South Dakota Housing Development Authority, 342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff can show discriminatory effect in two ways – first, by showing that the decision has a desgregative effect, and second, by showing that the decision makes housing options significantly more restricted for members of a protected group than for persons outside that group. Bonasera, citing Housing Investors, Inc. V City of Clanton, Ala., 68 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1298 (M. D. Ala. 1999). Typically, a disparate impact is demonstrated by statistics. Id.
In this case, plaintiffs allege that County defendants violated the FHA in three ways: (1) the development and implementation of a housing plan having disparate impact on AfricanAmerican families, giving rise to a denial of housing opportunities based on race inn violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(a)(Count 1); (2) the implementation of housing plan intentionally designed to force
18

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 19 of 42
African-American residents out of the redeveloped neighborhood, giving rise to denial of housing opportunities based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(a) (Count 3), and (3) the issuance of a statement displaying a racial preference in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(c)(Count 4).
a. disparate impact claim In support of their disparate impact claim, plaintiffs present statistical evidence pertaining to the population displaced by the demolition of Scott-Carver Homes and the relevant demographics in the larger metropolitan community. Specifically, they show that 99% of persons displaced from Scott-Carver housing project are African-American, while 64% of the MHDA public housing population is African-American, and 20% of the Miami-Dade County population is AfricanAmerica. Assuming, for the purpose of this analysis, that the statistics proffered establish a prima facie disparate impact case, see e.g. Charleston Housing Authority v United States Dept. of Agriculture, 419 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2005)(prima facie disparate impact case established where undisputed evidence showed demolition of low income housing complex would have disproportionate impact on African-Americans, since majority of tenants in housing project were African- American); United States v City of Black Jack, Missouri, 508 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir.), cert. den., 422 U.S. 1042 (1975), the court proceeds to examine the subsequent steps of FHA disparate impact burden shifting analysis. Under the second step, the MHDA must show that its proposed action has a “manifest relationship” to a legitimate, nondiscriminatory policy objective, and that the action is justifiable because it is necessary to the attainment of that objective. Charlestown Housing Authority v United States Dept. of Agriculture, 419 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2005); Oti Kaga, 342 F.3d at 883. If it makes this
19

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 20 of 42
showing, the burden shifts back to plaintiffs to show the existence of a viable alternative which could achieve that goal without the discriminatory effect. Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.), aff’d in part, 488 U.S. 15 (1988).
The County justifies its plan as necessary to reduce low-income housing density, while preserving housing opportunities for Scott-Carver residents within the general vicinity of their home neighborhood. In this sense, its objectives coincide with the overarching federal statutory goal of poverty de-concentration and development of sustainable, mixed income communities. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437v(a)(3)(calling for “housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low income families”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1437p(d)(implementing the goal of reducing the concentration of low income public housing by providing that replacement housing is permitted on site following the demolition of obsolete housing “if the number of replacement public housing units is significantly fewer than the number of units demolished”). By thus seeking to shift the model of public housing in Scott-Carver Homes from that of densely clustered, low-income housing to one of economic integration, without isolation of the development from the rest of the community, the County has articulated a legitimate, facially neutral objective which coincides with the goals of the federal statutory scheme. As plaintiff does not proffer any evidence suggesting that the County’s proffered objective is a pretext for race discrimination, the County has sustained its burden of proof at this stage of the analysis. See Darst-Webbe Tenant Association v St. Louis Housing Authority, 417 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2005). Compare Charlestown Housing Authority, supra (finding issue of pretext where Housing Authority falsely represented the low income population density at the location in question).
Accordingly, the burden shifts back to plaintiffs to show the existence of an available
20

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 21 of 42
alternative which would have a less discriminatory impact. Here, plaintiffs urge that the County’s Revitalization Plan could and should be amended to accommodate their demand for one-for-one replacement of all demolished low income public housing rental units in or around the surrounding neighborhoods of the original Scott-Carver housing project site. As evidence of the County’s own belief that such a plan is feasible and could be implemented without running afoul of federal funding requirements, they focus on the Miami- Dade County Board of County Commissioner’s 2008 Resolution calling for use of “best efforts” in the construction of 850 new public housing rental units, with a right of first refusal proffered to former Scott-Carver residents.
While this proffer perhaps raises an issue pertaining to the feasability of the designated alternative, it does not satisfy plaintiffs’ burden of showing examples of viable alternatives that satisfy the County’s legitimate objective of poverty de-concentration while at the same time reducing the discriminatory impact on African-Americans. That is, plaintiffs do not proffer evidence of a plan that guarantees one- for- one replacement of traditional public housing units which would actually have a lesser impact on protected class members. Without any evidence of a reliable prediction of the composition of the post development population, plaintiffs fail to raise a fact question on whether their proposed plan is likely to achieve a lesser discriminatory impact than the City’s plan, and hence fail to carry their burden of proof in this third and final phase of FHA disparate impact burden shifting analysis. See Darst -Webbe, supra. Thus, summary judgment is appropriately entered in favor of the County defendants on this claim.
b. Intentional Discrimination Claim (Count 3) Plaintiffs alternatively seek to establish an intentional discrimination FHA claim against the County. To prove intentional discrimination, plaintiffs must show that defendants acted
21

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 22 of 42
intentionally or were improperly motivated in their decision to discriminate against persons protected by the FHA. Bonasera v City of Norcross, 2009 WL 2569079 (11th Cir. 2009)(unpub.), citing Reese v Miami Dade County, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (S. Fla. 2002).
Plaintiffs claim that the County defendants intentionally discriminated against them by creating and implementing a race-based redevelopment plan purposefully designed to prevent all but a few of the original Scott-Carver African-American residents from returning to the original site and living in redeveloped units. Their theory of liability here is based on direct evidence of discriminatory intent embodied in statements contained in the County’s 1999 HOPE VI application, where, under items “we cannot control,” the County stated that it was required to follow a federal mandate from HUD to “lessen concentration of poverty” and “discourage concentration of minorities in undesirable neighborhoods.” Plaintiffs also claim that the contours of the city’s revitalization plan were informed by overt, race-based advice from HUD Deputy Director Bob Prescott, who advised that the 1996 redevelopment proposal was rejected because it was “still almost 100% single head of household, non-working, mostly AFDC, 97% African American housing consisting of like families.”
Upon consideration of record as a whole, the Court does not find this evidence sufficient to raise a genuine question of fact on the issue of whether the County and its employees acted with conscious intent to discourage or prevent African American families from returning to the redeveloped project. A full reading of the record shows that the County was motivated by a desire to deconcentrate poverty, rather than any animus toward the predominant African-American population which resided in the original Scott- Carver Homes project. There is no evidence of such illicit motive on the part of any board member, and no evidence that the board was reacting
22

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 23 of 42
to racially motivated citizen complaints targeted against African Americans when it formulated its redevelopment plan.
Because plaintiffs do not present evidence from which a fact finder could reasonably conclude the County was motivated by race in its decision to demolish the Scott-Carver Homes and replace the project with a mixed income community, their intentional discrimination claim under the FHA necessarily fails. See Bonasera, supra.
c. Illegal Statement of Racial Preference (Count 4) Section 3604 (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 ...rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, ... sex [or] familial status...or an intention to make a any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.” Plaintiffs claim that language in County Defendants’ application under “We Cannot Control” referring to “HOPE VI requisites mandated by HUD” which require County to “lessen the concentration of poverty; [discourage] concentrations of minorities in undesirable neighborhoods,” constitutes such a statement of illegal preference or discrimination. The predecessor judge found this language is not discriminatory on its face because it does not indicate a preference based on race, or express an intention to discriminate or make a preference based on race. Reese v Miami -Dade County, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2002). This court agrees. The expression of a general intent to pursue an affirmative, integrated fair housing plan pursuant to a larger urban revitalization project does not constitute a publication of a statement
23

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 24 of 42
indicating a preference based on race, or an intention to make such a preference within the meaning of the FHA where, as here, the statement contains no racial quota or other provision purporting to make race a factor in deciding who will be permitted to purchase the redeveloped homes. See SouthSuburban Housing Center v Greater South Suburban Bd. of Realtors, 935 F.2d 868 (7th Cir. 1991)(affirmative housing marketing plan which vendor of homes imposed on real estate agent, including requirement for advertisement of homes in media with predominantly white circulation, did not constitute publication of statement indicating a preference based on race in violation of FHA, where plan did not deter black home buyers from pursuing their interests in homes nor preclude agents from showing homes to black potential purchasers), cert. den., 502 U.S. 1074 (1992).
2. Equal Protection Claim (§ 1983) (Count 8 ) On their equal protection claim, asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1983, plaintiffs contend that the County’s revitalization plan creates an express racial classification meriting “strict scrutiny,” requiring that the classification be (1) justified by a compelling governmental interest, and (2) narrowly tailored to furthering that interest in order to pass constitutional muster. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Pena, 515 U.S. 227, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed.2d 158 (1995). Proof of discriminatory purpose or intent is necessary to establish a violation of the equal protection clause. Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-71 (1977). To prove discriminatory purpose in this context, it is sufficient that plaintiffs simply show race was a motivating favor in the challenged decision making process. Id. at 265-66. In support of their equal protection claim against the County, plaintiffs rely heavily on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School
24

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 25 of 42
District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed.2d 508 (2007) and the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Walker v City of Mesquite, 169 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. den., 528 U.S. 1131 (2000) as illustrations of “strict scrutiny” analysis applied to “benign” racial classifications geared toward integration.
In Parents Involved, the court applied strict scrutiny to evaluate the constitutionality of high school and elementary school student assignment plans that relied on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The school districts justified their action as necessary to reduce racial concentrations and promote the overarching goal of racial diversity in elementary and secondary schools.
The Supreme Court noted that the student assignment plans, in design and operation, were were directed only to racial balance, and that “racial balancing” could not be transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by re-labeling it “racial diversity.” In reaching this result, it distinguished its prior opinion in Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed.2d 304 (2003), where it recognized the interest in racial diversity in higher education as a compelling government interest sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny analysis. In Grutter, it held that a state university law school had a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body, where its admission policy was not focused on race alone but encompassed “all factors that may contribute to student body diversity.” That is, Grutter permitted consideration of race as “a factor” in a holistic, individualized admission review process designed to achieve “exposure to widely diverse people, culture, idea and viewpoints” in the context of higher education, while the student assignment plans in Parents Involved impermissibly used race as “the factor” which alone determined student assignments for some in a non-individual, mechanical way. Parents Involved
25

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 26 of 42
at 723-724. In Walker, the Fifth Circuit applied strict scrutiny analysis to a district court remedial order
requiring new public housing to be built in “predominantly white neighborhoods,” and found the remedial order violated equal protection because it was not narrowly tailored to remedy vestiges of past discrimination and segregation within the city’s public housing programs, given the success of the city’s Section 8 system, the availability of viable, nonracial, nondiscriminatory site selection criteria, and race-neutral, good faith efforts on part of the City and HUD to remedy the wrongs of the past.
Unlike the student assignment plans at issue in Parents Involved, or the remedial order in Walker v City of Mesquite, the housing redevelopment plan of the County at issue here is facially race-neutral. It does not set racial quotas for the redeveloped housing, or establish site selection criteria based on race. Rather, it is simply geared, consistent with the underlying goals of the HOPE VI program, toward the de-concentration of poverty, regardless of the racial composition of the resulting populations. See Reese v Miami Dade County, 242 F. Supp. 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2002).
To the extent that “deconcentration of minorities” is also identified as a goal of the County’s redevelopment plan, it is but one factor weighed in with others aimed at pursuing the County’s overarching goal of deconcentration of poverty and economic integration.
Thus, plaintiffs’ reliance on Parents Involved, Walker and similar “strict scrutiny” equal protection cases is misplaced because the County’s plan is not based on express racial classifications, does not expressly limit or prohibit housing opportunities based on race, and does not require integration or desegregation based on racial compositions. More specifically, as approved by HUD, the County’s plan does not require integration of former Scott -Carver residents
26

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 27 of 42
into “predominantly white” communities, cf. Walker v City of Mesquite, supra, and it does not set racial quotas for residents of the redeveloped property or the neighboring communities absorbing the relocated Scott Carver displacees. Cf. United States v Starrett City Associates, 840 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir.1988)(racial ceilings used to prevent “white flight” and maintain current integration levels held unlawful under Fair Housing Act, where quotas caused qualified minority applicants to wait longer for apartments than whites), cert. den., 488 U.S. 946 (1988); United States v Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 718 F. Supp. 461 (W.D. Va. 1989)(race conscious tenant selection policy in public housing project which gave preferential treatment to white applicants to achieve a 50/50 mix of black and white residents held unlawful under FHA; interest in racial integration alone insufficient to justify a racial quota systems which lessened housing opportunities for minorities).
The County’s plan in this case calls for creation of different types of affordable housing geared toward economic integration and diversity. Rather than create express racial classifications for on- site or off-site housing, the plan requires the marketing of all new, affordable housing units on a nondiscriminatory basis to all races. Since the County’s 1999 revitalization plan is facially neutral, it is subject to strict scrutiny review “only if it can be proved that the law was ‘motivated by a racial purpose or object,’ or is unexplainable on grounds other than race.” Hunt v Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 546 , 119 S. Ct. 1545, 143 L. Ed.2d 731 (1999). Because plaintiffs do not make this showing, the County’s revitalization scheme is subject to simple “rational basis” equal protection review.
It survives this minimal level of scrutiny because the County has a legitimate governmental interest in the de-concentration of poverty and integration of impoverished families into the larger
27

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 28 of 42
community, and its proposed redevelopment plan is rationally related to advancing those interests. See e.g. Friends of Lake View School District Incorporation No. 25 of Phillips County v Beebe, 578 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. August 25, 2009)(applying rational basis test to facially neutral Arkansas statute requiring school districts with fewer than 350 students to be annexed by another district, where statute classified school districts, not persons, based on average daily membership, regardless of racial composition of student population). See generally San Antonio Independent School Dist. v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973); City of Chicago v Shalala, 189 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 1999)(rational basis standard of equal protection scrutiny applied to determine constitutionality of provisions of Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that disqualified non-citizens lawfully in the U.S. from participating in various federally funded welfare programs)
While plaintiffs acknowledge that a policy of “poverty de-concentration” is not necessarily or expressly racial, they argue that it should be treated as such in this case, where it is applied to an impoverished population known to be 99% African-American. However, a showing of discriminatory purpose requires “more than a mere awareness of the consequences,” it requires evidence of racially discriminatory intent or purpose. See e.g. Friends of Lake View School District Incorporation No. 25 of Phillips County v Beebe, supra.
Where there is no evidence that the County’s original decision to revitalize Scott- Carver Homes was linked to the racial composition of its residents, or that the planned redevelopment of the property was intentionally organized along racial lines, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of discriminatory intent necessary to sustain their equal protection claim. Summary judgment shall accordingly enter upon this claim in favor of the County defendants.
28

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 29 of 42
3. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count 7) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count 7), 42 U.S.C. §2000d, prohibits discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in programs receiving federal aid. It reaches only intentional discrimination, i.e. proof of purposeful discrimination is a necessary element of a valid claim under this statute. Guardians Association v Civil Service Commission of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582 (1983). As applied in the FHA context, this provision prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race in the site selection process, see e.g. B. A. S. I. C. v Kemp, 776 F. Supp. 637 (D. R.I. 1991); Gautreaux v Chicago Housing Authority, 296 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1969), and eliminates race-based tenant preferences. See e.g. Otero v New York City Housing Authority, 344 F. Supp. 737 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). As discussed above, the record in this case reveals no evidence of intentional discrimination in the development and implementation of the County’s revitalization plan. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim under § 2000d falls along with the other intentional discrimination claims. Anderson v Fall River Housing Authority, 2008 WL 4372820 (D. Mass. 2008)(unpub); Seabrook v City of New York, 509 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S. D. N. Y. 2007).
4. QHWRA (Count 10) The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (“QHWRA”) of 1998 requires public housing agencies like the MHDA to submit a plan to HUD every five years that contains, among other things, the agency’s certification that its public housing plans will be administered in conformity with the FHA and Civil Rights Act, and “will affirmatively further fair housing.” See U.S.C. § § 1437c-1(b)(1), § 1437c-1(d)(15).
29

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 30 of 42
Plaintiffs’ QHWRA claim is apparently based on the premise that a violation of this statue occurred when the County certified to HUD that its public housing plans would be conducted and administered in conformity with the FHA and Civil Rights Act, when, in reality, the County had not adequately considered the racial and socio-economic effects of its planned revitalization project pursuant to its obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing.” Plaintiffs seek redress for this alleged statutory violation under the vehicle of §1983.
At the outset, this court questions whether Section 1437c-1(d)(15) of QHWRA suggests a congressional intent to confer enforceable rights on plaintiffs, noting there has been some disagreement in the district courts on the issue. Compare Wallace v Chicago Housing Authority, 289 F. Supp. 2d 710 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (QHWRA certification provision subject to private enforcement under §1983) and Reese v Miami Dade County, supra (same) with Thomas v Butzen, 2005 WL 2387676 (N.D. Ill. 2005)(no private cause of action for §1437c-1(d)(15) QHWRA violation under § 1983).
In Butzen, the court rejected the notion that this provision of QHWRA creates rights cognizable under §1983, noting that the focus of the statute is on a public housing agency’s responsibility to report to HUD; the statute is in the nature of a general policy statement too vague and amorphous to be enforced, and that plaintiffs failed to identify any specific rights allegedly conferred by the statute as required under Blessings v Freestone, 520 U. S. 329 (1997).11 Id at *9,
11 While there may be other statutory mechanisms available to enforce an alleged QHWRA violation, see e.g. United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v Westchester County, New York, 495 F. Supp. 2d 375 (S.D. N . Y. 2007)(Qui tam relator stated claim under False Claims Act (FCA) against County based on false certification in application for federal block grant funds, where County certified grant would be administered in accord with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Act, when in fact it did not take race into consideration when evaluating fair housing impediments and take appropriate corrective action), the existence of an implied private cause of action asserted through §1983 is dubious.
30

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 31 of 42
citing Gonzaga University v Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 122 S. Ct. 2268, 153 L. Ed.2d 309 (2002). The court need not definitively resolve this question here, because, even assuming the
existence of an implied cause of action, there is no support for plaintiffs’ underlying assertion that the MHDA’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing” pursuant to this statutory certification process necessarily includes a duty to conduct racial and socio- economic studies in the course of urban redevelopment. Even if it did, as the predecessor judge concluded, the the County satisfied that obligation here by retaining Goodkin Consulting to perform an economic feasability study which it included in its 1999 HOPE VI application package. See Reese v Miami Dade County, 242 F. Supp. 1292, 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2002).
5. HCDA Claim 42 U.S.C.§ 5304(d)(2) (Counts 11 &12) The Housing and Community Development Act (“HCDA”), 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2), requires, in the event of a residential displacement associated with a development project assisted with CDBG funds, that: Governmental agencies or private developers shall provide within the same community comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants as could have been housed in the occupied and vacant occupiable low and moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than for housing for low and moderate income persons, and provide that such replacement housing may include existing housing assisted with project based assistance provided under section 1437f of this title. 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(i). Plaintiffs assert that the County’s revitalization plan is a project assisted with CDBG funds because the County committed, as part of its matching funds, $2 million dollars in CDBG funds (federal funds allocated to the County by HUD). Plaintiffs charge that the County defendants are accordingly obligated under § 5304(d)(2) to create one-for-one replacement dwellings as part of
31

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 32 of 42
its revitalization plan. At the outset, this court questions whether the HCDA creates an implied private cause of
action enforceable against the County under §1983. See Price v City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004)(finding private cause of action under Section 104(d)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv), but no private cause of action under 104(d)(2)(A)(i) or (ii), noting that requirements of latter are directed to governmental agencies and private developers and are phrased in aggregate terms, without reference to individual displaced persons).
Even assuming a private cause of action might be implied, the claim does not survive summary judgment in this case, where the premise of plaintiffs’ suit is inconsistent with the Congressional goal of reducing density in public housing complexes and the related elimination of one- for- one replacement requirements for HOPE VI funded projects. See Darst Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd, 339 F.3d 702, 714 (5th Cir. 2003) (enforcing one- for- one replacement would run contrary to Congressional goal of decreasing density of public housing complexes); Reese v Miami Dade County, supra.
B. Federal Defendants 1. Threshold Jurisdictional Challenges
a. Sovereign Immunity Plaintiffs seek to enforce their statutory claims against the federal defendants under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Section 702 of the Act provides a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity for claims challenging certain agency action, but this waiver is limited by Section 704, which provides that a federal court may only review agency action “made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704.
32

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 33 of 42
The federal defendants contend, first, that the APA does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity on any of claims asserted against them because plaintiffs have an adequate remedy for these alleged wrongs against the County. See Cannon v University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979); ADAPT v HUD, 170 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 1999)(generalized challenge to HUD action based on alleged failure to undertake any enforcement and oversight activity not subject to APA review; plaintiffs could pursue their claims of housing discrimination directly against federal funding recipients”).
However, this is not a general “negligent oversight” or “negligent enforcement” case; rather, plaintiffs challenge a specific decision of HUD to approve and fund a particular County’s plan. This court has jurisdiction under the APA to review this level of HUD decision making. Anderson v Jackson, 556 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2009)(jurisdiction to review HUD Secretary decision to permit demolition of public housing); NAACP v HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987)( jurisdiction to review HUD action where plaintiffs “pointed to a pattern of specific grant decisions by HUD”).
b. Discretionary Act Exception In Count 13, plaintiffs claim that HUD violated the Housing Community and Development Act ( HCDA) when it approved the County’s plan without enforcing the HCDA’s alleged one for one replacement requirement. The federal defendants contend the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not allow this claim because it effectively seeks review of an enforcement decision which is committed to agency discretion by law. See e.g. Heckler v Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)(no APA jurisdiction to review prisoner’s challenge to failure of FDA to enforce possible violations of Food and Drug Act in use of drugs for human executions; APA does not generally provide review of passive failure to prosecute or enforce). However, plaintiff’s Complaint does not challenge HUD’s passive decision to enforce or
33

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 34 of 42
prosecute a federal law; rather, it challenges its decision to fund the project despite the County’s failure to incorporate one- for- one replacement housing as allegedly required under the HCDA. The “discretionary acts” exception to sovereign immunity does not apply to such a claim. See e.g. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v Saunders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977)(upholding APA jurisdiction to review Secretary of Transportation’s approval of building of interstate highway). See also NAACP v Secretary of HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987)(although HUD possesses broad discretionary powers to develop, award and administer its grants and to decide the degree to which they can be shaped to help achieve Title VII goals, HUD’s affirmative duty to further fair housing under the FHA is not committed to agency discretion and is reviewable under the APA).
c. Mootness Federal defendants alternatively claim that all claims for injunctive relief are moot at this juncture because the demolition of Scott- Carver Homes and relocation of its original tenant base is now complete. The current complaint seeks affirmative injunctive relief concerning the development and particulars of the County’s replacement housing plan. This segment of plaintiffs’ demand for injunctive relief is not mooted by the demolition and interim relocation of the original Scott- Carver Home residents. In addition, the County has proposed a revision to its revitalization plan which is still pending before HUD for approval. With the implementation of the original plan at a virtual standstill, and a proposed revision pending for approval before HUD, the mootness challenge to plaintiffs’ complaint for injunctive relief is without merit. See Coliseum Square Ass’n v Jackson, 465 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2006).
34

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 35 of 42
d. Standing Federal defendants contend that plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims because the requested injunctive relief seeking replacement of demolished public housing units on a one- forone basis would violate Congress’ express mandate regarding replacement housing and undermine the statutory goal of “providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low income families. 42 U.S.C. § 1437v(a)(3). This argument is dismissed summarily because the merit of plaintiffs’ statutory challenges does not defeat their standing to assert the claims as parties allegedly injured by the relevant conduct of the defendants. With each of the federal government’s threshold jurisdictional challenges rejected, the court’s inquiry turns to the substantive challenge to each of the claims asserted against the Federal defendants.
2. Intentional Discrimination Claims (Counts 6, 9): [Purposeful Use of Race Based Criteria in Approving/Funding 1999 Plan] Plaintiffs claim that HUD violated the FHA guarantee of fair housing (Count 6) and the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause (Count 9) by intentional discrimination, i.e. by purposefully using race-based criteria in approving and funding the MDHA’s 1999 Revitalization Plan. As direct evidence of the alleged intentional discrimination, plaintiffs point to: (1) HUD’s approval and funding of a HOPE VI application purposefully designed to achieve “deconcentration of minorities” and (2) HUD’s encouragement and knowledge of the MDHA’s improper motivation of racial deconcentration/integration. In support of this claim, plaintiffs again emphasize the statement in the County’s 1999
35

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 36 of 42
HOPE VI application regarding its obligation under HUD requirements and the Adker decree to “discourag[e] concentrations of minorities in undesirable neighborhoods,” and a similar statement in the County’s promotional community educational materials which identify a “winning application” as one which is designed to “discourag[e] concentration of minorities.” Plaintiffs contend that these statements were directly encouraged and solicited by HUD, which, in its own scoring system, included a scoring criteria entitled “lessen concentration” which awarded points for development of a “physical plan” that reduced concentration of low income residents on site, and ensured that off site housing avoid neighborhoods with “high concentrations of minorities.”12
They also cite the testimony of Robert Levis, co-author of the County’s 1999 HOPE VI grant proposal, who testified that he understood the HOPE VI program imposed an obligation to “affirmatively furthering fair housing” by “discouraging concentrations of minorities in undesirable neighborhoods,” and that he derived this impression from the HUD NOFAs under which he labored in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as HUD’s “critiques” of the County’s 1996 unsuccessful application.
Further, plaintiffs point to evidence that federal defendants denied prior HOPE VI applications of the County due to its failure to deconcentrate poverty and minority populations; that a high ranking HUD staff debriefed County officials on deficiencies of prior proposals using explicit racial terms; that the 1999 Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA) included project structuring and scoring criteria incorporating specific racial components; that County defendants
12 Also, they point to a Scoring “Guidance” developed by HUD in 1999 for evaluation of HOPE VI applications by the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Office which reiterates NOFA advice that “locations of [off site] housing will not be in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and/or high concentrations of minorities.” The Guidance goes further, citing specific actions like “selecting sites for replacement housing that have the effect of deconcentrating minority persons...” and “reduc[ing] the existence of racially identifiable projects.”
36

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 37 of 42
profess to have absorbed the HUD requirement of “deconcentrating minorities” from these sources; that the “we cannot control” section of 1999 application evinces the County’s belief that HUD required a deconcentration of minorities; and that HUD never amended its NOFA to delete the reference to “deconcentration of minorities” and never communicated any contrary understanding to the County defendants.
The court disagrees with plaintiff’s assessment of these statements as creation of express “race based” selection criteria. The evidence shows that HUD awarded the MDHA’s HOPE VI grant based on HUD’s scoring (96/100) of the County’s 1999 HOPE VI application using a multifactor, race-neutral rating system. Under the third point or factor, “soundness of approach,” there is a subfactor for “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” which, according to the accompanying Application Kit, includes a requirement that applicant’s marketing and outreach efforts “ be targeted to all segments of the population on a nondiscriminatory basis, promote housing choices and opportunity throughout your jurisdiction, and contribute to the deconcentration of minority and low income neighborhoods.” 64 Fed. Reg. 9736-37; AR 61-62.
There is nothing in this subfactor or any other scoring criteria used by HUD for reviewing 1999 HOPE VI applications which includes an allocation of points specifically for “deconcentration of minorities” and nothing in the scoring criteria which includes an express racial preference or other race based criteria for replacement housing.13 Instead, scoring guidelines published by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) regarding this
13Although the HUD Application Kit also includes a statement indicating that plans for offsite housing should ensure that the housing will not be in “neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and/or high concentration of minorities,” HUD explains that this provision does not apply in situations where the redeveloped housing is located on the site of the existing development or in its surrounding neighborhood, as is the case here. There is no evidence offered to contradict this interpretation.
37

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 38 of 42
subfactor state that “[Housing Authorities] should include in their work plans specific steps they will take to (1) address the elimination of impediments to fair housing choice...(2) remedy discrimination in housing; or (3) promote fair housing rights and fair housing choice.” Wilson Affidavit, ¶8 citing A.R. 426.
In addition, the FHEO review of the County’s plan concluded that “MDHA proposes to increase the admission of higher income families into lower income communities while encouraging a more balanced mix of incomes.” Wilson Affidavit, ¶9. The administrative record is thus consistent with proposition that the County’s application was scored favorably because the County designed its plan to attract a broad socioeconomic range of potential residents. Such an approach is consistent with the fundamental, race neutral purpose of the HOPE VI program, i.e., to promote “housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low income families.” §1437v(a)(3). Plaintiffs accordingly fail to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under the FHA or Fifth Amendment equal protection clause against the Federal defendants. The court shall accordingly enter summary judgment in favor of the Federal defendants on each of the intentional discrimination claims.
3. Failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (Counts 3, 5): Plaintiffs also contend that HUD failed to affirmatively further fair housing in violation of the general statutory mandate imposed by 42 U.S.C. §3608(e). HUD’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing” under this provision of the FHA may subject HUD to liability in two ways: (1) First, where the department takes discriminatory action itself, such as approving federal assistance for a public housing project without considering its effect on the racial and socio-economic composition of the surrounding area, and (2) Second, when the department is aware of a grantee’s discriminatory practice and makes no effort to force it into compliance with the FHA by cutting off
38

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 39 of 42
existing federal financial assistance to the agency in question. Anderson v City of Alpharetta, 737 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiffs charge that HUD violated this statutory obligation in both ways -- first, by failing to adequately consider the racial and socioeconomic effects of the County’s Revitalization Plan on protected class members before approving the plan (Count 5), and second, by approving the County’s HOPE VI application despite its alleged inclusion of a discriminatory statement of racial preference (Count 6). It seeks to enforce these statutory violations against HUD under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
This court reviews HUD’s actions for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and a general statutory mandate under a highly deferential standard, reversing only if it finds that HUD’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Norton v Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S. Ct. 2373 (2004); Darst -Webbe Tenant Association v St. Louis Housing Authority, 417 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2005); Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc v United States Army Corps of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996); N.A.A.C.P. v Secretary of HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987). The review is deferential because “it is not the role of the courts to micro-manage agency actions for compliance with broad, general statutory mandates.” Id. at 907.
This case involves a broad, general statutory mandate, HUD’s “duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” The question presented in reviewing HUD’s adherence to this policy is not whether HUD has in fact achieved tangible, adequate results in the discharge of that duty; rather, it is simply whether HUD exercised its broad authority in a manner that demonstrates consideration of, and an effort to achieve, such results. Norton at 124 S. Ct. at 2380-81.
The record reveals that HUD did so here, where it considered the Goodkin study submitted
39

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 40 of 42
with the County’s application, and based its approval of the County’s project on an assessment of the extent to which its plan was designed and likely to lessen concentrations of low income households, create mixed income communities and offer viable housing choices to the community (single family, apartments, rentals and homeownership) on a race -neutral basis. See Darst-Webbe, supra, 417 F.3d at 908.
Plaintiffs make a separate claim that HUD violated its duty to “affirmatively further fair housing” when it approved the application despite the County’s inclusion of a statement of “express racial preference,” apparently a reference to the County’s reference to a federally mandated obligation to “[discourage] concentrations of minorities” pursuant to the Adker decree and HUD requirements. However, the Court finds no statement of “express racial preference” to support the charge and no other evidence evincing an abdication of HUD’s responsibility to “affirmatively further fair housing” under the FHA.
Section 3608(e)(5) of the FHA charges HUD with obligation to administer its programs and activities in such a way as to further the statutory goal of providing equal housing opportunities. As a corollary principle, HUD is prohibited from funding any activity that would encourage, increase or perpetuate racial segregation. Anderson v City of Alpharetta, 737 F.2d 1530 , 1537 (11th Cir. 1984)(HUD is subject to liability under the “affirmatively further” requirement only where it has disbursed federal funds to local housing authorities who are engaged in activities that will ‘establish and add to segregation in housing patterns”), quoting Garrett v Hamtramck, 503 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1974); Shannon v U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev., 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970).
The court previously determined that the statement in question does not amount to unlawful statement of “racial preference,” and with no evidence suggesting that the MDHA’s revitalization plan would contribute to racial segregation in housing patterns, there is no evidentiary basis for this
40

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 41 of 42
strand of the plaintiffs’ “affirmatively further” argument. Finally, the suggestion that HUD’s “affirmatively further” obligation under the FHA
includes an obligation to ensure a one -for- one replacement of low income replacement rental units in the planned redevelopment is without merit. Darst- Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd, 339 F.3d at 714. (enforcing one for one replacement would run contrary to Congressional goal of decreasing density of public housing complexes).
4. HCDA (Count 13) Finally, plaintiffs assert that HUD’s authorization of the relocation plan despite the Count defendants’ failure to comply with the terms of the Housing and Community Development act: (HCDA) violates plaintiffs’ rights under the HCDA, 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(1), requiring governmental agencies receiving a CDBG to “provide within the same community comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants as could have ben housed in the occupied and vacant occupiable low and moderate income dwelling units demolished.” As indicated in connection with corresponding claim against County defendants, this HCDA claim necessarily fails because the underlying premise is false: Plaintiffs do not have a statutory right to one- for- one replacement of demolished Scott Homes public housing units. See Reese v Miami Dade County, supra; Darst Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd v St. Louis Housing Authority, 339 F.3d 702, 714 (8th Cir. 2003).
V. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Cynthia Curry, current Interim Director of the MHDA, is SUBSTITUTED for Rene Rodriquez as a party defendant, and Shaun Donovan, current director of HUD, is SUBSTITUTED for Mel Martinez as a party defendant.
41

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2009 Page 42 of 42
2. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ voluntary notice of dismissal, Counts 2, 14 and 15 of the plaintiffs’ complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the County Defendants [DE# 336] is DENIED.
4. The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability against the Federal defendants [DE# 337] is DENIED.
5. The Federal defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff [DE# 347] is GRANTED.
6. The County defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs [DE# 349] is GRANTED.
7. The plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees [DE# 331] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 10th day of November, 2009.

cc. All counsel

__________________________________ Daniel T. K. Hurley
United States District Judge

42

 
 Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 1 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLzyl

MARY REESE, VELMA BAILEY,

)

HERBERT JONES, PATRICIA SANDERS)

and L.I.F.F.T., an unincorporated

)

association

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

)

RENE RODRIGUEZ, Director of the

)

Miami-Dade Housing Agency, MEL R. )

MARTINEZ, Secretary of United States )

I

;;

Department of Housing and Urban

)

ii

Development, UNITED STATES

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

)

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

)

)

Defendants.

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and classes consisting of all African-American residents of the James E. Scott Homes public housing development and all African-American individuals on the waiting list for Miami-Dade County public housing, challenge the defendants Miami-Dade County and the director of its Housing Agency, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its Secretary with respect to their planning, and implementation of a multi-million dollar HOPE VI grant from HUD to Miami-Dade County. The HOPE VI plan will involuntary displace hundreds of African-American families currently residing in James E. Scott Homes public housing development (hereafter Scott Homes). This

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 2 of 42
displacement process is imminent. The HOPE VI Grant will then result in the demolition of residents' homes, the seven hundred and fifty four units of the Scott Homes pub! ic housing project as well as the ninety tive units in the adjoining Carver Homes public housing project. The HOPE VI Grant will finance replacement housing that will be, by design, inaccessible and unaffordable to the current residents and families on the waiting list for public housing. 2. Plaintiffs oppose the HOPE VI Grant project as currently configured. This project has been consciously designed for the purpose of discouraging African-Americans from living in the Scott Homes neighborhood and will result: (1) in the destruction of desperately needed affordable housing for very poor families in the Scott Homes community, who are overwhelmingly African-American; (2) in the forced displacement of the predominantly AfricanAmerican residents of the Scott Homes community; (3) in a dramatic reduction in the amount of the affordable housing available for the displaced African-American residents of Scott Homes; (4) a significant reduction in the amount ofhousing affordable to poor residents of Miami-Dade County, who are predominantly African-American and (5) a dramatic reduction in the amount of housing affordable and available to large families who will be among those most severely affected by the project. These families will not only be effectively excluded from the new Scott Homes community but will also tind little or no alternative housing in the larger Miami-Dade area. 3. Despite the mandates of federal law, plaintiffs and the classes they represent, their fellow tenants and waiting list families, have been effectively excluded from any opportunity to participate meaningfully in the planning of this "'revitalized'' community. The defendants have developed plans that ensure that plaintiffs, and the other families currently living in Scott Homes
2

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 3 of 42
or eligible to live in the development. will be expelled from their homes and effectively barred from living in the newly revitalized community. 4. Plaintiffs seek through this action declaratory and injunctive relief as to all defendants to halt the further implementation of the HOPE VI plan, including but not limited to, the forced or voluntary relocation of the current residents, until the defendants have fully complied with the HOPE VI statute and guidelines. Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C.§ 2000d, et ~the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. and the other statutes alleged herein. Specifically, plaintiffs request this Court to order defendants to halt all relocation or demolition activities related to the Scott Homes Housing project, and to fully maintain and operate Scott Homes as decent, safe and sound affordable public housing and to present to the Court a Revitalization Plan, including a Relocation Plan, Community and Supportive Services Plan and replacement housing plan, that meets the requirements of the fair housing statutes and regulations, the Uniform Relocation Act, the Community Development Block Grant relocation and replacement housing requirements as set forth in the Housing and Community Development Act and implementing regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 6. Venue in the Southern District of Florida is proper pursuant to Title 28 U .S.C. § 1391 (e) in that Defendants Miami-Dade County and Rene Rodriguez are residents of the Southern District of
3

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 4 of 42

Florida. a substantial part ofthe activities complained ofoccurred in the Southern District of Florida and all of the named plaintiffs reside in this judicial district. 7. The plaintiffs' claims for relief against the defendants Miami-Dade County and Rene Rodriguez (hereafter County defendants) are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 which authorizes

actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights. privileges, and immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. upon Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964.42 U.S.C.§ 2000d and its implementing regulations, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 360 I
et seq. and its implementing regulations, and upon 42 U.S.C. 9 1988, which authorizes the award

of attorneys' fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Plaintiffs' claims for relief against the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and its Secretary. Mel Martinez (hereafter federal defendants) are authorized

under 5 U.S.C. §70 I, et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act. 9. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive reliefpursuant to Rule 65. Federal Rules

ofCivil Procedure.

III. PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFFS

10. Plaintiff Mary Reese is a resident of Scott Homes and Miami-Dade County. Florida. Plaintiff Reese, who is African American. is a single mother of two children. She and her children currently live in a two bedroom apartment in Scott Homes. She has lived in Scott Homes for eighteen years and desires to remain in the Scott Homes community and the Scott

Homes neighborhood. 11. PlaintiflVelma Bailey is a resident of Scott Homes and Miami-Dade County. Florida.

4

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 5 of 42
Plaintiff Bailey, who is African-American lives in a five bedroom apartment with her seven children, her sister's four children and one grandchild. She has lived at that address for over thirteen years. 12. Plaintiff Herbert Jones is a resident of the Beckham Hall Homeless Shelter and MiamiDade County, Florida. He is African American and a single, unemployed father of two children who is desperately seeking housing for himself and his children. On or about March 2001 Mr. Jones applied for public housing for himself and his family and is currently on the Miami-Dade County public housing waiting list. 13. Plaintiff Patricia Sanders is a resident of Miami Dade County. She is African American and is currently the head of a household consisting of herself and two of her children, five grandchildren of her deceased daughter and a nephew. Her family is currently living in a dilapidated, over crowded three bedroom house in Liberty City. She needs decent safe and affordable housing for her family and her self In March 2001 she applied for public housing and was put on the public housing waiting list. In 1999 Ms. Sanders had been provided with a Section 8 voucher by County defendants but was unable to rent an available unit within the time permitted and consequently lost the voucher. 14. Low Income Families Fighting Together (L.I.F.F.T.) is an unincorporated membership association organized to assist low income families. The membership consists of residents of public housing in the Liberty City neighborhood of Miami including Scott Homes public housing project. L.I.F.F.T. was organized specifically to assist these families to advocate for themselves with respect to public agencies such as Miami Dade Housing Agency and the Department of Children and Families. L.l.F.F.T. and its members have participated in HOPE VI meetings at
5

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 6 of 42
both Scott Homes Public Housing Project and Liberty Square Public Housing Project and attempted to have input into the HOPE VI process in order to assist L.I.F.F.T. members and other public housing residents.
B. DEFENDANTS 15. Miami-Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida which owns and operates federally subsidized public housing projects including Scott Homes and Carver Homes. The County is a Public Housing Agency ("PHA") within the meaning of42 U.S.C. ~ 1437 and administers the federally subsidized and assisted public housing within its jurisdiction as authorized by the United States Housing Act and implementing federal regulations. Miami-Dade County is the recipient of a HOPE VI Grant from the federal defendants which will result in the demolition of Scott Homes and is the agency responsible for the implementation of the grant. Miami-Dade Housing Agency is the department within Miami-Dade County directly responsible for the administration and operation of the County's public housing, including the administration and operation of the HOPE VI Grant. 16. Rene Rodriguez is the Director of the Miami-Dade Housing Agency. He is charged with establishing and administering the policies of the Agency including those relating to the daily operation, administration and maintenance of all public housing and the administration of the HOPE VI Grant. He is sued herein in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Housing Agency. 17. At all times relevant to this Complaint each County defendant was acting under color of state law. 18. Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") is the
6

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 7 of 42

federal agency charged with administering the public housing programs and all the federal

statutes, regulations, and procedures relating thereto, including the HOPE VI program.

19. Defendant Mel R. Martinez is Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and

Urban Development ("'HUD") and, as such, is charged with the administration and enforcement

of all functions, powers and duties of HUD, including those relating to the public housing

program, the HOPE VI program and the Fair Housing Act. Defendant Martinez is sued herein in

his official capacity. County defendants and federal defendants will collectively be referred to

herein as "defendants."

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(l ), (b)(2). Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes

defined as the following:

I. All African-American individuals residing in Scott Homes Public Housing

Project as of September 17, 1999; and 2. All African-American families who currently are, or will in the future be, on the Miami-Dade Housing Agency public housing waiting list. Plaintiffs Reese and Bailey seek to represent the class of all African-American individuals residing in Scott Homes Public Housing Project as of September 17, 1999. Plaintiffs Herbert and Sanders seek to represent the class of all African American families who currently are, or will in the future be, on the Miami-Dade Housing Agency public housing waiting list. 21. Each of the requirements of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) is met. Members of the classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable and individual litigation by each

7

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 8 of 42

would unnecessarily and substantially burden the operation of the judicial system.

21. The interest of the classes members are typified by the interest ofthe named plaintiffs. all

of whom share a common right to relief and a common interest in the case. The named plaintiffs

will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the classes in that each named

plaintiff has suffered the same or similar harm in tem1s of deprivation of rights to fair housing

and/or relocation benefits under federal housing and fair housing law and the United States

Constitution. The attorneys representing plaintiffs and the legal services organizations which

employ them, Florida Legal Services, Inc. and Florida Justice Institute. Inc. are experienced and

capable litigators possessed of sufficient resources to adequately protect and represent the

interests of the plaintiff classes.

23. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each plaintiff and to the

classes the plaintiffs represent, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the

classes as a whole. Specifically, defendants have utilized the policies and practices described

herein to deny plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff classes their rights under federal law

and the United States Constitution.

24. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the putative classes predominate

over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to individual

lawsuits for resolving this controversy.

25. The questions of fact common to all members of the classes are as follows:

a.

Whether the defendants' actions with respect to the HOPE VI plan will have a

disproportionate adverse impact on the members of the classes on the basis of race and on

the basis of familial status;

8

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 9 of 42

b. Whether the defendants' actions targeted the Scott Homes public housing development for demolition and redevelopment because of the racial composition of its residents and have expressed a racial preference in their public presentations and written materials: c. Whether the federal defendants failed to consider the racial and socio-economic

effects of the County defendants' application for a HOPE VI grant and funded the County HOPE VI application de~pite the fact that it contained an express racial preference;

d. Whether the County defendants failed to consider the racial and socio-economic

effects of their HOPE VI plan;

e. Whether the County defendants are failing to provide within the same community

comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants as those units

demolished;

f.

Whether the defendants are proceeding with relocation despite not having

developed a relocation plan that conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation

Act and the implementing regulations and in the absence of an adequate residential anti-

displacement and relocation assistance plan: .g. Whether County defendants are proceeding without having conducted any

environmental assessment ofthe impact of the HOPE VI grant.

26. The questions of law common to all members of the classes are as follows:

a. Whether the County defendants' actions with respect to the HOPE VI

redevelopment plan violate the class members' rights guaranteed under the Equal

9

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 10 of 42

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Title
* Vlli ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (b), and (c): Title VI ofthe
Civil Rights Act of 1964.42 U.S.C. 92000d: the Quality Housing and Work

Responsibility Act of 1998.42 U.S.C. §§ 1437c-l. 1437v: the Housing and Community

Development Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d): the Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real

Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq.: and the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.: and 42 U.S.C. §

1983;

b.

Whether the federal defendants' actions with respect to the HOPE VI

redevelopment plan and application violate the class members rights guaranteed pursuant
to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of

1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(5), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.

V. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME A. The HOPE VI Requirements

27. In October 1992, Congress created the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program
("URD"), otherwise known as HOPE VL which provides grants of up to $50 million "to carry
out an urban revitalization demonstration program involving major reconstruction of severely

distressed or obsolete public housing projects to be administered by public housing agencies... "
Pub. L. 102-389, Title IL 106 Stat. 1579, reprinted at 42 U.S.C. § 14371, note.

28. In 1998 the HOPE VI Program was codified at42 U.S.C. § 1437v and provides. in

10

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 11 of 42
relevant part, that a major purpose of the program is: ( 1) improving the living environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public housing projects (or portions thereof);
29. HUD has issued interpretive policies requiring public housing agencies that receive
HOPE VI funds to involve all affected tenants in the redevelopment process:
Residents are to be included in all phases of the application pn:paration, planning, implementation and operation ofthe HOPE VI development ... lPublic Housing Authorities or "PHAs"] are responsible for communicating and disseminating information to all affected residents and ensuring that all affected residents have opportunities to participate .... Resident involvement often starts with the duly elected resident council, but the PHA must make sure that the resident council is truly representative. PHAs must give all affected residents reasonable notice of meetings about HOPE VI planning and implementation, and provide them with opportunities to provide input. Such meetings should be open to all affected residents and their representatives.
HUD's FY 1998 HOPE Vl Guidebook at 1.
30. The HOPE VI Grant application is accompanied by a very general, proposed
Revitalization Plan, describing the community to be developed. After approval of the HOPE VI
Grant application by federal defendants, the Grantee Housing Authority and federal defendants
enter into a Grant Agreement which requires that a specific revitalization plan must be approved
by federal defendants prior to the release of grant funds. The Grant Agreement also mandates
that there be significant local community input to the HOPE VI process including the convening
of a Community Task Force.
31. The 1999 HUD Notice of Funding Availability for the HOPE VI Program, 64 Fed. Reg.
9618, 9627-8 (Feb.26 1999) states that successful applicants "will have a duty to affirmatively
further fair housing."
1 1

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 12 of 42

B. The Unifom1 Relocation Act Requirements

32. Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition

Policies Act (the "Uniform Relocation Act" or "URA''), 42 U.S.C. ~ 4601 et seq., in order to

ensure that persons displaced from their homes as a result of government action are resettled into

new homes following certain procedures and are not materially disadvantaged by their forced

relocation.

33. In particular, the URA and its implementing regulations specify that:

a. "A displacing agency, before approving a project, must assess the characteristics and

needs of the households to be displaced (42 U.S.C. ~ 4625(c), 49 C.F.R. ~ 24.205 (c)(2)(i)), and

determine whether qualified replacement housing is available to meet those needs." 49 C.F.R. ~

24.205(a)(2), 24 C.F.R. ~ 970.8(d)(3).

b. A displacing agency must "[a]ssure that a person not be required to move from a

dwelling unless the person has had a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable

replacement dwelling... " 42 U.S.C. § 4625(c)(3). The URA defines the term "comparable

replacement dwelling" as a "dwelling that is (I) decent. safe and sanitary: (2) adequate in size to

accommodate the occupants: (3) within the financial means ofthe displaced person: (4)

functionally equivalent; (5) in an area not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental

conditions; and (6) in a location generally not less desirable than the location of the displaced

person's dwelling with respect to public utilities, facilities, services, and the displaced person's

place of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 4601(10).

c.

"Wherever possible, minority persons shall be given reasonable opportunities to

relocate to decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwellings, not located in an area of minority

12

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 13 of 42
* concentration. that are within their financial means." 49 C.F.R. 24.205(c)(2).
C. Community Development Block Grant Requirements 34. The Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Program was created pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act ("HCDA"). as amended. codified at 42
* U.S.C. 5301 et seq. The primary objective ofthe HCDA is "the development of viable urban
communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income." 42 U.S.C. § 5301(a). For purposes ofthe HCDA, "low income" is defined as 0% to 50% of area median income, and "moderate income" is defined as 50% to 80% of area median income. 24 C.F.R. § 570.3. 35. In any development project assisted under the CDBG Program, there must be a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan in place that provides, among other things, that:
a. governmental agencies or private developers shall provide within the same community comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants as could have been housed in the occupied and vacant occupiable low and moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than for housing low and moderate income persons, and provide that such replacement housing may include existing housing assisted with project based assistance provided under section 1437f of this title. 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(i);
b. such comparable replacement dwellings shall be designed to remain affordable to persons of low and moderate income for 10 years from the time of initial occupancy. 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(ii);
c. in the case of displaced persons of low and moderate income, provide ... compensation 13

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 14 of 42
sufficient to insure that, for a 5-year period, the displaced families shall not bear, after relocation. a ratio of shelter costs to income that exceeds 30 percent. 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(iii)(l):
d. Persons displaced shall be relocated into comparable replacement housing that is decent. safe and sanitary: adequate in size to accommodate the occupants: functionally equivalent: and in an area not subject to unreasonably adverse environmental conditions. 42 U.S.C. ~ 5304(d)(2)(A)(iv). D. Fair Housing Act Requirements 36. The Fair Housing Act provides that "it shall be unlawful":
a. "To ... make unavailable or deny [] a dwelling to any person because of race, color, .. . sex, [or] familial status ... " 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a): or
b. "To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of ... rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, sex [or] familial status..." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); or
c. "To make, print or publish or cause to be made, printed or published any notice [or] statement. .. with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference... based on race, color,...or national origin, or an intention to make such preference... " 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). 37. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e){5), further provides the "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall ...administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner to affirmatively further the policies of [the Fair Housing Act]. E. Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act Requirements 38. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1988,42 U.S.C. § 1437c-l(b), requires every public housing authority to prepare and submit for HUD approval an "annual
14

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 15 of 42
public housing agency plan" detailing the PHA's policies in the administration of its programs. The Act further requires the PHA to certify in that plan that it will "carry out the public housing agency plan in confom1ity with ... the Fair Housing Act...and will affirmatively further fair housing. F. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Requirements 39. Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that "[njo person in the United States shalL on the grounds of race, color or national origin. be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. G. National Environmental Policy Act 40. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.§§ 4321 et seq., requires that every "major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" must be accompanied by a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of the project. 41. HUD has issued regulations implementing NEPA at 24 C.F.R. Parts 50 & 58. Those regulations provide that either an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact or a full Environmental Impact Statement shall be completed "prior to the approval action" unless the action is considered exempt. 24 C.F.R. § 50.16. Exempt activities are listed at 24 C.F.R. § 50.19 and at 24 C.F.R. § 58.34 and do not include the types of activities included in a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant. The regulations further provide that in certain circumstances, including Public Housing programs such as HOPE VI, the recipient of the federal funds assumes all ofthe environmental responsibilities ofHUD. In the present case as part of the HOPE VI process, Miami-Dade County is required, as a condition of funding, to assume all
15

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 16 of 42
environmental responsibilities for the project as set forth in 24 C .F.R. § 58.1 et seq. 42. The regulations further provide that an initial environmental assessment must be perfom1ed in all non-exempt cases. The regulations further provide for a process of public notice and input into the environmental assessment process. 24 C.F.R. § 50.23 and 24 C.F.R. § 58.43 et seq. 43. The regulations mandate that the environmental assessment be perfom1ed "at the earliest possible time so that potential conflicts" can be identified at an early stage. 24 C.F.R. § 50.3. In all cases, the environmental assessment must be completed prior to any "choice limiting activities." 24 C.F.R. § 58.22.
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The James E. Scott Homes Public Housing Development 44. Scott Homes Public Housing Project is a 754-unit public housing project located in the Liberty City neighborhood of north central Miami-Dade County. The Scott Homes project was constructed in 1953 and is one of the largest public housing communities in Florida. 45. Collectively, Scott Homes and the neighboring Carver Homes public housing development contain a total of 850 conventional public housing rental units consisting of: 8 onebedroom units, 312 two-bedroom units, 400 three-bedroom units, 75 four-bedroom units. 53 five-bedroom units. and 2 six-bedroom units. 46. Scott Homes has always housed an African American population and nearly all (99%) of the residents are African American. The population of Scott homes is also very poor. According to the County defendants' 1999 HOPE VI application, the average household income of Scott Homes residents households is $7,238 a year ( 17% of the area median income).
16

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 17 of 42
47. The population of the Scott-Carver complex consists of many large households residing in units with four or more bedrooms. It is the plaintiffs' informed belief that all or nearly all of these large households include minor children. Overall, according to data published by federal defendants. 84 percent of households in Scott Homes and the neighboring Carver Homes (which will also be demolished) are families with children. 48. Despite the poverty of the community. there are many attractive aspects to the neighborhood. As stated in the County's HOPE VI application. it is located near numerous retail stores, including the Northside Shopping Center, which is slated for a $25 million redevelopment and expansion by the Urban League of Greater Miami. A neighborhood family health center is used by over 100 Scott and Carver Homes residents daily. Nearby are also two public parks, a $3.2 million Youth Education Town Center providing recreation and education programs to neighborhood families. The three elementary schools that serve the Scott Homes neighborhood are currently undergoing a $5 million capital improvements program. The Scott Homes neighborhood has convenient access to Metrobus and Metrorail public transportation services. Moreover, many of the residents of Scott Homes have lived in this neighborhood for decades and have strongly rooted ties and commitments to this area. B. The Federal Housing Programs Administered by the County defendants 49. The Miami-Dade County Commission, acting through the Miami Dade Housing Agency, is the principal provider of housing affordable to very low income families in Miami-Dade County. According to data published by HUD, the Miami-Dade Housing Agency administers approximately II ,000 units of conventional public housing in both elderly and family public housing developments. Of these, half, approximately 5,500, of the units are family units and the
17

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 18 of 42
remaining are for occupancy by elderly persons only. 50. In general, rents for conventional public housing units are set at 30 percent of the income of the household that resides in the unit. As such. conventional public housing provide some of the only housing guaranteed to be affordable to very low income and extremely low income 1 households. 51. The Miami-Dade Housing Agency has a waiting list for its public housing. According to data published by the defendant HUD, the average household spends 1.5 years on the County's public housing waiting list before being admitted to a dwelling unit. 52. In March 2001, the Housing Agency opened up its public housing waiting list for the first time in many years. The list remained open for approximately 10 days and the Housing Agency received over 63,000 applications for assistance. The larger families who applied for assistance, those who needed four, five and six bedroom units, were overwhelmingly African American. 53. The Miami-Dade Housing Agency also administers a federal Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as the "Section 8 Voucher Program"). The Housing Agency has authority to administer these portable tenant-based subsidies that families are supposed to be able to use to rent housing on the private rental market. Private landlords in Miami-Dade County are not required to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 54. The Miami metropolitan area was identified by the federal defendants in September 2000
1 Following the usual HUD classifications, "low income" households have incomes higher than 50 but not more than 80 percent of area median income, "very low income" households have incomes higher than 30 but not more than 50 percent of area median income. "extremely low income" households have incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income.
18

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 19 of 42
as an area with severe geographic concentrations of Housing Choice voucher families. According to the federal defendants, 25 percent or more ofthe families renting housing in the Miami metropolitan area with vouchers are concentrated in 5 percent of the area's census tracts. C. The Affordable Housing Crisis in Miami-Dade County 55. Miami-Dade County is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, particularly for very poor African American families. In 1998, as a requirement of receiving federal Community Development Block Grant (''CDBG") funding Miami-Dade County developed a Five-Year Consolidated Plan ("Consolidated Plan'') to assess the County's housing needs and to plan for addressing these needs. 56. The 1998 Consolidated Plan singled out the exact type of families living in Scott Homes as suffering the worst housing needs. The Plan identified very poor large families, with incomes less than 30 percent of area median income, equal to $12,600 per year, as the group with the most critical housing needs. Of this group, 93% lacked adequate affordable housing. Almost 70 percent of this group were paying over 50 percent of their monthly income in rent. 57. Indeed the Consolidated Plan identified this group as "threatened with homelessness,'' stating, ''For these households, the loss of a job, an injury that interrupts a paycheck, a slight increase in rent, or some other sudden change in income will result in a missed rent payment and the loss of shelter." 58. Moreover. according to the Consolidated Plan, the impact of this crisis is borne to a disproportionate degree by African American households. While African American households make up 20% ofthe population of Miami-Dade County, they compose 32% ofthe extremely low income renters.
19

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 20 of 42
59. Finally, the Consolidated Plan also documents that this affordable housing crisis for large extremely low income families will only get worse. The Consolidated Plan estimates a need for an additional 4,000 units of rental housing affordable to low income renters just to maintain the current status quo. D. The County Defendants' Application and Plans for the HOPE VI Redevelopment of Scott
Homes 60. The County defendants initially applied for a HOPE VI grant for Scott Homes in 1996. That proposal provided for the selective demolition of only 149 units and resulted in a community with over 500 units of rehabilitated public housing and 100 market rate rental units combined with an extensive home ownership program. The stated goal of the plan was that none of the current residents would be relocated. That application was not funded by federal defendants. 61. The County defendants again applied unsuccessfully for HOPE VI grants for Scott Homes in 1997 and 1998. 62. Finally, on May 17, 1999, the County defendants submitted their current HOPE VI application to federal defendants. In September 1999, the federal defendant announced that the County defendants were awarded a $35 million dollar HOPE VI grant to "revitalize" the Scott Homes and Carver Homes deveiopments. 63. The 1999 application provides for the demolition of 850 units of public housing and the replacement of these units with 80 units of conventional rental public housing, 135 units of "rent to own" public housing, and 247 units of other home ownership housing on the Scott-Carver site and in the surrounding neighborhood.
20

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 21 of 42
64. The conventional rental public housing planned as part of the 1999 application consists of 2 one-bedroom units, 25 two-bedroom units, 43 three-bedroom units, 8 four-bedroom units, 2 five-bedroom units, and zero six-bedroom units. The "rent to own" public housing will consist of 1 one-bedroom units, 53 two-bedroom units. 68 three-bedroom units, 12 four-bedroom units, 1 five-bedroom units, and zero six-bedroom units. 65. Taking into account the smaller number of multi-bedroom replacement units, the defendants' HOPE VI plan will result in shortfall of over 400 "comparable replacement dwellings" as defined under the Housing and Community Development Act. 66. The defendants' HOPE VI plan will result in the net loss of 770 conventional public housing rental units, an over 90 percent reduction in the number of such units in the Scott-Carver complex. Access to these units will be restricted, as the defendants plan to impose additional undisclosed eligibility criteria which could exclude many current Scott Homes residents and waiting list families. Plaintiffs and other residents have repeatedly requested that any proposed eligibility criteria be disclosed prior to relocation so that current residents can participate in their development and implementation. Defendants have consistently refused to do so. 67. The 135 units of"rent to own" public housing in the "revitalized Scott Homes community" may or may not be affordable to the families currently residing in Scott Homes, depending on the eligibility criteria and the program requirements. The defendants currently have no "rent to own" public housing program, and they have not developed any criteria or procedures for implementing such a program. The defendants have consistently refused to disclose their plans for any "rent to own" public housing program, despite repeated requests by the plaintiffs and other residents that they do so.
21

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 22 of 42
68. According to the defendants' HOPE VI application, very few of the families who currently reside at Scott Homes will be able to qualify for, or afford. one of the 247 home ownership units which comprise the remainder of the replacement housing planned in the County's HOPE VI application. The County's application states that the minimum "qualifying income" for a one-bedroom home ownership dwelling is $I 2, 126, fully two-thirds more than the average annual income of a Scott Homes or Carver Homes family. The situation is even worse for multi-bedroom home ownership units needed by large families. The application identities the minimum qualifying income for a four-bedroom home ownership dwelling as being between $23,596 and $24,330, over three times the average annual income of a Scott Homes or Carver Homes family. E. Miami-Dade County Commission Resolution No. 0 I I002 69. On May 8, 2001, in response to advocacy by residents, the Miami-Dade County Commission passed Resolution 011002, which authorized the construction of an additional 175 units of project-based Section 8 housing in the area surrounding the Scott Homes/Carver Homes HOPE VI site for use by displaced tenants. The Commission explicitly stated that this additional housing was not part of the HOPE VI process and that the resolution in no way modified the HOPE VI proposal to federal defendants. This additional housing was not included in the HOPE VI Relocation Plan approved by federal defendants. Thus, the Commission has reserved the right to modify or repeal the resolution at any time. 70. After the enactment of Resolution, the County defendants stated that the 175 projectbased Section 8 units would be limited to occupancy by elderly and disabled persons. While there has been no commitment to the bedroom size of these additional units, it is the plaintiffs'
22

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 23 of 42
infom1ed beliefthat this unilaterally imposed elderly and disabled occupancy limitation will effectively result in units with few bedrooms. 71. Apart from describing this new occupancy restriction, as of the date of the tiling of this complaint, the County defendants have taken no steps to implement Resolution 0 II 002. The relocation of residents is commencing prior to any attempts to site or construct this additional housing. The County defendants have made no commitment that construction will be completed in a timely manner so that the housing can actually be used by any displaced Scott Homes residents. F. The County Defendants' Racial Motives for Their HOPE VI Plan 72. The County defendants held presentations for the residents of Scott Homes and the surrounding community just prior to the submission of their 1999 application. At these presentations, the County defendants stated that one of the reasons that they targeted Scott Homes for a HOPE VI application was the their belief that the large concentration of"minority" families in Liberty City would make their application more attractive. 73. In their presentation to the residents, the County defendants stated that one of the significant elements of a "winning application" is "discouraging concentrations of minorities.'' Thus, Scott Homes residents began to learn that their community was chosen for demolition and that they were to be displaced from their neighborhood and excluded from millions of dollars in planned "replacement" housing, because of their race. 74. The County defendants included materials describing their goal of"discouraging concentrations of minorities" in their 1999 HOPE VI application to federal defendants. G. The Displacement and Relocation of Scott Homes Families
23

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 24 of 42
75. Because the defendants' plan to rebuild only a small fraction of the conventional public housing units that will demolished as part of the HOPE VI redevelopment the families currently residing in Scott Homes will be forced to relocate to other public housing developments or to private rental housing using Housing Choice vouchers (formerly known as "Section 8" vouchers). This will create significant hardships and potential homelessness for many Scott Homes families. and will exacerbate the County's affordable housing crisis. 76. The use of public housing as relocation housing for displaced families will strain an already scarce affordable housing resource. According to data published by the federal defendants, the average household spends 1.5 years on the County's public housing waiting list before being admitted to a dwelling unit. 77. The only other type of relocation subsidy being proposed for Scott Homes families is tenant-based Housing Choice vouchers (formerly known as ·'Section 8 vouchers") administered by the defendants with federal funding. The Housing Choice voucher program is a federal housing subsidy program which pays subsidies on behalf of individual households to allow them to rent private units in the local housing market. 78. However, the ability of very poor African American families, particularly large families, to use Housing Choice vouchers in Miami-Dade County is greatly limited by the nature of the program and the County's tight housing market. It is extremely difficult for families in MiamiDade County to secure housing with Housing Choice vouchers on the private market and virtually impossible for large t~unilies to locate units with a sufficient number of bedrooms. In addition, many landlords simply will not accept vouchers for reasons ranging from fear of bureaucracy to bias against poor families to racism.
24

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 25 of 42
79. In Miami-Dade County, subsidy payment standards for Housing Choice vouchers are based on HUD-calculated Fair Market Rent ("FMR") figures set at the 50th percentile of rents in the local housing market. The FMRs are intended to reflect the lower half of total rental housing markets in particular areas. However, rents for newly constructed units are excluded from the calculation of this 50th percentile figure, which means that FMR levels are probably lower than the 50th percentile. 80. Public housing authorities have authority to set voucher payment standards at levels between 90 and II 0 percent of the HUD-calculated FMR. The Miami-Dade Housing Agency ("MDHA") has set payment standards for its vouchers at 100 percent of the FMR for MiamiDade County. 81. If a family is able to find a unit renting at the payment standard or less, the family pays 30 percent of its income towards housing costs and the subsidy covers the rest. If a family finds a unit renting at an amount higher than the payment standard, the family must pay 30 percent of its income plus I00 percent of the difference between the rent tor the unit and the payment standard, which can add up to substantially more than 30 percent of its income. However, families are prohibited from moving into a new unit with a voucher if the family would stand to pay more than 40 percent of its income for housing costs. 82. Tenants who obtain a voucher must find a suitable unit on their own, negotiate an agreement with the landlord, and receive approval from MDHA, ordinarily within 60 days. 83. MDHA approval is conditioned on, among other things, units passing an exacting Housing Quality Standards ("HQS") inspection, which often eliminates units renting at an affordable price. Additionally, few landlords renting these lower priced units are willing to hold
25

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 26 of 42
them otT the market for the week or two while this inspection is accomplished and paperwork process is completed. 84. In fact, because of delays involved in the HQS process, MDHA 's public housing agency plan specifically authorizes extensions to the usual 60-day deadline where units are undergoing HQS inspection. 85. As a result, plaintiffs are informed and believe that more than 25 percent of the Housing Choice vouchers issued in Miami-Dade County are returned unused and, as a result, forfeited by the initial voucher holder and reissued by MDHA to the next eligible family on the waiting list. 86. In addition, most voucher holders who successfully locate a rental unit end up living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of voucher assisted households. The Miami metropolitan area was identified by federal defendants in September 2000 as an area with severe geographic concentrations of Housing Choice voucher families, with at least 25 percent of voucher families residing in only 5 percent of the area's census tracts. 87. Finally, unlike public housing, a landlord can cancel its voucher Housing Assistance Payments ("HAP") contract with MDHA at the end of the family's initial lease terms (which can be less than one year) or at the end of any month after the initial lease term for any reason. At that time, because families are unable to afford private units without voucher subsidies, they must once again search for new housing and sutTer the substantial risk that they will forfeit their vouchers if they are unable to do so within MDHA 's 60-day deadline. H. The Disparate Impact of the Defendants' HOPE VI Plans 88. The defendants' HOPE VI plan will have a disproportionate adverse impact on African Americans living in the Scott Carver complex.
26

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 27 of 42
89. As a result of the defendants' HOPE VI plan. the over 600 families remaining in the Scott Homes and Carver Homes developments will be expelled from their community. Their homes will be demolished and nearly all of these families will be excluded from the new housing the detendants plan to construct due to the small number of affordable public housing units included in the 1999 HOPE Vl plan. 90. Over 99 percent of the tamilies residing in the Scott-Carver complex are African American. In contrast. African American households comprise only 64 percent of the total households residing in MDHA public housing and only 20 percent of the total population of Miami-Dade County. 91. Families with children make up 83 percent of the Scott Homes households. However. they comprise only 39 percent of the total households in in MDHA public housing and only 33.8 percent ofthe total Miami-Dade County population. 92. The defendants' HOPE VI plans will result in a net loss of hundreds of public housing units in Miami-Dade County. A total of 770 units of guaranteed affordable rental housing will be lost at a time when the County is in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. 93. Forty one percent ofthe households on the County's public housing waiting list are identified by the County defendants as African Americans. This figure is twice the percentage of African Americans in the Miami-Dade County total. 94. The defendants' HOPE VI plan will cause especially severe harm to large families residing in Scott Homes and on the MDHA public housing waiting list. This harm will in turn fall most heavily on African Americans and families with children.
27

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 28 of 42

95. Large families will be almost completely excluded from the new housing the defendants'

plan to construct due to the dramatic reduction in the number of four- and tive-bedroom public

housing rental units. There are currently 125 units with four or more bedrooms in Scott Homes

and Carver Homes. Of these, 52 are five- or six-bedroom units. After the HOPE VI

redevelopment, there will be only 8 four-bedroom, 2 live-bedroom, and zero six-bedroom units

available as traditional rental public housing. In addition, 12 four bedroom units and I tivc bedroom unit will be constructed as "rent to own" public housing. This represents an 84 percent

reduction in the number of public housing units with four or more bedrooms. 96. It is the plaintiffs' further informed belief that Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers will be

a largely useless form of relocation assistance for large Scott-Carver families because there are

extremely few units with four or more bedrooms in the Miami-Dade County rental market.

I.

The Failure of Defendants to Analyze the Racial and Socioeconomic Effects of Their

HOPE VI Decisions and Federal Defendants's Decision to Fund the Defendants' Racially

Motivated Plan

97. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, apart from targeting Scott Homes and Carver Homes based on the race of the families residing in these developments, the defendants

performed no analysis of the racial and socioeconomic effects of their HOPE VJ plan.

1.

The Defendants' Failure to Assess the Environmental impact of their HOPE VI Plan

98. No environmental assessment has been completed by County defendants. Despite the

absence of an environmental assessment the defendants are expending funds with respect to the

project, specifically including preparations for the relocation of the residents.

28

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 29 of 42
K. The Defendants' Exclusion of Scott Homes Residents from the HOPE VI Process 99. The impact ofthe HOPE VI grant has been greatly exacerbated by the tailure of the County defendants to permit the residents to be involved in the HOPE VI revitalization process. Despite the express requirements of the HOPE VI statute and guidelines the residents have not been meaningfully involved in the development or implementation of the HOPE VI plan. Indeed, as described above, despite repeated pleas of the plaintiffs and other residents. many crucial elements of the plan have yet to be developed. All of the County defendants' energies have been focused on the prompt relocation of the residents and the demolition of their homes. I00. As a result of the County defendants' failure to proceed with respect to any of the supportive services or programmatic portions of the HOPE VI process. while at the same time proceeding with the relocation of the residents. many residents. including the plaintiffs, are now faced with being relocated prior to having any input into the development of the revitalization plan and from participating in any of the services or opportunities which were proposed to be provided by the Community and Supportive Services portion of the application. VI. IRREPARABLE INJURY 101. These actions have caused and will cause irreparable injury to the plaintitTs. The defendants are in the process of destroying the community where the plaintiffs live and have established personal ties. As a result of the defendants' actions, the plaintiffs have lost or will lose their homes, have suffered or will suffer displacement from their community, and most of them will be denied the opportunity to reside in the revitalized housing that is currently proposed by the defendants. The defendants have engaged in purposeful or knowing conduct that violates the plaintiffs' civil rights.
29

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 30 of 42
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FAIR HOUSING/CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
* Violation of the Fair Housing Act. Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) (Disparate Impact on the Basis of Race) l 02. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs l through I0 I as if set out in full.
I03. The County defendants' plans as described above will have a disproportionately adverse
impact upon African-Americans and therefore violate the Fair Housing Act, which provides in
part that "it shall be unlawful ... [t]o make unavailable or deny ... a dwelling to any person because of race ..." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
Violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (Disparate Impact on the Basis of Familial Status)
I04. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through I0 I as if set out in full. I 05. The County defendants' plans as described above will have a disproportionately adverse
impact upon families with children and therefore violate the Fair Housing Act, which provides in
part that "it shall be unlawful ... [t]o make unavailable or deny ... a dwelling to any person
* because of ... familial status ..." 42 U.S.C. 3604(a).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants) Violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (Disparate Impact on the Basis of Race)
106. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
107. As is set out above Scott Homes was chosen for this HOPE VI project, and this particular
30

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 31 of 42
development proposal was structured, based on the racial classification of the residents. Defendants specifically designed this proposal to eliminate a "significant concentration of minorities" in the Liberty City area. I 08. As a result, the County defendants have designed and begun to implement their HOPE VI plans with the purpose of denying housing opportunities to families of color and excluding families of color from the revitalized Scott Homes and Carver Homes neighborhood and therefore violate the Fair Housing Act, which provides in part that "it shall be unlawful ... [t]o make unavailable or deny ... a dwelling to any person because of race ... " 42 U.S.C. ~ 3604(a).
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
Violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) (Statement of Racial Preference) 109. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 110. The County defendants' HOPE VI application as well as presentations made to the residents, all public records, express a racial preference and therefore violate the Fair Housing Act, which provides in part that "it shall be unlawful ... [t]o make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the ... rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation. or discrimination based on race, color, ... sex [or] familial status.... or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
31

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 32 of 42
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Federal Defendants) Violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(5) and APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq ..
Ill. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
112. The federal Defendants failed to consider the racial and socio-economic effects of The County defendants' application to the HOPE VI program, a program relating to housing and urban development, prior its decision to approve and fund this application, and therefore violated
the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(5). SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Federal Defendants)
Violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title Vlll of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3604(e)(5) and APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq ..
113. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through lO I as if set out in full. 114. The federal Defendants funded the County HOPE VI application despite the fact that this
application contained an express racial preference, and therefore violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(5).
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
Violation of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
115. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 116. The County defendants have designed and begun to implement their HOPE VI plans with
the intentional purpose of denying housing opportunities to families of color and excluding
families of color from the Scott Homes and Carver Homes neighborhood and therefore violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides in part that ""[n]o person in the United
32

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 33 of 42
States shalL on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.
117. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through 101 as if set out in full. 118. The County defendants have designed and begun to implement their HOPE VI plans with the purpose of denying housing opportunities to families of color and excluding families of color from the revitalized Scott Homes and Carver Homes neighborhood. These actions therefore violate the plaintiffs' rights to "the equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. !d. at § 1.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Federal Defendants) Violation of Equal Protection Guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution 119. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 120. The federal defendants have awarded a HOPE VI Grant which is explicitly designed with the purpose of denying housing opportunities to families of color and excluding families of color from the revitalized Scott Homes and Carver Homes neighborhood. These actions therefore violate the plaintiffs' rights to due process guaranteed by the Fitth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
33

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 34 of 42
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants) Violation of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and the HOPE VI Program Requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 1437v and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 121. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through 101 as if set out in full. 122. The County defendants· plans. discussed above. violate their duty under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and the HOPE VI Program to affirmatively further fair housing. See 64 Fed.Reg. 9618. 9628 and 9729 (February 26. 1999). OTHER STATUTORY CLAIMS ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants) Violation of the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d)(2)(A)(i) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (One for One Replacement) 123. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through I 0 l as if set out in full. 124. Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 5304(d) provides that a governmental agency which demolishes units occupied by low and moderate income households in a project assisted with Community Development Block Grant funds must provide "within the same community comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants." Moreover those replacement units must remain affordable for at least ten years. 125. The Scott Homes HOPE VI project is currently utilizing $2,000.000 in Community Development Block Grant funds in the development of the project. As part of the project approximately 850 units of housing affordable to very low income households are being demolished. However, the County defendants are replacing no more than 521 units. Moreover, the County defendants have specitically failed to replace units for larger families. The failure of
34

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 35 of 42
the County defendants to fully replace the demolished units denies plaintiffs their rights under Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against County Defendants)
Violation of the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. ~ 5304(d)(2)(A)(i) and 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 (Anti-Displacement Plan)
126. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 127. Section 104(d) ofthe Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C.~ 5304(d) provides that in any development project assisted under the Community Development Block Grant Program, there must be a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan in place that conforms to the requirements of the section. 128. The Scott Homes HOPE VI project is currently utilizing $2,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds in the development of the project. However, at no time have County defendants developed a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan that conforms to the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Federal Defendants)
Violation of the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5304(d) and 5 U.S.C. ~ 701.
129. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through I 0 I as if set out in full. 130. Federal defendants authorization of County defendants proceeding to relocate plaintiffs despite the failure of the County defendants to comply with the terms of the Housing and Community Development Act a:o. set forth in~~ 123 through 128 violates plaintiffs' rights under that Act.
35

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 36 of 42
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against All Defendants)
Violation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and Implementing Regulations
131. Plaintiffs Reese. Bailey and L.l.F.F.T. repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 132. The Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ~ 4601, et seq., and implementing HUD regulations provides that in any project assisted with federal funds no one may be displaced unless there is a comparable. affordable, decent, safe and sanitary unit available to serve as replacement housing. HUD has implemented the Act through regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 42. 133. Plaintiffs, at the time of their displacement, will be "displaced persons" within the meaning of the Act in that they will be displaced as a direct result of a development financially assisted by HUD. Nevertheless, defendants have failed and refused to develop a relocation plan that conforms to the requirements of the Act and the implementing regulations. 134. The Relocation Plan developed by defendants fails to conform to the Act in numerous respects. Specifically, the Plan fails to provide the following:
(1) That relocation housing must be in a location no less desirable than the displacement housing; (2) That relocation housing must be in a location accessible to the relocatees work, the relocatee's children's school, and other necessary facilities; (3) That relocation assistance can. at the option of the tenant, be provided in a lump sum for the purposes of purchasing a dwelling;
36

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 37 of 42
(4) That the tenant may, at their option, choose either a lump sum payment calculated as set forth in the regulations or reimbursement for actual moving expenses; (5) That the tenant has a right to appeal any adverse determination tirst to the County and then to HUD and that notices will inform the tenant of this right: (6) That the tenant has a right to additional financial assistance if a comparable replacement dwelling rented with the Section 8 voucher would require the tenant to pay more than 30% of their income in rent. 135. In addition to the foregoing, the reliance by defendants upon Section 8 vouchers in a housing market in which such vouchers are extremely difficult to use, violates the guarantee that the displaced person will be guaranteed adequate replacement housing for at least 42 months.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against All Defendants)
Violation ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.9 432I et seq., and implementing regulations.
I36. All plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs I through I0 I as if set out in full. I37. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.§ 432I et seq., and the implementing regulations require a full environmental assessment prior to the funding of any significant federal action. The environmental assessment must be completed prior to any final determination as to whether to proceed with the project and before there is any irreparable impact. I38. In the present case no environmental assessment has been completed. Despite the absence of an environmental assessment the defendants arc expending funds with respect to the project, specifically including preparations for the relocation of the residents. The failure of the
37

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 38 of 42

defendants to fully assess the environmental impact prior to the funding of this project violates

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.. and the implementing

regulations.

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to:

1. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining all defendants from taking any

actions with respect to the implementation of the Scott Homes HOPE VI project, including

specifically, but not limited to. the following:

a. Relocation of residents of Scott Homes public housing project or the preparation or

planning for that relocation;

b. Demolition or destruction of any structures within Scott Homes public housing project,

c.

Withdrawal of any grant funds allocated to the Scott/Carver Homes HOPE VI project;

2. Issue an affirmative order requiring all defendants within a time specified by the court to:

a. Develop a plan for the revitalization of Scott Homes utilizing the HOPE VI Grant that:

i. does not have a disparate impact upon African-American families

ii. does not have a disparate impact upon large families;

iii. does not result in the forced permanent displacement of the minority families

currently residing in Scott Homes;

b. Complete an environmental assessment of the Revitalization Plan which conforms to the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the implementing

regulations;

c.

Develop a Revitalization Plan for the Scott Homes project that provides within the Scott

38

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 39 of 42

Homes community comparable replacement dwellings for the same number of occupants

as could have been housed in the occupied and vacant occupiable low and moderate

income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than for housing low and

moderate income persons by the Scott Homes HOPE VI project:

d. Develop a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan that confom1s

to the requirements of Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act.

42 U.S.C.§ 5304(d).

e.

Develop a Relocation Plan which conforms to the requirements of the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. 42 U.S.C. § 460 I et

seq.

And to further order that pending the completion of2.a. through 2.e. defendants shall fully

maintain and operate Scott Homes as decent, safe and sound affordable public housing.

3.

Issue a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~220 I, declaring that:

a. In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan, the federal and County

defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(a)-(c).;

b. In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan. the County defendants have violated the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C.~ 2000d and 24 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2) & (3);

c.

In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan. the County defendants

have violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

39

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 40 of 42

Constitution:

d. In funding the County defendants' Scott Homes HOPE VI application. the federal

defendants have violated the Equal Protection guaranteed under the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

c.

In funding the County defendants' Scott Homes HOPE VI application, the federal

defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. ~ 3608(e)(5):

f.

In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan, the County defendants

have violated the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998:

g. In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan. the County defendants

have violated the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. ~ 5304(d):

h. In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan. the County defendants

have violated Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970

and Implementing Regulations:

1.

In developing and implementing the Scott Homes HOPE VI plan, the County defendants

have violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.,

and implementing regulations.

4. Award costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

5. Grant other relief as this court may deem just and proper.

40

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 41 of 42
FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES. INC. Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Blvd.. Suite 450 Miami. FL 33137 Telephone No. (305) 573-0092 Facsimile No. (305) 576-9664 Email: else.,·ser(t!J~ate. net
RANDALL C. BERG. JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 3183 71 JONEL NEWMAN. ESQ. Florida Bar No. 112320 PETER M. SIEGEL, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 227862 Florida Justice Institute. Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2309 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 fax E-Mail: joneln@bellsouth. net
Of Counsel: Todd Espinosa California Bar No. 209591 National Housing Law Project 614 Grand Avenue, Suite 320 Oakland, California 94610 510-251-9400 ext. 101 (tel.) 51 0-451-2300 (fax)
Dated:
41

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2001 Page 42 of 42

Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Herbert Jones, Patricia Sanders and L.I.F.F.T., an unincorporated association Miami-Dade (b) C:J:.:~TY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST USTED PLAINTIFF
!EXCEPT IN U S PLAINTIFF CASES)
(C) .>07QRNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPt-<0
Florida Legal Services 3000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 450

Miami-Dade County, Rene FDdriguez, Director

of the Miami-Dade Housing Agency, "P".el R. Martinez,

Secretary of the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Depl~.r!J..!C:~('tt HlJD

v rt;r c::~NTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST uM~ ciF~rl>U~ fi

I I il

(IN U S PLAINTIFF CASES 0NLY)

IN LAND CONDE!.INATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE

-- TRA2 Of' LAND INVOLVED
/.

PALM BEACH, MARTIN, ST. LUCIE, INDlru~ RIVER,

... :::ASiS Oi= JUMiSDiC110ii

,~ . . . . . . c,...(~•Otc...,

_ 1 u.s. Go~•mment
Pla'"b11
x; 2 u.s. Go~'"""""'"'
O..tendant

0 l F__...au-don (U.S. Gov...,.,.... No1 ~ Party)
0 4 Olwet*'Y
(lndoc.ate Ciue<'$1>1P ol P atlles on Kem Ill)

Iii. CiTaZEr.i5nit= QF-pRJNC1?AL ?ARTie · c · ,oucr ....

(FOt "-"''Y ~ Only)

"""'~.,r.o:J_<><f.~

CIIImn of Thia State

PTF OEF 0 1 c:; 1

? 1""::':::1 :;?,,S1~, ."~?/-'~.~-~-4

OEF ;,

Clllzen of Ano~ Stllte
Chinn o< Subrect of •

02 22
;:] l c: l

lncofl)Orwted..., Pr1 of Bu... - . in Anoth~
Fo<.,.gn ~n

• ~ 5 CI'S". ~

fofoejQn Country

42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983

IVa. 7 days estimated (for both sides) to try entire case.

v. NATURE OF SUIT (P<.ACE AN )( IN ONE BOX CNLY)

= ~

CONTRACT

110 ._...,.,.

=: : 1 2 0 130 ...........
== 1 1504...(....)...-...."o'"..".',".."..-.._..

<E-al

~
=~ 151 ~• .~a
B 152 ~s~.0..-.-.."_'.1.'1..:
l~ld ..........,.,
= i3 1SJ .............. o...,......... .,..a.... )l ......... =160 s...:.r-. s..... =190 :--~

..::195~-~'"'

==:\ REAL ti'ROI"ERTY 210 LM>: ~><"'
B 220 ~~~· =~30 ~:..MW&!:~' =24.0 "0-s 'D Ul'll.1 =245 ~~f...,.&Do·l'o =2'90 A.ICtf\... ~P..ot"'"""'r

A

TtiRTS

f"EIISOIIAL NUURY =310=315--
~
== 320 .s........-... ..-~ 3:10 ~-., e.._... '--'1'

- - =IJ"EQRSP_ON_.A...I.._I,IU...U.,R.,,_Y_
::JJ35P_..,..,.,_
::JJ.6..._,1...,_,.,,_.__

:=l34 4..0_s-.,- -

I'ERSOICAL I"ROI"Er:Tl ::Jl70eo.-

=350.__
= ....., =l-S-.S ...-._-., J60 00....P-

- - c B 0371- .. ~ 310 ."."_"'_fleor'~.G.f\.M_ :J 315 _.,., o..._

A CMLRI&Ifn

~ 4.41 -.v

=4.42(-

X

"-1
tw::a::o:

-

,...,.,.

: "'" w.r.,.. =.woo.... c-~

B I"RISOII£R I'ETTTIONS
=510 ....,..,.. 10 VK&I•
- . :SJO -..,e..o...:....
0.....- ...=::Sw 60 ............. o.-.. = 5.50_c::1•11 R.i¢~

•A or II

t3 RiAF£1"\JRE MIW T'Y I A.

UHICRUP'TC"r

I _610~
= 120 o.r- ~- £ !>\.9
=125 c...; "'-- s-:.... "' -ZIUSCIII1
=·23-- :SJO l.4#1..1,..
.. ,r.,.... :::s.co~

= • 22'2 1 u-sc 158 21 usc 157
A I"RRI'£R'TY PIGI!TS

=&SO-... P•- =66u.0 ..,.~ .......
-590 o.r-

ae:lO~
=130 :ia.o&O-

A

LA lOA

B SOCIAL SECURITY

=71QF-~-
=no .._....,. B:: 120 t"...."D.".o..<.,".".",1. "'t..Do<I'\Ojo'l

==1161 -~~-
::; 162 - 1.-; (!IZll
M3 OIWCIOMW i40SIQII
:: 864 SSIO T'Oe XVI
.J 1165 RSI l.oQSIQII

= O.OO....o.A<: 7~ ~•• .._.,
""" = 790 Ome< .._.,
B:: 7'l> ~ e-...,'"" s.a,...., ....

A FlD£RAI. TU SUITS
:110 Tun IUS-
= p..,., Olo.t~} 171 lA$- " 2t usc 71109

---- - A O.T'H~R STATUTES =400 ..... =•1o=430--~ B = 450 eo.-I>CC Roo:.,
::... '6V c-u.-

=•7o~--""'

Com.co~

=e1os-.s.-

e . - . =asos.c:..-'~'

=e7sc.-~
12 usc ~10
= 891 "9"CU"""'-

==·93 .... = I 9'2 Eoonomoc s.-,u..,.. ~t'fVW~M,ut.., 1!}4 E-vt , . _ . , "<:! =195 ••_ ..

= -INC)ftl\a&IOI'I ACI 900 AQOeo&lal~~a..~ uno.rE~~.,
=9SO~al

*

·=

890

sw.s...-
a.........,....s.......,..,

*A

o:

VI. ORIGIN
~ I Qnc;•.ral

=2 r\~~"T"o.Qved frQC'l"\

(PLACE AN < IN ONE SOX ONLY)

- l Rern&nded from

e: : 4 R ~- l ~ d

= Transferre<l lrom 5 anomer M1T'ct

=6 V.uma•s1nct

AQoeal 10 O.stnc. - 7 Judge from
Mag,strate

~roc~d•~"-7

S:..1e Ccu..,

~·"~··Court

Csoeo!Yl

LJOqanon

Judgm<>"'

VII. REQUESTED IN Ct-<ECK IF Tl·HS IS ... CLASS ACTlON

DEMAND s

COMPLAINT: if c uNDER FA P 23 Declaratory & Injunctive Relief

C/1eck. YES Oflly if demdf1t11!d m CO'"o'•mr·

JURY DEMAND:

=YES ~NO

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

JUDGE - - - - - - - - - - - D O C K E T NUMBEH.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

ceiot M o . - - - - - - - - !..lount: - - - - - -

 
 Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-3766-CIV-HURLEY

MARY REESE et al., plaintiffs,
vs.

CLOSED CAS£

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY et al., defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------~/
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the court upon the defendants' renewed motions for summary judgment [DE# 347, 349]. Having duly rendered decision in favor of defendants [DE# 391], in accordance with Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court now enters final summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT is entered against the plaintiffs, MARY REESE et al., who shall take nothing by this action, and in favor of federal defendants, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) and SHAUN DONOVAN, Secretary of HUD, and county defendants, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and

CYNTHIA CURRY, Interim Director ofMiami-Dade Housing Agency, who shall go hence without day.

2. The Court reserves jurisdiction to award costs in favor of the defendants.

1

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 2

3. There being nothing further for the court to do, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this file

and terminate any pending motions as MOOT.

19~ DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this

of

November, 2009.

cc. All counsel

ey United States Dist ct Judge

CLOSED CASE

2

 
 ( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-3766 CIV-HIGHSMITH/TURNOFF

MARY REESE, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs'\

)

)

)

vs.

)

)

)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

NIGHT BOX FILED
JUL 22 2002
_ClARENCE MADDOX
CLERK, USOC I SDFL 1MIA

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND RENE RODRIGUEZ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Miami-Dade County (the ··county") and Rene Rodriguez (collectively referred to as the "County Defendants''), by and through undersigned counsel, file their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint and state:
ANSWER
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. 2. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 4.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 9.

OFFICE OF COUNTY A1TORNEY, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 130!51 3 7 !5-!51 !51

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 2 of 12
4. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 8.
III. PARTIES 5. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 10. G. County Defendants admit the allegations to Paragraph 11 to the extent that Plaintiff Velma Bailey is a resident of Miami-Dade County. County Defendants deny that Plaintiff Velma Bailey is a current resident of Scott Homes since she relocated to new housing and is presently renting a unit using one of the County's Section 8 vouchers. 7. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 12 to the extent that Plaintiff Herbert Jones is not a party to this action since Plaintiff Shanlavie Jenkins was substituted for him. County Defendants further assert that Plaintiff Shanlavie Jenkins was dismissed from this action for lack of standing. 8. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 to the extent that Plaintiff Patricia Sanders was dismissed from this action for lack of standing. 9. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph I4 to the extent that Plaintiff Low Income Families Fighting Together ("L.I.F.F.T.") was dismissed from this action for lack of standing. l 0. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17. 11. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraphs 18 and 19.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. County Defendants admit the allegation in Paragraph 20 to the extent that this is action brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (23(b)(l), (b)(2). County
OF"F"ICE OF" COUNTY ATTORNEY,).riAMI-DADE COUNTY, F"LORIDA TELEPHONE 130l5l 37l5-l51l51

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 3 of 12
Defendants deny all allegations related to all African-American families who currently are, or will in the future be, on the Miami-Dade Housing Agency public housing waiting list because they have been dismissed for lack of standing from this action.
13. County Defendants admit- in part_ the allegations in Paragraph 21. County Defendants, however, deny all allegations that relate to all African-American families who currently are, or will in the future be, on the Miami-Dade Housing Agency public housing waiting list because they have been dismissed for lack of standing from this action.
14. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.
V. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME 15. With regard to the allegations in Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, County Defendants assert that the statutes, regulations and HUD HOPE VI Guidebook speak for themselves. 16. With regard to the allegations in Paragraphs 32 and 33, County Defendants assert that the statutes and regulations pertaining to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act speak for themselves. 17. With regard to the allegations in Paragraphs 34 and 35, County Defendants assert that the statutes and regulations pertaining to the Housing and Community Development Act speak for themselves. 18. With regard to the allegations m Paragraphs 36 and 37, County Defendants assert that the statutes pertaining to the Fair Housing Act speak for themselves.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATIORNEY,}.,IAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 130l5l 37l5-l51!51

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 4 of 12

19. With regard to the allegation in Paragraph 38, County Defendants assert

that the statute pertaining to the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act speaks for

itself.

20. With re1.mrd to the alle2.ation in Para2ranh 39. Countv Defendants assert

._,

-

._,

l

.

ol

that the statute pertaining to the Civil Rights Act speaks for itself.

21. With regard to the allegations in Paragraphs 40, 41 42, and 43, County

Defendants assert that the statutes and regulations pertaining to the National

Environmental Policy Act speak for themselves.

VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraphs 44, 45, and 46.

23. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 47.

24. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny

Paragraph 48.

25. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 49.

26. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny

Paragraph 50.

27. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 51 to the extent that

Miami-Dade Housing Agency has a public housing waiting list. However, County

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the

allegations.

28. County Defendants admit the allegation in Paragraph 52 to the extent that

Miami-Dade Housing Agency opened its waiting list for ten (1 0) days and that it received

OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY,4.,1AMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 13051 375-5151

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 5 of 12
approximately 63,000 applications. However, County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations.
29. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 53. 30. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 54. 31. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. 32. County Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraphs 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64. 33. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 65, 66, 67 and 68. 34. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 69, County Defendants assert that Miami-Dade County Resolution No. 01-1002 speaks for itself. 35. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79. 36. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 80. 37. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING/CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 38. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY,j.IIAMI·DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE (30Sl 37!5-!5151

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 6 of 12
39. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 103.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 40. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 41. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 105.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 43. County Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraphs 107 and 108.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 44. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 45. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 110.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 46. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 47. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 112.
6

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 7 of 12
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 48. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 49. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 114.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 50. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 51. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 116.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 52. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs I through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 53. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 118.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 54. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 55. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 120.
OFFICE: OF COUN1Y ATTORNEY,h•IIAMI·DADE: COUN1Y, FL-ORIDA TE:L.E:PHONE: 130!5> 3 7 !5·!51 !51

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 8 of 12
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 56. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 57. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph I22.
OTHER STATUTORY CLAIMS
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 58. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 59. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 124, County Defendants assert that the statute pertaining to the Housing and Community Development Act requirements speak for themselves. 60. County· Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 125.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 61. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs I through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 62. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 127, County Defendants assert that the statute pertaining to the Housing and Community Development Act requirements speak for themselves. 63. County Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 128.
OFFICE OF' COUNTY ATTORNEY,8.tiAMI·DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 130!51 37!5·!5151

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 9 of 12
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 64. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 65. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 130.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 66. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 67. County Defendants deny all allegations in Paragraphs 132, 133, 134, and 135. and the Uniform Relocation Act claim against County Defendants was dismissed pursuant to the Court's July 2, 2002 Order.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 68. County Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response contained in Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 69. County Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraphs 13 7 and 13 8.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
In response to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint County Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:
OF'F'ICE OF' COUNTY ATTORNEY,'l-11AMI-DADE COUNTY, F'LORIDA TELEPHONE 130!5) 37!5-!51!51

( ( Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 10 of 12
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Housing Act are not ripe for adjudication and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs' claims under the Civil Rights Act are not ripe for adjudication and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs' claims under the Equal Protection Clause are not ripe for adjudication and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for alleged violations of the Housing and Community Development Act because the requirements of the Act do not apply to County Defendants' HOPE VI Revitalization Plan.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for alleged violations of the Quality Housing Work Responsibility Act does not provide a private cause of action. WHEREFORE, Miami-Dade County and Rene Rodriguez respectfully request that this Court:
(1) Deny Plaintiffs' requests for relief and enter judgment in favor of County Defendants and dismissing the Class Action Complaint with prejudice; and
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEYJ ~lAM I-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TELEPI-IONE 130!5> 37!5-!51!51

( t Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 11 of 12 (2) Grant County Defendants such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT A. GINSBURG Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 N.W. 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Tel: (305) 375-5151 Fax: (305) 375-5634
Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 847471 DAVID STEPHEN HOPE Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 87718 CYNJI LEE Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 537705
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY} i.11AMI·DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 130!51 37!5-!51!51

( t Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2002 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed this

22nd day of July. 2002, to: Charles Elsesser, Esq., Florida Legal Services, Inc., Miami
Advocacy Office, 3000 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 450, Miami, Florida :n 117; JoNel Newman,

Florida Justice Institute, First Union Financial Center, Suite 2870, 200 South Biscayne

Boulevard, Miami. Florida 33131-231 0; Benjamine Reid, Carlton Fields, 4000 Nations Bank

Tower, 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Miami, Florida 33131-21 00; Todd Espinosa, National Housing

Law Project, 614 Grand Avenue, Suite 320, Oakland, California 94610; Laura W. Bonn. Assistant U.S. Attorney. 99 N.E. 41h Street. Suite 300, Miami. Florida 33132; Clare Harrigan.
U.S. Department of H.U.D .. Office of Litigation. 451 ih Street, S.W.. Room 10258,

Washington, D.C. 20410.

~~ill.~\~

'ii..ssistant County Audmey

() \J

----

OFFICE OF COUNTY A1TORNEYJ ~lAM I-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TELEPI-IONE (30!5> 3 7 !5-!51 !51

 
 Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 01-3766 CIV-HIGHSMITH/GARBiREC11LKA,;;:uUs[!r>'~_/-''1 :,c-'\
; .'.1•;

MARY REESE, VELMA BAILEY,

)

HERBERT JONES, PATRICIA SANDERS

)

and L.I.F.T., an unincorporated

)

association,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, RENE RODRIGUEZ,

)

Director of the Miami-Dade Housing

)

Agency, MEL R. MARTINEZ, Secretary of )

United States Department of Housing

)

and Urban Development, UNITED STATES

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

)

DEVELOPMENT.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)
_______________________________________ !

DEFENDANTS MEL R. MARTINEZ AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants, Melquiades R. Martinez, as Secretary of
the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development by their undersigned counsel, in response
to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs Class Action

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 2 of 22
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, answer by corresponding numbered paragraphs as follows:
1. The first and second sentences of paragraph 1 constitute Plaintiffs characterization of this suit and contain conclusions of law to which an answer is not required. To the extent an answer is required, these sentences are denied. The third and fifth sentences in paragraph 1 are denied. The fourth sentence in paragraph 1 is denied, except to admit that the HOPE VI Project does involve the demolition of units at the Scott Homes and Carver Homes public housing projects.
2. Defendants admit the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph 2. The remainder of paragraph 2 contains conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
3. Paragraph 3 contains conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
4. Paragraph 4 constitutes Plaintiffs characterization of this suit and contains conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
2

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 3 of 22
5-7. Paragraphs 5 through 7 contain Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
8. Paragraph 8 is denied. 9. Paragraph 9 is admitted. 10. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 and therefore, deny the same. 11. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 and therefore, deny the same. 12. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 and therefore, deny the same. 13. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 and therefore, deny the same. 14. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 and therefore, deny the same. 15. Paragraph 15 is admitted. 16. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 16, except to deny that Rene Rodriguez is charged
3

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 4 of 22
with establishing the policies of the Miami-Dade Housing Agency.
17. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 and therefore, deny the same.
18. Paragraph 18 is admitted. 19. Paragraph 19 is admitted, except to deny that the Secretary is charged with enforcement of all functions, powers and duties of HUD. 20. Paragraph 20 constitutes Plaintiffs characterization of this suit to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 21. Paragraph 21 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 22. Defendants deny the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 22. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 22. 23. The first sentence in paragraph 23 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. The
4

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 5 of 22
allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 23 are denied.
24. Paragraph 24 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
25-26. Paragraph 25 and 26 contain Plaintiffs characterizations of this suit and conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
27. Paragraph 27 contains a summary of a statute, to which this Court is referred for a full and accurate statement of its content. Pub. L. 102-389, Title II, 106 Stat. 1579, 42 U.S.C. § 14371 note.
28. Paragraph 28 contains a summary of a statutory provision, to which this Court is referred for a full and accurate statement of its content. 42 U.S.C. § 1437v.
29. Defendants deny Plaintiffs summary and characterization of the 1998 HUD HOPE VI Guidebook.
30. Paragraph 30 is admitted. 31. Paragraph 31 contains a summary of a regulatory provision, to which this Court is referred for a full and accurate statement of its content. 64 Fed. Reg. 9618 9627-8 (Feb. 26 1999) .
5

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 6 of 22
32-43. Paragraphs 32 through 43 contain Plaintiffs summary and characterization of statutory and regulatory provisions to which this Court is referred for a full and accurate statement of their content.
44. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 44. As to the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 44, they are denied, except to admit that Scott Homes is one of the largest public housing communities in Florida.
45. Paragraph 45 is admitted 46. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 46, and therefore, deny the same. The second sentence of paragraph 46 is denied, except to admit that to be eligible for tenancy in Scott Homes an applicant must be low or very low income as those terms are defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 46 are admitted. 47. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in the first sentence paragraph 47, except to admit that the Scott Homes complex has units with four to six bedrooms. Defendants are
6

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 7 of 22
without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence and therefore, deny the same. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the third sentence in paragraph 47 and therefore, deny the same. (The cite to the data is not identified)
48. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 48, except to admit that in the area near Scott Homes there are retail stores, including the Northside Shopping Center, and a Youth Education Town Center.
49. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegation in the first sentence in paragraph 49 and therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the second and third sentences in paragraph 49, except to admit that according to data submitted to HUD by the Miami-Dade Housing Agency, on November 26, 2001, the Miami Dade Housing Authority administered 10, 036 units of public housing and 5,400 were family units and 4,636 were elderly units.
50. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence, except to qualify that rents are set at 30 percent
7

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 8 of 22
of the "adjusted" income of the family as that term is defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and implementing regulations. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 50 are denied.
51. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 51, except to admit that the MiamiDade Housing Agency does maintain a waiting list for assisted housing, including persons seeking public housing. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit of deny the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 51 and therefore, deny the same. (The cite to federal data is not identified.)
52. Defendants deny the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph 52. As to the allegations in the second and third sentences, defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny these allegations and therefore, deny the same.
53. Defendants admit the allegations in the first and third sentences of paragraph 53. The allegations in the the second sentence are denied, except to admit that the Miami-Dade Housing Agency does administer Housing Choice Vouchers that eligible families may use to rent housing on the private rental market.
8

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 9 of 22
54. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit and deny the allegations contained in paragraph 54 and therefore, deny the same.
55. Defendants deny the first sentence in paragraph 55. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 55 are admitted.
56. Defendant are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 56 and therefore, deny the same. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 56 are denied. Defendants admit the allegations in the third and fourth sentences.
57. Paragraph 57 is denied. 58. Paragraph 58 is denied. 59. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 59 and therefore, deny the same. 60. Defendants admit the allegations in the first and fourth sentences. Defendants are without sufficient of knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second and third sentences of paragraph 60 and therefore, deny the same. 61. Paragraph 61 is admitted.
9

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 10 of 22
62. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 62, except that the defendants records indicate that the Miami Dade County defendants HOPE VI application was submitted on May 27, 1999 and the HOPE VI Grant award letter is dated August 25, 1999.
63. Paragraph 63 is admitted. 64. Paragraph 64 is admitted. 65. Paragraph 65 contains conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 66. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations as to the federal defendants in paragraph 66. As to the remainder of the allegations against Miami Dade County, the defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations and therefore, deny the same 67. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 67. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny the allegations against the Miami-Dade County defendants in the second and third sentences. Defendants deny the
10

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 11 of 22
allegations in the second and third sentences, except to admit that HUD does not operate a "rent to own" program.
68. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 68. The remainder of this paragraph, consists of Plaintiffs summary and characterization of information contained in the 1999 HOPE VI application by Miami-Dade County and the Court is referred to the document for a complete statement of its contents.
69-71. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 67 through 71 and therefore, the deny the same.
72. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 72. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information, to either admit or deny the allegations contained in the second sentence and therefore, deny the same.
73-74. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 73 and 74 and therefore, deny the same.
75. Paragraph 75 is denied. 76. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations
11

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 12 of 22
contained in paragraph 76 and therefore, deny the same. (The cite for the federal data is not identified) .
77. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 77, except to admit that families residing in Scott Homes may be offered Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the County defendant and funded by the defendants.
78. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 78, and therefore, deny the same.
79. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 79. Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 79. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information either to admit or deny the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 79 and therefore, deny the same.
80. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 80. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 80.
81. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 81, except to clarify the tenant families pay as rent a percentage of their "adjusted" income as that term is
12

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 13 of 22
defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and implementing by regulations.
82. Paragraph 82 is denied. 83. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 82, except to admit that in order to use a Housing Choice Voucher, the rental property must meet Housing Quality Standards. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence and therefore, deny the same. 84-85. Defendants are without knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 84 and 85 and therefore, deny the same. 86. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 86. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 86 and therefore, deny the same. (The cite to federal information or data is not identified) . 87. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 87 and therefore, deny the same. 88. Paragraph 88 is denied.
13

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 14 of 22
89. Paragraph 89 is denied. 90. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 90, except to admit that as of May 1, 2000 information provided to HUD by the Miami-Dade Housing Agency indicated that over 99 percent of the families residing in the Scott Homes and Carver projects were identified as Black/African American. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 90 and therefore, deny the same. 91. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 91 and therefore, deny the same. 92. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 92, except to admit that the Miami-Dade HOPE VI plan will reduce the number of units on the site of the Scott Homes and Carver Homes public housing developments. 93. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 93 and therefore, deny the same. 94. Paragraph 94 is denied.
14

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 15 of 22
95. Defendants deny the allegations in the first and fifth sentences of paragraph 95. Defendants admit the allegations in the remainder of this paragraph.
96. Paragraph 96 is a statement of Plaintiffs' beliefs, to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
97. Paragraph 97 is denied. 98. Paragraph 98 is denied. 99. Defendants deny the allegations in the first, third and fourth sentences in paragraph 99. The second sentence contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 100. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 100.
101. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 101. First through Fourth Claims for Relief
Paragraphs, 102-110 pertain solely to Plaintiffs allegations against Miami Dade County and Rene Rodriguez, Director of the Miami-Dade Housing Authority, and therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, defendants respond as follows:
15

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 16 of 22
102. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
103. Paragraph 103 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
104. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
105. Paragraph 105 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
106. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
107. Paragraph 107 is denied. 108. Paragraph 108 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 109. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 110. Paragraph 110 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
16

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 17 of 22
Fifth Claim for Relief 111. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 112. Paragraph 112 is denied.
Sixth Claim for Relief 113. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 114. Deny.
Seventh and Eighth Claims for Relief Paragraphs 115-118 pertain solely to Plaintiffs allegations against Miami-Dade County and Rene Rodriguez, Director of Miami-Dade Housing Authority and therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary defendants respond as follows: 115. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 116. Paragraph 116 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 117. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
17

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 18 of 22
118. Paragraph 118 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
Ninth Claim for Relief 119. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 120. Paragraph 12 is denied.
Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Claims for Relief Paragraphs 121-128 pertain solely to Plaintiffs allegations against Miami Dade County and Rene Rodriguez, Director of Miami Dade Housing Authority and therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary defendants respond as follows: 121. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 122. Paragraph 122 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied. 123. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 124. Paragraph 124 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
18

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 19 of 22
125. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 125, except to admit that the use of $2,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds is anticipated. Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations in the third and fourth sentences. The fifth sentence contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
126. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
127. Paragraph 12 contains Plaintiffs conclusions of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
128. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 128, except to admit that the use of $2,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds is anticipated. The second sentence contains a conclusion of law to which an answer is not required, but if one is required, it is denied.
Thirteenth Claim for Relief 129. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
19

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 20 of 22
130. Paragraph 130 is denied. Fourteenth Claim for Relief
131. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full.
132. Paragraph 132 contains a summary of statutory and regulatory provisions, to which the Court is referred for a full and accurate statement of their content.
133. Paragraph 133 is denied. 134. Paragraph 134 is denied. 135. Paragraph 135 is denied.
Fifteenth Claim for Relief 136. Defendants repeat and reallege their answers for paragraphs 1 through 101 as if set out in full. 137. Paragraph 137 contains a summary of statutory and regulatory provisions, to which the Court is referred for a full and accurate state of their content. 138. Paragraph 138 is denied. Defendants specifically deny all allegations not hereinbefore admitted. Defendants respectfully request that the prayer for relief be denied; that this action be dismissed; and that the federal defendants be awarded their costs and fees and such other relief as may be appropriate.
20

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 21 of 22
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Defense
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Second Defense The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Respectfully submitted, GUY A. LEWIS United States Attorney
~W.i~
By: LAURA W. BONN Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 244759 99 N.E. 4~ St., Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: (305) 961-9422 Fax : (305 ) 53 0 - 713 9 CLARE HARRIGAN U.S. Dept. of H.U.D. Office of Litigation 451 7~ Street, S.W., Room 10258 Washington, D.C. 20410 Tel: (202) 708-0614 Fax: (202) 708-3351 Attorneys for Federal Defendants
21

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2001 Page 22 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was

~day mailed and sent by facsimile this

of December,

2001 to the following:

Charles F. Elsesser, Jr., Esq. Florida Legal Services, Inc. Suite 450 3000 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
JoNel Neuman, Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131
Terrence Smith Assistant County Attorney Suite 2810 111 NW 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128
w ' By: ~ '"i .1
LAURA W. BONN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

reese2.ans

22

 
 Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 01-3766-CIV-HIGHSMITH

MARY REESE, VELMA BAILEY, HERBERT JONES, PATRICIA SANDERS, and L.I.F.F.T., an unincorporated association,

Plaintiffs, v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, RENE RODRIGUEZ, Director of the Miami-Dade Housing Agency, MEL R. MARTINEZ, Secretary of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

,jUt .- 2 2002
CLARENCE MADDOX
CLEHK u. S. OIST· CT.
s. D. OF .FLA,.: MIAMI

Defendants.
---------------_/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion to

Certify the Class (DE 11). In their motion, Plaintiffs seek to

certify two classes of Plaintiffs. The first class is composed

of "[a]ll African-American individuals residing in Scott Homes

Public Housing Project as of September 17, 1999." The second

class is composed of "[a]ll African-American families who

currently are, or will in the future be, on the Miami Dade

Housing Agency public housing waiting list." In an order dated

May 24, 2002, however, the Court held that the waiting list

tenants (the second proposed class) could not establish Article

III standing and, therefore, were dismissed from this lawsuit.

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs' motion seeks to certify a class of individuals on the public housing waiting list, such motion should be denied. Conversely, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of individuals currently residing at Scott Homes, should be granted. Discussion1 A class action determination is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1536 (11th Cir. 1983). Class certification is strictly a procedural matter and the merits of the claims at stake are not considered when determining the propriety of the class action vehicle. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). The district court may consider both allegations of the complaint and supplemental evidentiary submissions of the parties. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n.17 (9th Cir. 1975). Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the certification and maintenance of class actions. Rule 23(a) states that one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if: (1) the class is
In a contemporaneously issued order, the Court has detailed the factual background of this case. Accordingly, in this order, the Court will proceed directly to the analysis of the certification issue.
-2-

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 3 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) questions of law or fact common to the class exist; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) the representative parties can fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Once these four elements of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the action falls within one of three categories set forth in Rule 23(b). The relevant category in this case is subsection (2). For an action to fall within this subsection, the plaintiff must demonstrate that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2) . Here, Defendants only argument is that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the fourth element of Rule 23(a); namely, that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. 2 Defendants claim that antagonism exists
Defendants asserted several jurisdictional arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In an order dated May 24, 2002, the Court ruled on those issues. Accordingly, Defendants only remaining argument is that
-3-

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 4 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA among the class members regarding the benefits of the HOPE VI plan. Defendants state that, unlike the named Plaintiffs, many of Scott Homes' current tenants support the HOPE VI project and wish to see implementation of the project as currently configured. As mentioned, Rule 23(a) (4) requires the movant to show that the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To determine if a party seeking class certification has met his or her burden, courts must determine: (1) that the plaintiff's attorney is qualified, experienced and will competently and vigorously prosecute the suit; and (2) that the interest of the class representative is not antagonistic to or in conflict with other members of the class. See, Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford, 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987); Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516, 1533 (11th Cir.1985).3 Class actions, however, are not forbidden in every case in which class members disagree. Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F.2d 470, 486 (5th Cir. 1982). Obviously, "[i]n any
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
In this case, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' attorneys are qualified, experienced, and appear ready to competently and vigorously prosecute this action.
-4-

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA conceivable case, some of the members of the class will wish to assert their rights while other will not wish to do SO.II Id. Here, the Court finds that the interests of the Scott Homes' tenants who support implementation of the HOPE VI plan as currently configured, are adequately protected. Although some of the Scott Homes' tenants may disagree with the named Plaintiffs, their position has been asserted "energetically and forcefullyll by the two governmental Defendants responsible for administering the HOPE VI plan. See, Horton, at 487. The Court is mindful of the apparent dangers in relying on the opponents of the class to represent the views of dissenting class members. Nevertheless, unlike many class action suits, the facts of this case reveal that the interests of the dissenting class members are sufficiently intertwined with the interests of the governmental Defendants such that their views will be adequately safeguarded. Accordingly, the Court holds that the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 4 Should the interests of the dissenting class members and the governmental Defendants become distinct, the Court will entertain
4 The Court holds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating the existence of the remaining elements necessary for class certification.
-5-

Case 1:01-cv-03766-DTKH Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2002 Page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA motions for decertification if appropriate. In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The following class is hereby certified: All African-American individuals residing in Scott Homes Public Housing Project as of September 17, 1999. Plaintiffs Mary Reese and Velma Bailey shall be class representatives.
0< DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this
day of July, 2002.

cc: Magistrate Judge Turnoff Charles F. Elsesser, Jr., Esq. Laura Bonn, AUSA Terrence A. Smith

JUDGE

-6-

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 1 of 33
CLOSED, JMH, MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01−cv−03766−DTKH

Reese, et al v. Miami−Dade County, et al Assigned to: Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley Referred to: Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins Demand: $0 Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/06/2001 Date Terminated: 11/19/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Mary Reese

represented by Benjamine Reid Carlton Fields 100 SE 2nd Street Suite 4000 PO Box 019101 Miami, FL 33131−9101 305−530−0050 Fax: 530−0055 Email: breid@carltonfields.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. Florida Legal Services Inc Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092 Fax: 576−9664 Email: charles@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JoNel Newman Florida Legal Services Inc Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092 Fax: 576−9664 TERMINATED: 06/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel Florida Justice Institute 100 SE 2nd Street 4320 Bank of America Tower Miami, FL 33131−2309 305−358−2081 Fax: 358−0910 Email: peterms@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. Florida Justice Institute 100 SE 2nd Street 3750 Bank of America Tower

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 2 of 33

Miami, FL 33131−2309 305−358−2081 Fax: 358−0910 Email: rberg@floridajusticeinstitute.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Isaac Espinosa Nationalo Housing Law Project 614 Grand Avenue Suite 320 Oakland, CA 94610 510−251−9400 Fax: 451−2300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Velma Bailey

represented by Benjamine Reid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JoNel Newman Florida Legal Services Inc Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092 Fax: 576−9664 Email: jnewman@law.miami.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Isaac Espinosa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jones TERMINATED: 01/02/2002

represented by Benjamine Reid (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. Florida Legal Services Inc

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 3 of 33

Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092 Fax: 576−9664 TERMINATED: 01/02/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Isaac Espinosa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patricia Sanders

represented by Benjamine Reid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JoNel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Isaac Espinosa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
L.I.F.F.T an unincorporated association

represented by Benjamine Reid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JoNel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 4 of 33

Plaintiff All Plaintiffs

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Isaac Espinosa (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. Florida Legal Services Inc 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−0092 Fax: 576−9664 Email: charles@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Miami−Dade County

represented by Brenda Kuhns Neuman Miami−Dade County Attorney's Office 111 NW 1st Street Stephen P Clark Center, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128 305−375−5151 Fax: 305−375−5611 Email: bjk@miamidade.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynji Antoinette Lee Dade County Attorney's Office Metro Dade Center 111 NW 1st Street Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128−1993 305−375−5151 Fax: 375−5634 Email: clee@miami−airport.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Stephen Hope Dade County Attorney's Office Metro Dade Center 111 NW 1st Street

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 5 of 33

Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128−1993 305−375−5151 Fax: 375−5634 Email: DHope@miamidade.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Darrell McInnis Dade County Attorney's Office Metro Dade Center 111 NW 1st Street Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128−1993 305−375−1336 Fax: 375−5634 Email: JDM@miamidade.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith Dade County Attorney's Office Metro Dade Center 111 NW 1st Street Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128−1993 305−375−5151 Fax: 375−5634 Email: ASMITH2@miamidade.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy A. Jacobus United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305−961−9301 Fax: 530−7139 Email: Wendy.Jacobus@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rene Rodriguez a Director if the Miami−Dade Housing Agency TERMINATED: 11/10/2009

represented by Brenda Kuhns Neuman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynji Antoinette Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Stephen Hope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Darrell McInnis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 6 of 33

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mel R. Martinez Secretary of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development TERMINATED: 11/10/2009

represented by Laura W. Bonn United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305−961−9422 Fax: 530−7139 Email: lwbonn@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alan Weinkle United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Suite 300 Miami, FL 33132 305.961.9290 Fax: 305.530.7139 Email: James.Weinkle@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy A. Jacobus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

represented by Clare Harrigan United States Department of H.U.D. 451 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20410 202−708−0614X5102 Fax: 708−3351 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alan Weinkle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura W. Bonn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy A. Jacobus (See above for address)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 7 of 33

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cynthia W. Curry Interim Director of Miami−Dade Housing Agency

represented by Brenda Kuhns Neuman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynji Antoinette Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Stephen Hope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Darrell McInnis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Shaun Donovan Director Of Miami−Dade Housing Agency

represented by Laura W. Bonn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrence Andrew Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Alan Weinkle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy A. Jacobus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shanlavie Jenkins

represented by Charles F. Elsesser , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JoNel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 8 of 33
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/06/2001
09/06/2001 09/06/2001
09/06/2001 09/11/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 10/02/2001
10/03/2001 10/03/2001
10/03/2001
10/03/2001
10/03/2001
10/09/2001 10/09/2001

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed; FILING Not paid Motion IFP filed; A−7; Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber (ra, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 09/06/2001)
2 APPLICATION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to proceed in forma pauperis (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
3 VERIFIED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for Todd Espinosa to appear pro hac vice (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 75.00 RECEIPT # 848707 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
4 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for dates of: 9/17/01 to 9/21/01 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
5 CLERK'S RECEIPT for: Filing Fee paid by Mary Reese . AMOUNT: $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 850280 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
6 SUMMONS issued for Miami−Dade County (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
7 SUMMONS issued for Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
8 SUMMONS issued for Mel R. Martinez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
9 SUMMONS issued for United States Urban (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
10 ORDER granting [3−1] motion for Todd Espinosa to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/02/01) [EOD Date: 10/3/01] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
11 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to certify class action (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
12 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in support of [11−1] motion to certify class action (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
13 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
14 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in support of [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
15 EXHIBITS in support of [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez, [11−1] motion to certify class action by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
16 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Rene Rodriguez on 10/4/01 Answer due on 10/24/01 for Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
17 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Miami−Dade County on 10/4/01 Answer due on 10/24/01 for Miami−Dade County (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 9 of 33

10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/16/2001 10/17/2001 10/18/2001
10/22/2001 11/02/2001 11/06/2001 11/07/2001
11/16/2001 12/04/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001

18 Return of Service of Summons and Complaint (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
19 Return of Service of Summons and Complaint (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
22 JOINT MOTION by Mary Reese, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to extend time to file responsive pleading to complaint and opposition to motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
23 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to extend time to respond to motion to certify the class and for stay of discovery on the merits (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
24 ORDER granting [22−1] joint motion to extend time to file responsive pleading to complaint and opposition to motion for preliminary injunction Reset answer due for 12/17/01 for Miami−Dade County, for Rene Rodriguez , and Response to motion reset to 12/17/01 for [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 10/17/01) [EOD Date: 10/19/01] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
25 OPPOSITION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to [23−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to certify the class and for stay of discovery on the merits (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
26 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez in opposition to [23−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to certify the class and for stay of discovery on the merits (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
27 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for dates of: 11/12/01 to 11/16/01 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
28 ORDER granting [23−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to certify the class and for stay of discovery on the merits Response to motion reset to 1/15/02 for [11−1] motion to certify class action , setting answer due for 12/4/01 for United States Urban, for Mel R. Martinez (see order for further details)( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 11/6/01) [EOD Date: 11/9/01] (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
29 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T by Benjamine Reid (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
30 Answer and affirmative defenses by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban (Attorney Laura W. Bonn), (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
Text not available. (Entered: 12/07/2001)
31 NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to take deposition of Lottie Hines 11/29/01 at 10:00 (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
32 NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to take deposition of Miami−Dade County 11/29/01 at 1:30 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
33 NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to continue deposition of National Housing Group, Inc. 12/10/01 at 1:00 (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
34 NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to take deposition of National Housing Group, Inc. 11/30/01 at 1:00 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
35 JOINT MOTION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T regarding modification of page limits and

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 10 of 33

12/12/2001 12/17/2001 12/17/2001 12/17/2001 12/17/2001
12/31/2001 01/02/2002 01/07/2002
01/08/2002 01/10/2002 01/14/2002 01/14/2002
01/14/2002
01/16/2002 01/16/2002 01/16/2002 01/22/2002 01/22/2002

to extend time for briefing schedules (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
36 ORDER granting [35−1] joint motion regarding modification of page limits and to extend time for briefing schedules (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/12/01) [EOD Date: 12/14/01] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
37 RESPONSE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in opposition to [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
38 MOTION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to dismiss complaint , in the alternative for more definite statement (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
39 MEMORANDUM by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in support of [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, [38−2] motion for more definite statement (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
40 UNOPPOSED MOTION with memorandum in support by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to join as party plaintiff , or in the alternative to intervene by Shanlavie Jenkins , and to drop plaintiff (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
41 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to extend time to file opposition to motion to dismiss (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2002)
42 ORDER granting [40−1] motion to join as party plaintiff, granting [40−2] motion to intervene by Shanlavie Jenkins ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/27/01) [EOD Date: 1/3/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
43 ORDER granting [41−1] motion to extend time to file opposition to motion to dismiss Response to motion reset to 1/14/02 for [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, reset to 1/14/02 for [38−2] motion for more definite statement (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 01/04/02) [EOD Date: 1/8/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
44 AGREED MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to extend time to file opposition to motion to certify class (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
45 ORDER granting [44−1] motion to extend time to file opposition to motion to certify class (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 01/10/02) [EOD Date: 1/11/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
46 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
47 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in reply to opposition to [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
48 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS in support of [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez, [11−1] motion to certify class action by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
49 NOTICE of filing depositions by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
50 DEPOSITION of Jearline Borders (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
51 DEPOSITION of Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
52 RESPONSE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in opposition to [11−1] motion to certify class action (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
53 BRIEF by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban in opposition to [11−1] motion to certify class action (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 11 of 33

01/23/2002 01/24/2002 01/28/2002
02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002 02/07/2002
02/08/2002
02/08/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/13/2002 02/13/2002

54 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for dates of: 2/21/02 to 02/28/02 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
55 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Miami−Dade County to extend time to file their reply to opposition to motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for more definite statement (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
56 ORDER granting [55−1] motion to extend time to file their reply to opposition to motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for more definite statement Reply to Response to Motion reset to 2/1/02 for [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, reset to 2/1/02 for [38−2] motion for more definite statement ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 01/28/02) [EOD Date: 1/29/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
57 REPLY by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to opposition to [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, [38−2] motion for more definite statement (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
58 EXHIBITS in support of [57−1] response reply by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
59 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to extend time to file their reply to Federal defendants' brief in opposition to motion for class certification (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
60 Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
63 ORDER granting [59−1] motion to extend time to file their reply to Federal defendants' brief in opposition to motion for class certification Reply to Response to Motion reset to 2/11/02 for [11−1] motion to certify class action ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 2/6/02) [EOD Date: 2/12/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
61 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE Set Jury trial for 9:00 11/18/02 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , Set calendar call for 12:00 11/15/02 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , Setting discovery for 9/9/02 , Set motion filing deadline for 9/23/02 , Set pretrial stipulation due for 10/28/02 (Signed by Shelby Highsmith on 02/08/02) [EOD Date: 2/11/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
62 ORDER referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 02/08/02) [EOD Date: 2/11/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
64 REPLY by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to brief in opposition to [11−1] motion to certify class action (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
65 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS to: [11−1] motion to certify class action by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
66 NOTICE of filing depositions of Mary Reese and Velma Bailey by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
67 DEPOSITION of Mary Reese (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
68 DEPOSITION of Velma Bailey (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
69 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for protective order staying discovery against Hud pursuant to rule 26 (c) (ra, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/06/2002 (Entered: 02/14/2002)
70 MEMORANDUM by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban in support of [69−1] motion for protective order staying discovery against Hud oursuant to rule 26 (c) (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 12 of 33

02/13/2002 02/13/2002 02/26/2002
02/28/2002 03/04/2002
03/04/2002
03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002
03/05/2002 03/06/2002 03/11/2002 03/13/2002 03/14/2002 03/19/2002
03/20/2002

71 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for rule 12 (h)(3), dismiss/suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
72 BRIEF by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban in support of [71−1] motion for rule 12 (h)(3), dismiss/suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
73 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to federal defendants' motion to stay discovery against federal defendants (motion not on docket) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
74 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to extend time to file order scheduling mediation (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
75 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in opposition to Federal defendants' Rule 12(h)(3) suggestion that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
76 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS Re: [75−1] memorandum in opposition to Federal defendants' Rule 12(h)(3) suggestion that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff L.I.F.F.T by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
77 DECLARATION of Jearline Borders by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T Re: [75−1] opposition memorandum (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
78 DECLARATION of Virginia Givens by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T Re: [75−1] opposition memorandum (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
79 DECLARATION of Gail King by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T Re: [75−1] opposition memorandum (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
81 ORDER granting [74−1] motion to extend time to file order scheduling mediation, order scheduling mediation shall be filed 3/5/02 ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 3/4/02) [EOD Date: 3/6/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
80 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to opposition to [69−1] motion for protective order staying discovery against Hud pursuant to rule 26 (c) (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
82 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for dates of: 04/1/02 to 04/15/02 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
83 NOTICE of filing proposed order scheduling mediation by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
84 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: George F Knox for 9/11/02 at 10:30 ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 03/13/02) [EOD Date: 3/14/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
85 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to extend time to reply to opposition to defendants rule 12(h)(3) suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter Jurisdiction over plaintiffs (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
86 ORDER granting [85−1] motion to extend time to reply to opposition to defendants rule 12(h)(3) suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter Jurisdiction over plaintiffs ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 03/19/02) [EOD Date: 3/20/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
87 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to response to oposition to motion to stay discovery against Hud (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 13 of 33

03/26/2002 03/26/2002 04/01/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/15/2002 04/15/2002 04/16/2002 04/19/2002 04/19/2002

88 BRIEF IN REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban in opposition to Rule 12(h)(3) suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
89 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban to extend time to respond to rule 12 (h)(3) suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' in this case (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
90 ORDER granting [89−1] motion to extend time to respond to rule 12 (h)(3) suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' in this case striking [87−1] response reply ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 04/01/02) [EOD Date: 4/2/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2002)
91 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins for temporary restraining order and/or for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
92 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in support of [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
93 NOTICE of filing declaration in support of [91−1] and [91−2] motion by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
94 DECLARATION of Octavia Anderson by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [92−1] support [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
95 DECLARATION of Jacqueline Walker by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
96 DECLARATION of Ceola Scott by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
97 DECLARATION of Shirley Ellison by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
98 DECLARATION of Tammy Miley by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
99 OPPOSITION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
100 EXHIBITS to: [99−1] opposition response by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
101 OPPOSITION by United States Urban, Mel R. Martinez to [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
102 ORDER Motion hearing before Judge Shelby Highsmith set for 2:30 4/16/02 for [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, set for 2:30 4/16/02 for [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 04/19/02) [EOD Date: 4/22/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
103 NOTICE of filing attached document in support of motion for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/22/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 14 of 33

04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002
04/24/2002
04/24/2002 04/25/2002 04/26/2002
04/26/2002 05/01/2002
05/17/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002

104 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in support of [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
105 NOTICE of filing declaration in support of [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
106 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Actavia Anderson by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T Re: [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
107 ORDER OF REFERENCE Referring Motion(s) [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff ( signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 04/24/02) [EOD Date: 4/25/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
108 ORDER denying [91−1] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [91−2] motion for preliminary injunction ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 04/24/02) [EOD Date: 4/25/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
109 ORDER granting [69−1] motion for protective order staying discovery against Hud pursuant to rule 26 (c) ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 04/25/02) [EOD Date: 4/26/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
110 ORDER Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff set for 10:00 5/22/02 for [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez ( Signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 4/24/02) [EOD Date: 4/29/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
111 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban for dates of: 5/6/02 to 5/7/02 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
112 ORDER Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff set for 10:00 5/22/02 for [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez ( Signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 4/27/02) [EOD Date: 5/2/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
113 NOTICE of filing in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injuction by Mary Reese (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
114 VERIFIED MOTION by Miami−Dade County for Cynji Lee to appear pro hac vice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 75.00 RECEIPT # 863081 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
115 NOTICE of filing depositions (3) by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (cj, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/22/2002 (Entered: 05/22/2002)
116 DEPOSITION of Robert Levis (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
117 DEPOSITION of Mr. Herrera (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
118 DEPOSITION of Alphonso Brewster (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
119 NOTICE of filing of supplemental legal authority and declarations in support of defendant opposition to plaintiff motion for preliminary injunction by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
120 NOTICE of filing of deposition in support of plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
121 DEPOSITION of Wynee Joyner (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
122 NOTICE of filing deposition of Patricia Sanders (attached) by Rene Rodriguez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 15 of 33

05/21/2002
05/21/2002 05/24/2002
05/24/2002 05/24/2002 05/24/2002 05/28/2002 06/03/2002 06/07/2002 06/07/2002 06/17/2002 06/17/2002 07/01/2002 07/02/2002 07/02/2002 07/02/2002
07/10/2002

123 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [71−1] motion for rule 12 (h)(3), dismiss/suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs granting in part, denying in part [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, terminating [38−2] motion for more definite statement; A written Opinion shall follow ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 5/21/02) [EOD Date: 5/22/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
124 ORDER granting [114−1] motion for Cynji Lee to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 5/21/02) [EOD Date: 5/22/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
125 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [71−1] motion for rule 12 (h)(3), dismiss/suggestion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs, granting in part, denying in part [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on ) [EOD Date: 5/28/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
Motion hearing re: [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez Motion hearing held (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
127 JOINT STIPULATION concerning evidence for hearing on motion for preliminary injunction by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
128 AO 187 Exhibit and Witness list (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
126 Minutes of Preliminary Injunction Hearing held before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 5/22/02; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: 02G−34−15−30/35 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
129 Transcript filed re: preliminary injunction held 5/22/02 before Judge Magistrate William C. Turnoff Pages: 1−103 (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
130 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
131 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Urban (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
132 MOTION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to strike PORTIONS of [130−1] proposed findings of fact (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
133 MEMORANDUM by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD in support of [132−1] motion to strike PORTIONS of [130−1] proposed findings of fact (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
134 Expert Witness list by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
135 OPPOSITION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to [132−1] motion to strike PORTIONS of [130−1] proposed findings of fact (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
136 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [11−1] motion to certify class action ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 07/02/02) [EOD Date: 7/3/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
137 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [38−1] motion to dismiss complaint, denying [38−2] motion for more definite statement ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 07/02/02) [EOD Date: 7/3/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
138 ORDER denying [2−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 07/10/02) [EOD Date: 7/11/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 16 of 33

07/10/2002 07/15/2002 07/15/2002 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07/31/2002
07/31/2002 08/01/2002
08/12/2002 08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002 08/20/2002

139 REPLY by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in opposition to [132−1] motion to strike PORTIONS of [130−1] proposed findings of fact (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
140 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD for dates of: 8/6/02 to 8/16/02 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
141 Expert Disclosure by U.S. − HUD (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
142 Answer and affirmative defenses by Miami−Dade County to class action complaint (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
143 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to extend time for naming of rebuttal expert witness until after receipt of primary expert witness's report (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
144 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T of [143−1] motion to extend time for naming of rebuttal expert witness until after receipt of primary expert witness's report (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
145 NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to take deposition of Miami−Dade County 8/8/02 at 10:00 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
146 ORDER denying [143−1] motion to extend time for naming of rebuttal expert witness until after receipt of primary expert witness's report ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 08/01/02) [EOD Date: 8/2/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
147 Witness list by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
148 Witness list by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
149 AMENDED NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to take deposition of Miami−Dade County 8/19/02 at 10:00 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
150 NOTICE of Filing attached Supplemental Expert Witness Report by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
151 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
152 MEMORANDUM by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD in support of [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
153 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
153 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to compel discovery , to extend time discovery and motion deadlines , and for expedited consideration of this motion (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
154 AMENDED NOTICE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to take deposition of US of HUD, other 9/5/02 at 10:00am (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
155 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to substitute Todd Espinosa with Catherine M. Bishop as Attorney (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 17 of 33

08/20/2002
08/21/2002 08/21/2002 08/23/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/29/2002 08/29/2002 09/04/2002
09/04/2002 09/04/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/11/2002

156 ORDER OF REFERENCE Referring Motion(s) [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff ( signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 8/19/02) [EOD Date: 8/21/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
157 ORDER denying [155−1] motion to substitute Todd Espinosa with Catherine M. Bishop as Attorney ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 08/21/02) [EOD Date: 8/22/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
158 MOTION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for leave to amend witness list (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
159 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to extend time to respond to plaintiff's opposition to Federal defendants' motion for a protective order and to compel discovery (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
160 ORDER granting [158−1] motion for leave to amend witness list (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 08/26/02) [EOD Date: 8/27/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
161 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [159−1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's opposition to Federal defendants' motion for a protective order and to compel discovery (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
162 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to extend time to respond to first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
163 AGREED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins for change of mediation order (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
164 ORDER OF REFERENCE Referring Motion(s) [162−1] motion to extend time to respond to first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff ( signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 09/03/02) [EOD Date: 9/5/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
165 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: George F. Knox for 9/12/02 at 10:00 (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 09/03/02) [EOD Date: 9/5/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
166 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to opposition to [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
167 Administrative Records (attached) by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
168 NOTICE of filing Substitute reply to plintiffs' opposition to Federal defendants' motion for protective order by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
169 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to opposition to [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
170 OPPOSITION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to [162−1] motion to extend time to respond to first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
171 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff recommending that [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez be DENIED. Motion no longer referred. Signed on: 09/11/02 Objections to R and R due by 9/23/02 CCAP (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 18 of 33

09/11/2002 09/17/2002 09/17/2002
09/17/2002
09/18/2002
09/18/2002
09/25/2002
09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002
09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/27/2002
10/08/2002 11/07/2002

172 ORDER granting [132−1] motion to strike PORTIONS of [130−1] proposed findings of fact (Signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 09/11/02) [EOD Date: 9/12/02] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
173 FINAL report of Mediator. Disposition: Impasse (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
174 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins for leave to file Sur−Reply to Federal defendants's subtitute reply to plaintiffs' opposition to Federal defendants's motion for protective order and to limit judicial review (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
175 SUR−REPLY by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to plaintiffs' opposition to [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
176 UNIFIED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S.− HUD, Shanlavie Jenkins for modification of [61−6] pretrial order (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
177 DECLARATION of Plaintinffs' counsel by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: in support of [176−1] motion for modification of [61−6] pretrial order (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
178 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for leave to file objections to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against county defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
179 OBJECTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to [171−1] report and recommendations (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
180 NOTICE of filing attached responses to plaintiff's first request for admissions to county defedants by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
181 ORDER Granting [176−1] motion for modification of [61−6] pretrial order (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/23/02) [EOD Date: 9/27/02] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
181 SCHEDULING ORDER RE−setting Deadline for filing of all Pre−Trial motions and memoranda by 11/25/02 Jury trial set for 9:00 2/10/03 Joint Pretrial Stipulation due on or before 1/6/03 Calendar call set for 12:00 2/7/03 (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham for Shelby Highsmith on 9/23/02) [EOD Date: 9/27/02] CCAP (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
182 NOTICE of Filing attached Expert Witness Report by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
182 Expert Witness Report by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
183 NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins re: [179−1] objection to report and recommendations on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
184 RESPONSE in opposition by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to Objections to [171−1] report and recommendations (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
185 ORDER granting [178−1] motion for leave to file objections to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against county defendants ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 11/07/02) [EOD Date: 11/8/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/08/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 19 of 33

11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/22/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/26/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002

186 ORDER Setting Hearing Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff set for 2:00 12/10/02 for [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record, set for 2:00 12/10/02 for [153−1] motion to compel discovery, set for 2:00 12/10/02 for [153−2] motion to extend time discovery and motion deadlines, set for 2:00 12/10/02 for [153−3] motion for expedited consideration of this motion, set for 2:00 12/10/02 for [162−1] motion to extend time to respond to first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents ( Signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 11/18/02) [EOD Date: 11/20/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
187 ORDER granting [174−1] motion for leave to file Sur−Reply to Federal defendants's subtitute reply to plaintiffs' opposition to Federal defendants's motion for protective order and to limit judicial review ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 11/19/02) [EOD Date: 11/20/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
188 MOTION by U.S. − HUD for leave to submit memoranda of law in excess of twenty (20) pages (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
189 MOTION with memorandum in support by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
190 MOTION by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez to reset hearing date on discovery motions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
191 MOTION by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
193 EXHIBITS to: [191−1] motion for summary judgment by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
194 Statement of material facts in support of by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez re: [191−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
195 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
196 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in support of [195−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
197 Statement of undisputed facts in support of by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T re: [195−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
198 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS to: [195−1] motion for summary judgment by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
199 NOTICE of filing deposition of Robert Lewis by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
200 DEPOSITION of Robert Lewis (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
201 EXHIBITS in support of Robert Levis declaration: by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
192 MEMORANDUM by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in support of [191−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
202 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
203 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T in support of [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 20 of 33

12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002
12/03/2002 12/03/2002
12/03/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002
12/10/2002
12/13/2002 12/13/2002 12/16/2002 12/16/2002

204 Statement of undisputed material facts by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T re: [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
205 MOTION by U.S. − HUD to file amended memorandum in support of Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
206 MEMORANDUM by U.S. − HUD in support of [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
207 Statement of non−opposition to Federal Defendants' motion to file amended memorandum in support of Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie re: [205−1] motion to file amended memorandum in support Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
208 ORDER granting [188−1] motion for leave to submit memoranda of law in excess of twenty (20) pages ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/3/02) [EOD Date: 12/5/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
209 ORDER GRANTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME; ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's shall have up to and including 12/2/02 in which to file and serve their motion(Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/3/02) [EOD Date: 12/5/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
210 ORDER granting [205−1] motion to file amended memorandum in support of Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/3/02) [EOD Date: 12/5/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
211 ORDER denying [13−1] motion for preliminary injunction against Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/5/02) [EOD Date: 12/9/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
212 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME; ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs and County Defendants shall have upto and including 12/19/02, in which to file and serve their responsive pleadings (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/9/02) [EOD Date: 12/10/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
213 ORDER granting [190−1] motion to reset hearing date on discovery motions Motion hearing on Discovery Motions is reset to 12/18/02 at 3:00pm before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff ( Signed by Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 12/6/02) [EOD Date: 12/11/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
215 EMERGENCY MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendants pending appeal and EMERGENCY motion for expedited briefing schedule (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
216 MEMORANDUM of law by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T; in support of plaintiff's emergency motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendants pending appeal (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
214 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey of [211−1] order . EOD Date: 12/09/02; Filing Fee: $ 105.00; Receipt #: 874216; Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [214−1] appeal by Velma Bailey, Mary Reese (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 21 of 33

12/16/2002
12/18/2002
12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002 12/26/2002 12/27/2002 12/27/2002
12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002

217 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S AND FEDERAL DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME; ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties' shall have up to and including 12/31/02, in which to file and serve their responsive pleadings (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/16/02) [EOD Date: 12/17/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
Motion hearing re: [153−1] motion to compel discovery Motion hearing held, [153−2] motion to extend time discovery and motion deadlines Motion hearing held, [153−3] motion for expedited consideration of this motion Motion hearing held, [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record Motion hearing held (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
218 Statement of disputed facts in opposition to by Mary Reese [191−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
219 MEMORANDUM by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in opposition to [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
220 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese in opposition to [191−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
221 Minutes of Motion Hearing, on discovery motions held before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff on 12/18/02; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: 02G−75−332 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
222 ORDER denying [215−1] motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendants pending appeal, denying [215−2] motion EMERGENCY motion for expedited briefing schedule ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/20/02) [EOD Date: 12/23/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
223 UNIFIED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD, Shanlavie Jenkins to extend time to file pretrial stipulation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
224 Notice of Filing of Docket Sheet by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey of record on appeal (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
225 Transcript Information Form re: as to Mary Reese, Velma Bailey [214−1] appeal by Velma Bailey, Mary Reese . No transcript requested. All necessary transcripts are already on file. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
226 ORDER denying [151−1] motion for protective order barring all discovery against the federal defendants and to limit review to the Administrative Record; deeming moot [153−1] motion to compel discovery; granting nuncpro tunc [159−1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's opposition to Federal defendants' motion for a protective order and to compel discovery; granting nunc pro tunc [162−1] motion to extend time to respond to first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents; granting nunc pro tunc [174−1] motion for leave to file Sur−Reply to Federal defendants's subtitute reply to plaintiffs' opposition to Federal defendants's motion for protective order and to limit judicial review (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/24/02) [EOD Date: 12/31/02] (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 12/19/02 as to Mary Reese, Velma Bailey Re: [214−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 02−16855−B (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
227 REPLY by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez to response to [191−1] motion for summary judgment (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
228 RESPONSE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez in opposition to [215−1] emergency motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendants pending appeal (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 22 of 33

12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/07/2003 01/09/2003
01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003

229 EXHIBITS in support of [228−1] opposition response by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
230 REPLY by Mary Reese to response to [195−1] motion for summary judgment (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
231 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [189−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
232 DECLARATION OF Jonel Newman by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [189−1] motion for judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
233 Statement of material facts in dispute in opposition by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to [189−1] motion for judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
234 RESPONSE by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD in opposition to [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
235 Statement of material facts in opposition by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
236 ORDER granting [223−1] motion to extend time to file pretrial stipulation Reset pretrial stipulation due for 1/21/03 ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/31/02) [EOD Date: 1/2/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
237 TRANSCRIPT filed of motion hearing held 12/18/02 before Judge Magistrate William C. Turnoff Pages: 1−20 re: [214−1] appeal by Velma Bailey, Mary Reese . . (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
238 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: 1/27/03 − 2/4/03 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
239 TRANSCRIPT filed of motion hearing held 12/18/02 before Judge Magistrate William C. Turnoff Pages: 1−20 re: [214−1] appeal by Velma Bailey, Mary Reese . . (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
240 REPLY by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins to response to [215−1] motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendants pending appeal, [215−2] motion EMERGENCY motion for expedited briefing schedule (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
241 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins for continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
242 DECLARATION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins Re: [241−1] motion for continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
243 JOINT MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to extend time to reply to responses to Motions for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
245 AGREED MOTION by Mel R. Martinez to expedite review of federal defendants' appeal of Magistrate Judge Turnoff's order dated December 24, 2002 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
244 Certificate of readiness as to Mary Reese, Velma Bailey transmitted to USCA Re: [214−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 02−16855−B (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
Transmitted record on appeal as to Mary Reese, Velma Bailey to U.S. Court of Appeals:(Miami Office) Consisting of (2) Volumes of Pleadings, (1) Volume of Transcripts and (2) Accordian Folders [214−1] appeal (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2003)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 23 of 33

01/13/2003 01/14/2003 01/14/2003 01/16/2003
01/16/2003
01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/24/2003 01/27/2003 02/24/2003 02/28/2003 03/21/2003 04/09/2003 04/09/2003

250 APPEAL of Magistrate decision to District Court by Mel R. Martinez [226−1] order (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
246 MOTION by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to extend time to respond to Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents and amended notice of deposition (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
247 REPLY by Mary Reese to response to [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
248 ORDER granting [243−1] joint motion to extend time to reply to responses to Motions for summary judgment Reply to Response to Motion reset to 1/14/03 for [202−1] motion for summary judgment against Federal Defendants, reset to 1/14/03 for [195−1] motion for summary judgment , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 1/21/03 for [191−1] motion for summary judgment, reset to 1/21/03 for [189−1] motion for summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 1/15/03) [EOD Date: 1/17/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
249 ORDER granting [241−1] motion for continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines Reset Jury trial for 9:00 4/21/03 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , and Reset calendar call for 12:00 4/18/03 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , and Reset pretrial stipulation due for 3/17/03 ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 1/15/03) [EOD Date: 1/17/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
251 REPLY by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to opposition to [189−1] motion for summary judgment (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
252 MEMORANDUM by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins in opposition to [250−1] Magistrate appeal (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
253 NOTICE of filing in support of County defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' emergency motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against county defendant pending appeal by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
254 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: 3/31/03 through 4/7/03 (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt by U.S.C.A. of: COR/ROA on 1/16/03; U.S.C.A. # 02−16855−BB (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
255 NOTICE of filing in support of County defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' emergency motion for reinstatement of the stay of demolition against County defendants pending appeal by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
256 ORDER granting [246−1] motion to extend time to respond to Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents and amended notice of deposition (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 02/21/03) [EOD Date: 2/25/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
257 Unified MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD, Shanlavie Jenkins to continue trial and pretrial deadlines (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
258 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T re: [226−1] Magistrate Judge Turnoff's discovery Order, [191−1] motion for summary judgment (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
259 RESPONSE by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD to [258−1] notice of Supplemental Authority (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
260 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: 04/11/03 to 04/21/03 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 24 of 33

04/09/2003
04/24/2003 07/01/2003 07/18/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003
09/10/2003
09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003 09/25/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/30/2003
09/30/2003

261 ORDER granting [257−1] motion to continue trial and pretrial deadlines set Jury trial for 9:00 10/20/03 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , set calendar call for 12:00 10/17/03 before Judge Shelby Highsmith , set motion filing deadline for 7/31/03 ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 4/9/03) [EOD Date: 4/10/03] (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
262 REPLY by All Plaintiffs to response to [258−1] notice of supplemental authority (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
263 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: 8/1/03 through 8/11/03 (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
264 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: 7/23/03− 8/1/03 (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
265 JOINT MOTION by Miami−Dade County, U.S. − HUD to continue continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines (bs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
266 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy)affirming judgment/order of the district court with court's opinion; denied plaintiffs motion to stay pending appeal [214−1] Mandate Issued Date: 09/05/03; USCA Appeal #: 02−16855−BB; Copy to Judge. (vl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
Record on appeal as to Mary Reese, Velma Bailey returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: (Miami Office) consisting of (2) Volumes of Pleadings and (1) Volume of Transcripts [214−1] appeal by Velma Bailey, Mary Reese USCA #: 02−16855−BB (vl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
267 MOTION by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez for leave to file Supplemental Brief in support of Federal Defendants' Motion for summary judgment based on controlling precedent (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
268 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez in support of [189−1] motion for summary judgment (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
269 JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
270 MEMORANDUM by All Plaintiffs in opposition to [265−1] joint motion to continue continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
271 REPLY by Miami−Dade County, U.S. − HUD to Plaintiffs' opposition to [265−1] joint motion to continue continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
272 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
273 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
274 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins, All Plaintiffs (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
275 ORDER granting [265−1] joint motion to continue continuance of trial and pretrial deadlines This case is hereby REMOVED from the 10/20/03 trial calendar, and shall be reset for trial by separate order ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck for Judge Shelby Highsmith on 9/30/03) [EOD Date: 10/1/03] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
276 ORDER denying [245−1] motion to expedite review of federal defendants' appeal of Magistrate Judge Turnoff's order dated December 24, 2002 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck for Shelby Highsmith on 9/30/03) [EOD Date: 10/1/03] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2003)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 25 of 33

10/02/2003 12/04/2003
12/17/2003
12/22/2003 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/10/2004 12/08/2004 03/01/2005 04/15/2005 05/25/2005 05/31/2005 06/01/2005 10/12/2005 01/09/2006 02/07/2006 03/31/2006 07/18/2006 08/09/2006 04/17/2007

277 OPPOSITION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T, Shanlavie Jenkins, All Plaintiffs to [268−1] support memorandum (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
278 ORDER granting [267−1] motion for leave to file Supplemental Brief in support of Federal Defendants' Motion for summary judgment based on controlling precedent (Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on 12/4/03) [EOD Date: 12/5/03] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
279 UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Plaintiffs to extend time for two days to file response to Federal Defendants' Supplemental Brief in support of Federal Defendants' Moton for Summary Judgment based on Controlling Precedent (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
280 RESPONSE by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Jones, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T to Supplemental Brief in support of [191−1] motion for summary judgment (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
281 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
282 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
283 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
284 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD for dates of: 03/21/05 to 03/28/05 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
285 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for dates of: 3/14/05 through 3/18/05 (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
286 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
287 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mel R. Martinez, U.S. − HUD for dates of: Monday, August 8, 2005 through Friday, August 19, 2005. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
288 MOTION by Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, L.I.F.F.T (Attorney ) for Jonel Newman to withdraw as attorney (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
289 ORDER granting [288−1] motion for Jonel Newman to withdraw as attorney ( Signed by Judge Shelby Highsmith on June 1, 2005) [EOD Date: 6/3/05] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
290 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County for dates of: October 17, 2005 through October 28, 2005 (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
291 NOTICE of Unavailability by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for dates of: 1/16−23/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
292 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD for dates of: 04/07/06 − 04/14/06 (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
293 NOTICE of Unavailability by Rene Rodriguez, Miami−Dade County for dates of: 4/14/06−5/1/06 (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
294 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD for dates of: 07/25/06/ − 07/28/06 (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
295 NOTICE of Unavailability by U.S. − HUD, Mel R. Martinez for dates of: 08/16/06 − 08/18/06 and 08/25/06 (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
296 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Miami−Dade County for dates of 04−16−07 through 04−20−07 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 26 of 33

08/30/2007 10/17/2007 10/27/2008
11/19/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 12/03/2008 12/08/2008 12/22/2008
01/05/2009 02/04/2009 02/05/2009 02/12/2009
02/13/2009 02/13/2009

297 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Miami−Dade County for dates of 09/03/2007 − 9/18/2007 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
298 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Wendy A. Jacobus on behalf of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Jacobus, Wendy) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
299 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley and Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins for all further proceedings. Judge Shelby Highsmith, Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno on 10/27/2008. (yc) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
300 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, within 10 days, why case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 11/19/08. (lr) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
301 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Wendy A. Jacobus on behalf of Miami−Dade County, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Jacobus, Wendy) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
302 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the Court (Jacobus, Wendy) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
303 RESPONSE/REPLY to 300 Order to Show Cause filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Charles F. Elsesser Jr., # 2 Exhibit Attachment A − Miami Herald Article, # 3 Exhibit Attachment B − Excerpts from RFQ)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
304 ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF UPDATED POSITION STATEMENTS within 20 days . Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 12/8/08. (lr) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
305 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Court's December 8, 2008 Order Directing Submission of Updated Position Statements by All Plaintiffs, Miami−Dade County, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for an Enlargement of Time)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
306 ORDER granting 305 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Deadline 2/16/2009). Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 1/5/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
307 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Re: Amended Motions for Summary Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
308 ORDER denying as moot 189 ; 191 ; 195 ; 202 Motions for Summary Judgment; granting 307 Joint Motion to File Amended Motions for Summary Judgment in Excess of Page Limitation. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 2/5/09. (lr) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
309 Joint MOTION for clarification 308 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Shanlavie Jenkins, Mary Reese, Velma Bailey, Patricia Sanders, Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Responses due by 3/2/2009 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
310 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 3/5/2009 (Elsesser, Charles) Modified text on 2/17/2009 (vjk). (Entered: 02/13/2009)
311 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 310 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration and Incorporated Memorandum of Law FILING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 27 of 33

02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/17/2009
02/18/2009 02/18/2009 02/24/2009
02/24/2009
02/27/2009 02/27/2009 03/05/2009 03/05/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009

5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
312 MOTION for Expedited Consideration re 310 Motion to Compel by All Plaintiffs see DE 310 for image. (vjk) Modified text on 2/17/2009 (vjk). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
313 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 310 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by All Plaintiffs see DE 310 for image (vjk) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
314 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 310 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Error − Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; Correction − Additional relief(s) 312 MOTION to Expedite and 313 Certificate of Counsel docketed by Clerk. Instruction to filer − In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (vjk) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
315 ORDER granting 309 Motion for Clarification. Parties may update position statements through their amended motions for summary judgment &associated pleadings. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 2/18/09. (lr) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
316 ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Expedited Briefing Without Prejudice to Renew 310 , 312 . Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 2/18/2009. (tmn) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
317 Defendant's MOTION for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Miami−Dade County and Rene Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 COUNTY DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS LIST TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 2 Exhibit A − PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT MDC PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6), dated 02/19/09, # 3 Exhibit B − PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM MDC, DATED 02/19/09, # 4 Exhibit C − ATTORNEY CHARLES ELSESSER CHAPTER, 119, FLA. STAT. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST)(Smith, Terrence) Modified filer on 2/24/2009 (jc). (Entered: 02/24/2009)
318 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 317 Defendant's MOTION for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Miami−Dade County. Error − Additional filer (Rene Rodriguez) wasn't selected ; Correction − Filer added by the Clerk. Instruction to filer − In the future, please select the proper filer(s). It is not necessary to refile the document. (jc) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
319 SCHEDULING ORDER: Trial set for 1/11/2010 9:00 AM with a Calendar Call set for 12/18/2009 2:00 PM before Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley in West Palm Beach. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 2/27/09. (lr) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
320 ORDER overruling federal defendants' objections 250 to and affirming Magistrate Judge Turnoff's 12/31/02 discovery order. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 2/27/09. (lr) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
321 MOTION for clarification 319 Scheduling Order OF FEBRUARY 27, 2009 SETTING TRIAL DATE &DISCOVERY DEADLINES by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 3/23/2009 (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
322 RESPONSE in Opposition re 317 Defendant's MOTION for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
323 ORDER Denying Defendant's 317 Motion for a Protective Order as Moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 3/9/2009. (tmn) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
324 ORDER denying 321 Motion for Clarification. Deadline for position statements &summary judgment motions 4/1/09. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 3/10/09. (lr) (Entered: 03/10/2009)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 28 of 33

03/16/2009 03/17/2009 03/26/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 05/07/2009 05/11/2009
05/11/2009 05/12/2009
05/12/2009
05/15/2009 05/15/2009

325 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment frrom April 1, 2009 until May 1, 2009 by All Plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
326 ENDORSED ORDER granting 325 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motions. The deadline for filing summary judgment motions is extended up through and including May 1, 2009.Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 3/17/09. (lc1) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
327 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File to File Motions for Summary Judgment until May 15, 2009 by All Plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
328 ENDORSED ORDER granting 327 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for 15−Day Extension of Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment. The deadline for filing summary judgment motions is extended up through and including May 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 3/27/09. (lc1) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
Reset Deadline: Summary Judgment Motion due by 5/15/2009. (dm) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
329 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by James Alan Weinkle on behalf of Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
330 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Production of Witness at Deposition by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 5/29/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition, # 2 Exhibit Deposition Transc. Relevant Pages, # 3 Exhibit Management Assist. Team App A, # 4 Exhibit MATeam Prelim Report Transmittal)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
331 REQUEST for Attorney Fees ( Responses due by 5/29/2009), and Expenses from County Defendants by All Plaintiffs. (see docket entry 330 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
332 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 330 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel. Error − Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; Correction − Additional relief(s) 331 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Expenses from County Defendants docketed by Clerk. Instruction to filer − In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
333 NOTICE by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of Filing Supplemental Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Certification Designation and Certification of Supplemental Certification, # 2 Exhibit Supplemental Administrative Record Index, # 3 Supplement Administrative Record Tabs 1−5, # 4 Supplement Administrative Record Tab 6, # 5 Supplement Administrative Record Tab 7, # 6 Supplement Administrative Record Tabs 8−20)(Weinkle, James) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
334 NOTICE by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of Filing Declaration of Susan Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan Wilson)(Weinkle, James) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
335 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Exhibits in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex.1 − Part 1 MDHA 1996 HOPE VI Grant Application, pp. 1−38, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Part 2 − 1996 MDHA 1996 HOPE VI Grant Application pp. 39−82, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Part 3 − 1996 MDHA HOPE VI Grant Application pp. 83−129, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit1−Part 4− 1996 MDHA HOPE VI Grant Application pp. 130−165, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 1−Part 5 − 1996 MDHA HOPE VI Grant Application, pp. 166 to end, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Second Status Report of the U.S. HUD HOPE VI Grant 11/28/06, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Deposition of Jose Cintron (Relevant Pages), # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Miami−Dade County Resolution R−1416−08, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Notes from Prescott Conversation (DE 198 pp.4−5), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 6 − Deposition of Milan Ozdinec (Relevant Pages), # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 7 − 1998 MDHA HOPE VI Grant Application (Relevant pages), # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 8 − Exhibit to Deposition of Robert Levis (DE 116 at p. 24), # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 9 − Metro−Dade County

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 29 of 33

05/15/2009 05/15/2009
05/15/2009
05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009

Five Year Consolidated Plan 1/1/98−12/31/02, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 10 − Deposition of Patricia Braynon (Relevant pages), # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 11− Part 1 − MD County Resolution R 109−05 and accompanying audit, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 11− Part 2 − MD County Resolution R−109−05 and accompanying audit, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 11 − Part 3 − MD County Resolution R 109−05 and accompanying audit, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 12 − Miami Herald "House of Lies" July 2006, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 13 − Deposition of Clarence Brown (Relevant pages), # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 14− Memo from George Burgess to Bd of County Comm., April 8, 2008 Re: Transitional Agreement, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 15 − Deposition of Larry Bursey (Relevant pages), # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 16 − Deposition of Jose Rodriguez (Relevant pages), # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 17 − December 12, 2006 Report to MD County Commission, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 18 − Memo from Larry Bursey, 06/19/2007, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 19 − Miami−Dade County Resolution R 1436−06, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 20 − Deposition of Susan Wilson (Relevant pages), # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 21 − Declaration of Yvonne Stratford, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 22 a through h − Declarations of Scott Homes Relocated Heads of Households, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 23 − MWC Update Chart 08/06/2007, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 24 − Final Audit Report of MDHA's HOPE VI Revitalization Program, MD Inspector General 8/24/06, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 25 − Deposition of Patra Liu (Relevant pages), # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 26 − Off. of Public &Indian Housing REAC Review of MDHA 4/24/2007, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit 27 − HUD Financial Analysis of MDHA, 7/5/2007, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit 28 − Part 1− Updated Report of Andrew Beveridge, Ph.D., May 2009, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit 28 − Part 2 − Updated Report of Andrew Beveridge, Ph.D., May 2009, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit 29 − Declaration of Aiyeshia Hudson)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants, with Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Elsesser, Charles) Modified text on 5/18/2009 (tas). (Entered: 05/15/2009)
338 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Deposition of Patricia Braynon (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Deposition of Patricia Braynon)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
339 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Of Filing Deposition of Clarence Brown (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Of Clarence Brown)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
340 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Of Filing Deposition of Larry Bursey (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Of Larry Bursey)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
341 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Deposition of Jose Cintron (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Of Jose Cintron)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
342 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Of Filing Deposition of Patra Liu (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Patra Liu)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
343 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Deposition of Milan Ozdinec (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Milan Ozdinec)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
344 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Deposition of Susan Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Susan Wilson)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
345 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing re 335 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 341 Notice (Other), 342 Notice (Other), 338 Notice (Other), 340 Notice (Other), 339 Notice (Other), 337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants, with Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law, 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants and Oral Argument on Motions for Partial Summary Judgement by All Plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 30 of 33

05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009
05/18/2009
05/26/2009
05/26/2009 05/28/2009 05/28/2009

346 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Deposition of Jose Rodriguez (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Jose Rodriguez)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
347 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporing Memorandum of Law by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
348 Statement of: Of Undisputed Material Facts In Support Of Federal Defendants' Amended Motion For Summary Judgment by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) re 347 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporing Memorandum of Law. (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
350 Statement of: of Material Facts in Support of Amended Motion for Summary Judgment by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez re 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
351 AMENDED MEMORANDUM in Support re 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 350 Statement by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. (Smith, Terrence) Modified text on 5/18/2009 (tas). (Entered: 05/15/2009)
352 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez re 350 Statement, 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 351 Memorandum in Support (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Part 1 of Ex. 1 of Ex. F, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 1 Pt. 2 of Ex. F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 1 Pt. 1 of Ex. G, # 11 Exhibit Ex. 1 Pt. 2 of Ex. G, # 12 Exhibit Ex. 2 of Ex. G, # 13 Exhibit Ex. 3 of Ex. G, # 14 Exhibit Ex. 4 of Ex. G, # 15 Exhibit H, # 16 Exhibit I, # 17 Exhibit J, # 18 Exhibit K, # 19 Exhibit L, # 20 Exhibit M, # 21 Exhibit N, # 22 Exhibit O, # 23 Exhibit P, # 24 Exhibit Q, # 25 Exhibit R Pt. 1, # 26 Exhibit R Pt. 2, # 27 Exhibit S, # 28 Exhibit T, # 29 Exhibit U, # 30 Exhibit V, # 31 Exhibit W, # 32 Exhibit X, # 33 Exhibit Y, # 34 Exhibit Ex. 2 Pt. 1 of Ex. F, # 35 Exhibit Ex. 2 Pt. 2 of Ex. F)(Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
353 NOTICE of Filing Signature Pages by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez re 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 350 Statement, 351 Memorandum in Support, 352 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Signature Pages for D.E. 349, D.E. 350, D.E. 351 and D.E. 352)(Smith, Terrence) Modified text on 5/19/2009 (tas). (Entered: 05/18/2009)
354 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motions 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants, 337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants,, 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 347 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 10/7/2009 at 9:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 5/26/09. (lr) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
355 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for dates of May 28, 2009 thru and including June 5, 2009 and June 15, 2009 thru and including June 22, 2009 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
356 RESPONSE in Opposition re 330 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Production of Witness at Deposition, 331 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Expenses from County Defendants filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
357 RESPONSE in Opposition re 330 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Production of Witness at Deposition, 331 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Expenses from County Defendants and Federal Defendants' Corrected Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from County Defendants Relating to Temporary Federal Takeover of Miami−Dade Public Housing Agency

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 31 of 33

05/28/2009 06/01/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009
06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/08/2009
06/08/2009
06/08/2009

(D.E. 356) filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez, Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
358 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Terrence Andrew Smith on behalf of Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
359 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez Notice of Filing Sybrina Fulton's Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Sybrina Fulton)(Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
360 RESPONSE in Opposition re 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants and Response to Statement of Material Facts filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
361 RESPONSE in Opposition re 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants and Memorandum of Law filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
362 "WRONG EVENT USED, RE−DOCKETED AS ENTRY 368 " NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez Corrected Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Neuman, Brenda) Modified on 6/8/2009 (ls). (Entered: 06/04/2009)
363 RESPONSE in Opposition re 347 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporing Memorandum of Law By Federal Defendants and Response to Statement of Material Facts filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
364 RESPONSE in Opposition re 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment By County Defendants and Response to Statement of Material Facts filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
365 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 364 Response in Opposition to Motion, 363 Response in Opposition to Motion, 337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants, with Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law, 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants of Filing Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Velma Bailey, # 2 Exhibit Final Health Consultation)(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
366 Statement of: of Material Facts In Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Statement as to Federal Defendants by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
367 RESPONSE in Opposition re 337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants, with Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law filed by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
368 CORRECTED NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Brenda Kuhns Neuman on behalf of Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez [See Image at DE #362] (ls) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
369 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 362 Notice (Other) filed by Rene Rodriguez, Miami−Dade County. Error − Wrong Event Selected; Correction − Redocketed by Clerk as Notice of Attorney Appearance. Instruction to Filer − In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
370 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 365 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by All Plaintiffs. Error − Wrong Event Selected;. Instruction to Filer − In the future, please select the proper event, i.e. Supplement or Exhibits. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
371 REPLY to Corrected Joint Response to Motion re 330 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Production of Witness at Deposition, 331 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Expenses from County Defendants and Defendants Response 357 filed

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 32 of 33

06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009
06/18/2009 06/27/2009
06/27/2009 07/21/2009
07/22/2009 08/07/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009 08/14/2009

by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter from Assistant U.S. HUD Secretary Cabrera to Defendant Miami−Dade Mayor Alvarez and Chairman of the County Commission Barriero, August 7, 2007., # 2 Exhibit B − Review of Miami−Dade Countys Housing Agencys Administration of the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Program, Final Report)(Berg, Randall) Modified text on 6/9/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/08/2009)
372 MEMORANDUM of Law in reply to Opposition to Motion re 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. (Smith, Terrence) Modified text on 6/16/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
373 REPLY in Support of 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elsesser, Charles) Modified text on 6/16/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
374 REPLY in Support of 337 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Federal Defendants, with Statement of Undisputed Facts and Memorandum of Law filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elsesser, Charles) Modified text on 6/16/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
375 REPLY to Opposition to 347 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporing Memorandum of Law filed by Mel R. Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Jacobus, Wendy) Modified text on 6/16/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
376 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Deposition And Awarding Sanctions 330 . It is HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (DE# 330 ) is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce their designee for a deposition within two weeks of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 6/16/2009. (tmn) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
377 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez for dates of Friday, July 3, 2009 through to and including Friday, July 10, 2009 (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
378 RESPONSE and Submission of Request for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 376 Order on Motion to Compel, and Awarding Sanctions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Unsworn Declaration of Randall C. Berg, Jr., # 2 Exhibit B −− Detail of Hours Expended by Counsel, # 3 Exhibit C −− Glickman Resume, # 4 Exhibit D −− Elsesser Resume)(Berg, Randall) Modified text on 6/29/2009 (tas). (Entered: 06/27/2009)
379 NOTICE of Mediator Selection: Honorable Edward B. Davis selected.(Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
380 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Request for Attorneys Fees (DE# 378 ). It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, Defendants shall tender $4,763.20 to Plaintiffs as compensation for their attorneys fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 7/21/2009. (tmn) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
381 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by All Plaintiffs for dates of 7/24/2009 − 8/7/2009 (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
382 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to be Relieved from Second Mediation re 319 Scheduling Order and attached Proposed Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mediation Report (Impasse))(Berg, Randall) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
383 ORDER denying 382 Motion for Excusal from 2nd Mediation; extending deadline through 12/23/09. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 8/12/09. (lr) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
Reset Deadline: Mediation Deadline 12/23/2009. (dm) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
384 Notice of Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Honorable Gerald Wetheringtonfiled by All Plaintiffs. Mediation Hearing set for 12/8/2009 10:00 AM (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

Case: 1:01-cv-3766 As of: 02/18/2010 02:43 PM EST 33 of 33

08/26/2009 09/18/2009 09/30/2009
10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 11/10/2009
11/19/2009
12/21/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/29/2009 01/13/2010
01/28/2010

385 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez Notice of Filing Wendell E. Conner's Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Wendell E. Conner, # 2 Deposition Exhibits)(Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
386 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Exchange of Expert Witness Reports (Elsesser, Charles) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
387 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez re 372 Reply to Response to Motion, 349 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 336 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County Defendants, 351 Memorandum in Support (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Jorge Cibran, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jorge Cibran, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jorge Cibran, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Jorge Cibran, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Jorge Cibran)(Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
388 Emergency MOTION to Strike for filing out of time and without prior court authorization defendant Miami−Dade County's 387 Notice of filing affidavit ande documents in support of the County's amended Motion for Summary Judgment (387) by All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 10/22/2009 (dj) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
389 RESPONSE in Opposition re 388 MOTION to Strike 387 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) MOTION to Strike 387 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Miami−Dade County, Rene Rodriguez. (Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
390 ORDER denying 388 Motion for emergency relief. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 10/5/09. (lr) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
391 ORDER denying 331 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 336 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 337 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 347 Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 349 County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 11/10/09. (lr) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
392 FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of the federal defendants, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of HUD, and county defendants, Miami−Dade County and Cynthia Curry against the plaintiffs, Mary Reese. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 11/19/2009. (tb) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
393 MOTION for Bill of Costs by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Responses due by 1/7/2010 (Weinkle, James) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
394 Defendant's MOTION to Tax Costs and attached Bill of Costs by Cynthia W. Curry, Miami−Dade County. Responses due by 1/7/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Smith, Terrence) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
395 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses to County Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs (DE 394) and Federal Defendants' Notice of Filing Bill of Costs (DE 393) by All Plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
396 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Tax Costs and Federal Defendants' Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Filing Bill of Costs and Plaintiffs' Stipulation to Waive Their Right to Appeal (Thornton, Bridgette) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
397 ENDORSED ORDER granting 395 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to County Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs 394 and Federal Defendants' Bill of Costs 393 . The time for filing response is extended up to and including Friday, February 5, 2010. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 1/13/10. (tda) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
398 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 393 Federal Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs; denying as moot 394 County Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs in light of Notice of Withdrawal of Motions 396 . Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 1/28/10. (tda) (Entered: 01/28/2010)