Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

)

RONALD D. PETERSON,

)

GLENN E. JOHNSON, and FIRST )

PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-10333
JULIAN A. COOK, JR. United States District Judge
DONALD A. SCHEER Magistrate Judge

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

The United States of America alleges:

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

of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing

Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 to 3619.

2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

3. Defendants Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson are residents of Ypsilanti,

Michigan.

4. Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC is a limited liability corporation

incorporated in the state of Michigan and has its principal place of business in Ypsilanti, MI.

5. During part or all of the period of time relevant to this action, Defendant Ronald

D. Peterson has owned and/or managed numerous residential rental properties in the Ypsilanti,

Michigan area, including, but not limited to, the eleven properties listed in Attachment A (“the

subject properties”). These properties are single family dwellings. Since at least 2005,

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 7
Defendant Peterson has retained Glen E. Johnson to manage these subject properties on his behalf. Defendant Johnson has been responsible for the day to day management of the subject properties, including, but not limited to, approving prospective tenants’ rental applications, collecting rent, and addressing requests for repairs and maintenance.
6. Since February 2008, Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC has owned numerous residential rental properties in the Ypsilanti, Michigan area, including, but not limited to, the subject properties.
7. During part or all of the period of time relevant to this action, Defendant Ronald D. Peterson was the resident agent of and provided property management services to First Pitch Properties, LLC.
8. During part or all of the period of time relevant to this action, Defendant Glen E. Johnson was an agent or employee of First Pitch Properties, LLC.
9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the actions giving rise to the United States’ allegations occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan, the subject properties are located in the Eastern District of Michigan, and Defendants Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson reside and/or do business in the Eastern District of Michigan.
10. The rental units at the subject properties are dwellings within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
11. From at least 2005 through the present, Defendant Glen E. Johnson has been subjecting actual and prospective female tenants of the subject properties to discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. Such conduct has included, but is not limited to, unwanted verbal sexual advances; entering the apartment of
2

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 3 of 7
female tenants without permission or notice; granting and denying tangible housing benefits based on sex; and taking adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.
12. Defendant Peterson is liable for the discriminatory conduct of his agent and manager, Defendant Johnson, described above. In addition, Defendant Peterson knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct of Defendant Johnson, yet failed to take reasonable preventive or corrective measures.
13. Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC is liable for the above-described discriminatory conduct of its agents Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson.
14. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes: a. A denial of housing or making housing unavailable because of sex, in violation of Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); b. Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of dwellings, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of sex, in violation of Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and c. Coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with persons in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, their rights under Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
15. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes: a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted
3

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 4 of 7
by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; and b. A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., which denial raises an issue of general public importance. 16. There are female tenants, prospective tenants, and persons associated with them who have been, or may have been, injured by Defendants’ discriminatory conduct. Such persons are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(I), and have suffered damages as a result of their conduct. 16. Defendants’ conduct was malicious, intentional, willful, and/or taken in reckless disregard for the rights of others. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an ORDER that: 1. Declares that Defendants’ discriminatory practices violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; 2. Enjoins Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them from: a. Discriminating on account of sex against any person in any aspect of the rental of a dwelling; b. Interfering with or threatening to take any action against any person in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, as amended; and c. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of Defendants’ past unlawful
4

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 5 of 7 practices to the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct;
3. Awards monetary damages to each identifiable victim of Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices for injuries caused by their discriminatory conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B); and
4. Assesses civil penalties against Defendants in order to vindicate the public interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(c).
5

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 6 of 7

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

Dated: _________________________
TERRENCE BERG United States Attorney
s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 West Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, Michigan Tel.: (313) 684-3711 Fax: (313)226-9727

Respectfully submitted,
ERIC HOLDER Attorney General
s/Thomas E. Perez THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
s/Steven H. Rosenbaum STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
s/Jennifer E. McAllister TIMOTHY J. MORAN Deputy Chief JENNIFER E. MCALLISTER Trial Attorney Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - G St. Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-2011 Fax: (202) 514-1116

6

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 45 Filed 12/10/09 Page 7 of 7

1. 377 Worden Avenue 2. 389 Worden Avenue 3. 600 Calder Avenue 4. 740 Calder Avenue 5. 800 Calder Avenue 6. 1779 Knowles Street 7. 720 Fox Avenue 8. 730 Fox Avenue 9. 749 Fox Avenue 10. 750 Fox Avenue 11. 659 Fox Avenue

Attachment A

Page 1 of 2

 
 Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v.

Case Number 09-10333 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

RONALD D. PETERSON, GLEN E. JOHNSON, and FIRST PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

ORDER

On August 6, 2010, a jury found the Defendant, Geln E. Johnson, civilly liable under the Fair

Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, for engaging in a pattern or practice of sexually

harassing female tenants or denying protected rights as identified by the Federal Housing

Administration to a group of persons. The jury also declared the Defendants, Ronald D. Peterson

and First Pitch Properties, LLC, to be legally responsible for the actions of Johnson as their agent.

Acting upon these conclusions, the jury rendere d a verdict in the total sum of $115,000 as

compensatory and punitive damages to the six women who had been harmed by the Defendants’

misconduct.

The Plaintiff, the United States of America (“the Government”) has now filed a motion in

which it requests an additional award of civil penalties and equitable relief against the Defendants

on the basis of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1). The Governm ent’s motion is opposed by Peterson.

However, the Court has not received any response from the other Defendants as of this date.

I.

1

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 13
Between 2006 and 2008, Johnson committed acts of sexual discrimination against six female tenants (Julena Mills, Sharee Mc Clendon, Shenel McFarlin, B arbara Scott, Shaw n Taylor and Tameka Williams), all of whom lived in rental properties that he had mismanaged for his cousin, Ronald D. Peterson, in violation of the regulations within the FHA. The jury was presented with evidence by the Governm ent which suggested that Peterson knew or should have known of Peterson’s misconduct. During the course of the trial, the Governm ent proffered evidence that Peterson had given too much unsupervised authority to Johnson, as a “convicted felon,” to serve as his agent (i.e., locate tenants, show the homes, collect rents, and handle maintenance repairs). It was also the position of the Government that, despite having received complaints from Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin in 2006 and 2007 about the inappropriate conduct by his cousin, Peterson neither intervened to stop the harassm ent nor trained Johnson on his need t o comply with the nation’s fair housing laws. Thus, armed with evidence of the misconduct by these two Defendants, along with the knowledge that Peterson had quit-cl aimed some of his property interests to t he corporate Defendant, First Pitch Properties, LLC, the jury awarded dam ages against all thre e entities.1
II. As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects an argument by Peterson that the Government’s motion is a belated attempt to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425-27 (1987), the Supreme Court opined that in statutory schemes such as the one presented here, the Government may pursue civil penalties and injunctive relief
1The jury concluded that First Pitch was liable only for the individual Defendants’ wrongdoing pertaining to Julena Mills.
2

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 3 of 13
separate and apart fromthe underlying question ofliability. Inasmuch as Peterson has not presented any authority with whi ch to rebut this suggested view by the Tull Court, or to show that the imposition of a civil fine would be legally improper, his request to deny the Government relief on this basis is denied.
Turning to the merits of the pending motion, the Government first urges the Court to exercise its discretion to assess a civil penalty in the total sum of $110,000 against two of the Defendants (representing a $55,000 fine against Johnson and a$55,000 fine against Peterson). Under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(D), a district court may impose a civil penalty “to vindicate the public interest.” See also, Smith & Lee Assoc., Inc. v. City of Taylor, 13 F.3d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1993). The maximum penalty for a first violation of the FHA is $50,000. However, it should be noted that when this assessment is adjusted for inflation, the maximum amount is $55,000. 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(b)(3). The parties jointly point to the legislative history of the FHA as a guide on those factors which should be considered by the Court when deciding whetherto impose a civil penalty, including such factors as (1) the nature and circumstances of the violation, (2) the degree of culpability, (3) any history of prior violations, (4) the financial circumstances of the defendant, (5) the goal of deterrence, and (6) other matters as justice may require.
Upon reviewing these factors, the Court finds the Government’s request for relief to be warranted. The nature and circum stances of the FHA violations here are signi ficant. Johnson’s misconduct involved repeated acts of sexual harassm ent and unwanted advances toward the six identifiable women. His behavior was egregious and interfered with the wom en’s peaceful enjoyment of their homes, which should have been the one place where they could turn for refuge. For some of them, the record suggests that Johnsonhad eagerly and repeatedly exploited their plight.
3

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 4 of 13
His sexual advances last ed for two years, and included not only unsolicited verbal rem arks of a sexual nature, but ostensibly coerced sexual relations with at least two of these women. Taken together, these factors suppor t the imposition of a substantial fine against Johnson. Peterson’s conduct, though not nearly as culpable, was also troubling inasmuch as he was wilfully impervious to the complaints from two of his tenants. At the very least, their troubling comments should have put him on notice that he should have given closer attention to Johnson’s supervisory control over his tenants.
Additionally, while neither Defendant had a hi story of prior violations, the Governm ent properly notes that Johnson’s conduct involved a pattern of conduct over a two year period that was extensive in nature. This factor supports the Government’s articulated position.
As to the m onetary factors, the Court ha s received no evidence of Johnson’s financial circumstance or inability to pay since he opted notto respond to the Government’s currently pending motion. When turning to the other individual Defendant, the Government points out that Peterson filed a financial statement which indicated thathe had $577,719 in net assets as of March 2009.On the other hand, Peterson subm itted evidence during the trial that he had (1) lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on eleven of his properties, and (2) amassed nearly $650,000 in mortgages to cover them, despite their combined worth of $250,000 at best. Notwithstanding this argument from Peterson, the Court believes that the im position of an appropriate civil penalty will deter sim ilar conduct in the future by him, his cousin and fellow Defendant, as well as the corporate Defendant First Pitch, and will serve as a significant signal to other landlords that discrimination and sexual harassment in connection with housing carries the risk of significant penalties.
Accordingly, and in keeping with the relativeculpability of the Defendants as expressed by
4

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 5 of 13
the jury, the Court believes the Government’s motion to be warranted. Thus, the Court awards (1) the maximum civil penalty of Fifty-Five Thousand ($55,000) Dollars against the Defendant, Glen E. Johnson , and (2) a lesser penalty in the smu of Twenty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred ($27,500) Dollars against the Defendant, Ronald D. Peterson.
III. The Government also asks the Court to awardinjunctive relief, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1). Although Peterson has noted the absence of his objection to som e form of “reasonable” injunctive relief, Johnson has not responded to the Governm ent’s request. Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the six women, all of whom were harmed by the Defendants’ invasive misconduct, have suffered irreparable injuries. Thus, (1) the im position of injunctive relief will prevent future violations such misconduct by the Defendants, (2) the public interest would be served by the entry of an injunctive order, and (3) suchan order will not be unjustly burdensome upon the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court grants the following injunctive relief, which was proposed by the Government and to which Peterson has expressed his assent: It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follow s: GENERAL I. INJUNCTION 1. Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and all persons currently in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from: a. Refusing to rent a dwelling unit, refusing or failing to provide or offer information
about a dwelling unit, or otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling unit to any person because of sex; b. Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of renting a dwelling unit, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith,
5

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 6 of 13
because of sex; c. Making, printing, publishing, or causing to bemade, printed, or published any notice,
statement or advertisement with respect to the rental of a dwelling unit that states any preference, limitation or discrimination based on sex; or d. Coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of her having exercised or enjoyed, oron account of her having aided and encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted by 42 U.S.C. §§ 3603 - 3606. II. PERMANENT INJUNCTION RELATED TO DEFENDANT GLENN E. JOHNSON 2. Defendant Johnson is hereby permanently enjoined from operating, consulting, managing, staffing, participating in, working in (whether paid or unpaid), or otherwise having any involvement in the management, rental, or maintenance of any dwelling, as defined by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 802(b). III. ADOPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY BY DEFENDANTS RONNIE PETERSON AND FIRST PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC 3. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall adopt and implement a written Nondiscrimination Policy for all residential properties that either of them owns, operates, or manages. The Policy shall, at minimum: identify Ronnie D. Peterson as the owner ofthe properties and/or the princpi al of First Pitch Properties, LLC and make clear that he is responsi ble for the overall m anagement and operation of the property; make clear that Defendant Peterson and First Pitc h Properties, LLC have a strict policy against sexual harassment and against other di scrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act or other applicable fair housing laws and that it is their policy not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, or familial status (having children under 18); invite tenants who believe they have experienced or seen sexual harassment or other unlawful discrimination at
6

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 7 of 13
the properties to contact Ronnie D. Peterson direct ly, file a com plaint with the Departm ent of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), or contact the Department of Justice; and prov ide a mailing address, telephone number and email address whereby such persons can contact Defendant Peterson, HUD, and the Departm ent of Justice. Defendants shall provide a cop y of the Nondiscrimination Policy to counsel for the United States at or before the tim e it is adopted. Thereafter, Defendants shall obtain the approval ofthe United States before making any changes to the Nondiscrimination Policy. 4. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall distribute a copy of th e Nondiscrimination Policy and a copy of t he HUD booklet, “Fair Housing: Equal Oppor tunity for All,” to each household occupying any rental dwelling that either of them own, operate or manage, and shall provide to counsel for the United States a statem ent certifying under penalty of perjury that they ha ve distributed the Nondiscrimination Policy and the HUD booklet in com pliance with this paragraph. Ther eafter, Defendants shall provide a copy of the Nondiscrimination Policy and the HUD booklet to each new household occupying any rental dwelling that either of them own, operate or manage at or before the time that the resident(s) sign a lease or otherwise take possession of the dwelling. IV. NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF DEFENDANTS PETERSON’S AND FIRST
PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC’S NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY 5. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Or der, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall post an “Equal Housing Opportuni ty” sign in any rental office either Defendant may currently or subsequently use for the rent al of dwellings, which sign indicates that all apartments are available for rent on a nondiscrim inatory basis. An 11-inch-by-14-inch poster
7

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 8 of 13
substantially equivalent to HUD Form 928.1 will sa tisfy this requirement. Such poster shall be placed in a prominent, well-lit, and easily readable location. Copies of HUD Form928 are available free of charge by calling HUD directly at 800-669-9777, 800-765-9372, TTY 312- 353-7143, or 312-353-7776. 6. Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall require t hat all advertising conducted for any of their current or future properties in newspapers, telephone directories, radio, television or other media, and all billboards, signs(including any sign at the entrance to a property), pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature, include either a fair housing logo, the words “equal housing opportunity provider,” and/or the following sentence:
We are an equal opportunity housing provider. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability. The words or logo should be legible and prominently placed.
V. TRAINING 7. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC s hall provide a copy of this Order to their agents and em ployees involved in showing, renting, managing, or providing maintenance for any dwelling units either owns, operates or manages. Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall secure a signed statement from each such agent or employee acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Order and the Nondiscrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have ques tions about the Order and Nondiscrimination Policy answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Order and the Policy. This statement shall be in the form of Appendix A. 8. During the term of t his Order, within five (5) days after each new agent or employee becomes involved in showing, renting, m anaging or providing m aintenance for units owned,
8

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 9 of 13
operated or managed by Defendants Peterson and/ or First Pitch Properties, LLC, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC sh all provide a copy of thi s Order and the Nondiscrimination Policy to each such agent or employee and secure a signed statement from each agent or em ployee acknowledging t hat he or she has received and read the Order and the Nondiscrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have questions about the Order and Nondiscrimination Policy answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Order and the policy. This statement shall be in the form of Appendix A. 9. Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC, their managers, officers, trustees, and their agents and employees involved in showing, renting, managing or providing maintenance for any dwelling units Defendants Peterson and/or First Pitch Properties, LLC own operate or manage shall undergo in-person training on the Fair Housing Act, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of sex. The training shall be conducted by an independent, qualified third party approved by the United States. Defendants shall obtain from the trainer certifications ofattendance, executed by each individual who received the training, and shall send that certification to th e United States within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the training. This confirmation shall include the name of the course, the name of the instructor, the date the course was taken, and thelength of the course and/or time within which the course was completed. Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC will submit the name and contact information of the proposed trainer tocounsel for the United States within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC will provide the trainer with a copy of this Order at least ten (10) days before the training. 10. At a m inimum, the training required in the preceding paragraph shall consist of the
9

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 10 of 13

following: a. b. c.

Instruction on the requirements of all applicable federal and state housing discrimination laws;
Specific instruction on the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition of sexual harassment in housing; and
A question and answer session for the purpose of reviewing the foregoing areas.

11. On or before the first, second, third, andfourth anniversaries of the entry of this Order, and within sixty (60) days of the five year anniversary of the entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC, their managers, officers, trustees, and their agents and employees involved in showing, renting, managing or providing maintenance for any dwelling units Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC own operate or manage shall attend additional in-person training on the Fair Housing Act consistent with the specifications set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10. Such training shall be conducted by an independent, qualified third party approved by the United States. Defendants shall obtain from the trainer certifications of attendance, executed by eac h individual who received the training,and shall send that certification to the United States within ten (10) days of the conclusion of each of these annual trainings.
V. REPORTING AND DOCUMENT RETENTION REQUIREMENTS 12. During the period in which this Order is in effect, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall notify counsel for the United States in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of any written or oral complaint against Defendant Peterson or Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC, or Defendant Pet erson’s or First Pitch Properties, LLC’s agents or em ployees, regarding discrimination in housing. I f the complaint is written, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall provide a copy of it with the notification. The notification shall include the

10

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 11 of 13
full details of the com plaint, including the com plainant’s name, address, and telephone num ber. Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLCshall also promptly provide the United States all information it may request concerning any such complaint and shall inform the United States within fifteen (15) days of the substance of any resolution of such complaint. 13. On or before the first, second, third, and fourth anniversaries of the entry of this Order, and within sixty (60) days of the five year anniversary of the entry of this Order, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall deliver to counsel for the United States a report conta ining information about any property in which DefendantPeterson and/or First Pitch Properties, LLC has a management and/or ownership interest. The repotrshall also contain signed statements in the form of Appendix A from each agent or employee of such property who is involved in showing, renting, or managing rental units, as set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8. 14. During the period in which this Consent Decree is in effect, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall preserve all records thatare the source of, contain, orrelate to any ofthe information pertinent to their obligations under this Order. Upon reasonable notice to counsel for Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC, representatives of the United States shall be permitted to inspect and copy all such records at any and all reasonable times or, upon request by the United States, Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC shall provide copies of such documents.
VI. CIVIL PENALTY 15. Within sixty (60) days after the date of this Order, Defendant Johnson shall issue a certified check or money order in the amount of Fifty-Five Thousand ($55,000) Dollars to the United States Treasury as a civil penalty, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C), to vindicate the public interest.
11

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 12 of 13
Defendant shall send this payment to counsel for the United States, via overnight mail, to: Chief: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 1800 G. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. 16. Within sixty (30) days after the date of thisOrder, Defendant Peterson shall issue a certified check or money order in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred ($27,500) Dollars to the United States Treasury as a civil penalty,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C), to vindicate the public interest. Defendant shall send this paym ent to counsel for the United States, via overnight mail, to: Chief: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 1800 G. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
VII. SCOPE AND DURATION OF CONSENT ORDER 17. The provisions of this Order shall apply to all Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them. 18. This Order shall rem ain in effect for five (5) years af ter the date of its entry, except for paragraph 2, which shall be permanent. 19. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Order to enforce its terms, after which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Court may extend the duration of the Order in the interests of justice.
VIII. REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 20. The Parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve inform ally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance wi th this Order prior to bringing such m atters to the Court f or resolution. However, in the event the United Statescontends that there has been a failure by any of the Defendants, whether willful or otherwise, toperform in a timely manner any act required by this
12

Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 99 Filed 03/03/11 Page 13 of 13

Order or otherwise to act in conformance with any provision thereof, the United States may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including, but not limited to, an order requiring performance of such act or deeming such act to have been performed, and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees which may have been occasioned by the violation or failure to perform.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2011 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on March 3, 2011.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

13

 
 Case 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Document 79 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 09-cv-10333

RONALD D. PETERSON, GLENN E. JOHNSON and FIRST PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC,

HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

Defendants.

/

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF Jury Verdict

This action came before the Court for trial by jury. This action was tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff recover of Defendants the amount of $115,000.00.

Dated: August 6, 2010
Approved as to form:
s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. U.S. District Court Judge

DAVID J. WEAVER CLERK OF COURT
By: s/Kay Doaks Deputy Clerk

 
 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

)

RONALD D. PETERSON AND )

GLEN E. JOHNSON,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

The United States of America alleges:

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

of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing

Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 to 3619.

2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

3. Defendants Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson are residents of Ypsilanti,

Michigan.

4. Since at least 2005, Defendant Ronald D. Peterson has owned and/or managed

numerous residential rental properties in the Ypsilanti, Michigan area, including, but not limited

to, the eleven properties listed in Attachment A (“the subject properties”). These properties are

single family dwellings. Since at least 2005, Defendant Peterson has retained Glen E. Johnson to

manage these subject properties on his behalf. Defendant Johnson has been responsible for the

day to day management of the subject properties, including, but not limited to, approving

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 2
prospective tenants’ rental applications, collecting rent, and addressing requests for repairs and maintenance.
5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the actions giving rise to the United States’ allegations occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan, the subject properties are located in the Eastern District of Michigan, and Defendants Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson reside and/or do business in the Eastern District of Michigan.
6. The rental units at the subject properties are dwellings within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
7. From at least 2005 through the present, Defendant Glen E. Johnson has been subjecting actual and prospective female tenants of the subject properties to discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. Such conduct has included, but is not limited to, unwanted verbal sexual advances; entering the apartment of female tenants without permission or notice; granting and denying tangible housing benefits based on sex; and taking adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.
8. Defendant Peterson is liable for the discriminatory conduct of his agent and manager, Defendant Johnson, described above. In addition, Defendant Peterson knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct of Defendant Johnson, yet failed to take reasonable preventive or corrective measures.
9. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes: a. A denial of housing or making housing unavailable because of sex, in violation of Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
2

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 3
b. Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of dwellings, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of sex, in violation of Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and
c. Coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with persons in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, their rights under Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
10. The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes: a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; and b. A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., which denial raises an issue of general public importance.
11. There are female tenants, prospective tenants, and persons associated with them who have been, or may have been, injured by Defendants’ discriminatory conduct. Such persons are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i), and have suffered damages as a result of their conduct.
12. Defendants’ conduct was malicious, intentional, willful, and/or taken in reckless disregard for the rights of others.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an ORDER that: 1. Declares that Defendants’ discriminatory practices violate the Fair Housing Act,
3

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 4
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; 2. Enjoins Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors, and all other persons
in active concert or participation with them from: a. Discriminating on account of sex against any person in any aspect of the
rental of a dwelling; b. Interfering with or threatening to take any action against any person in the
exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, as amended; and c. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of Defendants’ past unlawful practices to the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct; 3. Awards monetary damages to each identifiable victim of Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices for injuries caused by their discriminatory conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B); and 4. Assesses civil penalties against Defendants in order to vindicate the public interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(c).
4

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 5

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

Dated: January 29, 2009
TERRENCE BERG Acting United States Attorney
s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 West Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, Michigan Tel.: (313) 684-3711 Fax: (313)226-9727

Respectfully submitted,
MARK FILIP Acting Attorney General
s/Loretta King LORETTA KING Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
s/Donna M. Murphy DONNA M. MURPHY Acting Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
s/Jennifer E. McAllister TIMOTHY J. MORAN Deputy Chief JENNIFER E. MCALLISTER Trial Attorney Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - G St. Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-2011 Fax: (202) 514-1116

5

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 1 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 6

1. 377 Worden Avenue 2. 389 Worden Avenue 3. 600 Calder Avenue 4. 740 Calder Avenue 5. 800 Calder Avenue 6. 1779 Knowles Street 7. 720 Fox Avenue 8. 730 Fox Avenue 9. 749 Fox Avenue 10. 750 Fox Avenue 11. 659 Fox Avenue

Attachment A

Page 1 of 2

 
 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 1115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Pl

aintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RONALD D. PETERSON,

)

GLENN E. JOHNSON, and FIRST )

PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-10333
JULIAN A. COOK, JR. United States District Judge
DONALD A. SCHEER Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
On August 6, 2010, a jury in the above-captioned case found that Defendant Glenn E. Johnson violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female tenants, or denying to a group of persons rights granted or protected by the FHA. See Jury Verdict Form, ECF No. 80. The jury also concluded that Defendants Ronnie D. Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC were liable for the actions of their agent, Defendant Glenn E. Johnson. Id. The jury awarded a total of $115,000 to the six women harmed by Defendants’ violation of the FHA. Id. This award consisted of a total of $36,510 in compensatory and $78,490 in punitive damages, which it assessed separately against each Defendant.1 Id. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1), and as the United States requested in its

1 The jury awarded $51,895 in punitive damages against Glenn Johnson, $26,295 against Ronnie Peterson, and $300 against First Pitch Properties, LLC.
1

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 1116
Amended Complaint, the United States now respectfully requests that the Court award civil penalties and appropriate equitable relief against the Defendants. First Am. Compl. 4-5, ECF No. 45. A Proposed Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Brief.
I. FACTS At trial, the United States presented evidence that from 2006 to 2008, Defendant Glenn E. Johnson subjected tenants Julena Mills, Sharee McClendon, Shenel McFarlin, Barbara Scott, Shawn Taylor and Tameka Williams to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment in their own homes and/or coerced, intimidated, threatened or interfered with these women on account of them having exercised rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act. The jury found that Johnson violated the Fair Housing Act with respect to each woman and awarded compensatory and punitive damages to each of them. The United States also presented evidence that Defendant Ronnie Peterson knew or should have known of Johnson’s conduct but failed to stop it. The evidence established that in 2005, Defendant Peterson retained Defendant Johnson, his cousin and neighbor, to manage eleven rental properties on his behalf, including locating tenants, showing available rental homes, collecting security deposits, collecting rent, and addressing requests for repairs and maintenance. The United States also presented evidence that although Defendant Ronnie Peterson was aware that Johnson had a felony conviction, he did little to monitor Johnson’s actions, and he never provided Defendant Johnson with any training or instruction regarding sexual harassment or fair housing laws. Two tenants, Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin, testified that they complained to Defendant Peterson about Defendant Johnson’s unlawful conduct and harassment in 2006 and 2007 respectively, yet Defendant Peterson failed to take any steps to stop or prevent it, and Johnson’s pattern of harassment continued through 2008. The
2

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 1117
jury found that Peterson was liable for Johnson’s conduct and assessed punitive damages against him for each of the six victims.
The evidence also showed that in December 2007, Defendant Peterson formed First Pitch Properties, LLC, a Michigan LLC that consists solely of Defendant Peterson and his wife, and later quitclaimed some of the subject properties to First Pitch Properties, LLC. From February 2008 until the summer of 2008, Defendant Johnson managed the subject properties on behalf of First Pitch Properties, LLC and Defendant Peterson. The jury found First Pitch Properties, LLC liable for Johnson’s conduct against Julena Mills and awarded punitive damages against First Pitch Properties, LLC to Julena Mills.
II. ARGUMENT A. This Court Should Award a $55,000 Civil Penalty Against Defendant Johnson and a
$55,000 Civil Penalty Against Defendant Peterson.
This Court should order Defendant Johnson to pay $55,000 and Defendant Peterson to pay $55,000, for a total civil penalty of $110,000.2 With the passage of the Fair Housing Act Amendments in 1988, Congress recognized that the statute would be enforced more effectively if the United States could obtain significant monetary relief. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 16-17, 40 (1988). Among the remedies added for cases brought by the government were compensatory and punitive damages for aggrieved individuals, and civil penalties. See id. Section 814 of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C)(i)-(ii), provides in relevant part:
2 Although Defendant Peterson transferred ownership of the subject properties to First Pitch Properties, LLC in 2008, the jury found Defendant Peterson liable for compensatory and punitive damages for all six of the victims. The jury found Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC, however, only liable for damages against one victim. Further, the evidence established that Defendant Peterson and his wife are sole owners of First Pitch Properties, LLC and that First Pitch Properties, LLC has no assets other than the properties themselves. Therefore, the United States is not seeking a civil penalty against Defendant First Pitch Properties, LLC. As the current owner, however, the United States is seeking injunctive relief as to First Pitch Properties, LLC. See, infra, Section II(B)(1) and (3).
3

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 1118
In a civil action [to enforce the Act], the court . . . may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the respondent (i) in an amount not exceeding $50,000, for a first violation; and (ii) in an amount not exceeding $100,000, for any subsequent violation. The Attorney General may adjust this maximum statutory penalty upward to account for inflation, in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104134, § 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321-373 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 (Supp. II 1996)). The maximum civil penalty under the FHA is now $55,000 per defendant for a first violation and $110,000 per defendant for a subsequent violation. See 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(b)(3). Civil penalties may be assessed by the Court after the jury has found liability. See Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425-27 (1987). The House Report accompanying the Fair Housing Act Amendments sets forth six factors a court should consider when determining a civil penalty: 1. nature and circumstances of the violation; 2. degree of culpability; 3. history of prior violations; 4. financial circumstances of the defendant (in determining amount of penalty); 5. goal of deterrence; and 6. other matters as justice may require. H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 40. Accord Smith & Lee Assoc., Inc. v. City of Taylor, 13 F.3d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1993). After hearing the facts of this case, the jury assessed compensatory and punitive damages against each Defendant. The jury awarded damages against Defendant Johnson after hearing evidence of his egregious and repetitive sexual harassment of female tenants, which spanned the course of two years. The jury also awarded damages against Defendant Peterson after hearing evidence of his reckless disregard of Defendant Johnson’s unlawful conduct. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Ronnie Peterson ignored complaints of harassment from Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin, and in doing so, enabled Defendant Johnson’s unlawful conduct. Together, Defendants Johnson’s and Peterson’s conduct
4

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 1119
caused six women serious injury. Thus, the nature and circumstances of the conduct weigh in favor of a heavy civil penalty against Defendants Johnson and Peterson.
Defendants’ culpability in this egregious pattern or practice of discrimination or denial of rights to a group of persons has already been established by the jury’s verdict, including its award of punitive damages against each Defendant. Jury Verdict Form, ECF No. 80. Defendant Glenn Johnson is culpable because of his conduct towards the six women. Defendant Ronnie Peterson is also culpable because, as the owner of the properties, he did nothing to attempt to stop or prevent the harassment, even after receiving complaints in 2006 and 2007.
Moreover, the vulnerable nature of the aggrieved persons makes Defendants’ conduct particularly egregious. Defendant Johnson sexually harassed women who had no other place to live. His victims testified that they felt as though they had no choice but to tolerate his behavior. They were terrified of being evicted and/or lacked educational, financial, or legal resources to oppose someone who, like Defendant Johnson, occupied a position of power over them. Indeed, Defendant Johnson boasted to some tenants that he knew people from his days in prison who could do bad things to people. That Defendant Johnson selected such persons as his victims, and that Defendant Ronnie Peterson ignored complaints from, and did nothing to stop the harassment of such tenants, makes their conduct all the more reprehensible.
Although neither Defendant Johnson nor Defendant Peterson had previously been held liable for violations of the FHA, that does not weigh against the imposition of a heavy civil penalty. The discriminatory conduct contained in this particular violation was not an isolated event, but a pattern of illegal conduct under the FHA that harmed six women. When Johnson began working for Peterson in 2005, this was the first time he had ever worked in rental housing. Defendant Johnson used his job to harass six female tenants, in most cases in a repeated pattern,
5

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 1120
from 2006 to 2008. And Defendant Peterson overlooked at least two complaints, in 2006 and 2007, which enabled Defendant Johnson to continue his harassment into 2008.
As to Defendants’ financial circumstances, trial testimony and documents establish that Ronnie Peterson continues to own seven homes, has an annual salary of $93,000, and reported $577,719 in net assets on a personal financial statement in March 2009.3 See Pl.’s Trial Ex. 18. Defendant Johnson presented no evidence of limited resources at trial, and as such his financial circumstances should not be a limiting factor. Cf. Grabinski v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 136 F.3d 565, 570 - 71 (8th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “it is a defendant’s burden to introduce evidence of net worth before a jury for purposes of minimizing a punitive damages award.”); Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33, 34 (7th Cir. 1996) (same).
With respect to the goal of deterrence, a major purpose of civil penalties is to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Crawford, Nos. 5:98CV1033, 5:98CV743 and 5:98CV1487, at 4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 1999) (memorandum and order) (civil penalties will “serve the purpose of general deterrence by sending a message to other landlords that violation of their tenants’ Fair Housing rights, through sexual harassment, will have serious consequences.”) (emphasis in original) (attached as Ex. 1). See also United States v. Shanrie Co., No. 05-CV-306, 2008 WL 4566309, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2008) (“[T]he Court can take into account general deterrence when imposing civil penalties.”) (attached as Ex. 2); United States v. Veal, No. 02-0720-CV-W-DW, at 3 (D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2005) (acknowledging that, in light of the defendants’ discriminatory actions and lack of remorse, “a civil penalty is necessary to serve the dual purposes of retribution and deterrence.”) (attached as Ex. 3). Although the jury
3 The March 2009 personal financial statement is the most recent of any of Defendant Peterson’s financial documents introduced at trial. Peterson testified that he has not yet filed his 2009 tax returns.
6

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 1121
has already awarded punitive damages against the Defendants in this case, the award of punitive damages and the assessment of civil penalties are not mutually exclusive remedies, and both may be awarded for the same unlawful conduct. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 256 (1983). Punitive damage awards, of course, are paid directly to the victims of the discrimination, while civil penalties are paid to the United States. See United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 936 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Tull, 481 U.S. at 422 n. 7. Further, the plain language of the statute allows the Court to “vindicate the public interest” by awarding civil penalties within the statutory limits, as long as there is a finding of liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d). A $55,000 civil penalty against Defendant Johnson and a $55,000 civil penalty against Defendant Peterson will send a strong message to other landlords that they may face grave financial consequences if they sexually harass their tenants or fail to prevent their employees or agents from sexually harassing their tenants.
A $55,000 civil penalty assessed against Defendant Johnson and $55,000 civil penalty assessed against Defendant Peterson is consistent with decisions in similar cases where courts have awarded civil penalties at or near the statutory maximum, even in cases where damages awarded to victims were significantly lower than in this case, and in cases where they were significantly higher. See United States v. Shen, 1997 WL 119494 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 1997) (affirming award of maximum $50,000 civil penalty and $15,000 monetary damages against a landlord for race discrimination); United States v. Silva (Final Judgment), No. A-05-CA-710LY, at 2 (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2008) (awarding $110,000 civil penalty and $103,621.97 in monetary damages for victims against two defendants for national origin discrimination in violation of the FHA) (attached as Ex. 4); Crawford, Nos. 5:98CV1033, 5:98CV743 and 5:98CV1487, at 4 (memorandum and order) (awarding $40,000 civil penalties against each of
7

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 1122
two defendants for sexual harassment in violation of the FHA, after the jury awarded $490,000 in monetary damages to the victims); Veal, No. 02-0720-CV-W-DW, at 3 (awarding $40,000 civil penalties against each of two defendants for sexual harassment in violation of the FHA, after the jury awarded $1,202,804 in monetary damages to the victims); United States v. Koch, No. 8:03-CV-406, at 3 (D. Neb. March 29, 2005) (awarding $40,000 civil penalties against one defendant for sex discrimination in violation of the FHA, including sexual harassment, and $66,152 in monetary damages to the victims) (attached as Ex. 5). See also United States v. Sturdevant, No. 07-02233-KHV (D. Kan. May 13, 2010) (D. Kan. May 13, 2010) (entering default judgment against one defendant for race discrimination and awarding the United States a $55,000 civil penalty) (attached as Ex. 6).
In this case, the jury awarded the six victims $36,510 in compensatory damages and $78,490 in punitive damages, for a total award of $115,000. An additional $55,000 civil penalty against Defendants Johnson and Peterson would bring the total to $225,000.4 Such a result is both necessary and appropriate. Even faced with the accusations at a jury trial, neither Defendant Johnson nor Defendant Peterson displayed any regret or remorse. A $55,000 civil penalty against each Defendant, for a total monetary judgment of $225,000 for this egregious conduct, ensures that both the Defendants and similarly situated owners and managers treat such conduct with the seriousness it deserves. For these reasons, Plaintiff United States respectfully requests that this Court assess a civil penalty against Defendant Johnson of $55,000 and a civil penalty against Defendant Peterson of $55,000, for a total civil penalty of $110,000.
4 The jury found Defendants jointly liable for $36,510 in damages to the six victims. Further, they awarded the victims $26,295 in punitive damages against Defendant Peterson and $51,895 in punitive damages against Defendant Johnson. With an additional $55,000 in civil penalties against each of Defendants Peterson and Johnson, the total amounts would be: $36,510 in joint and several liabilities, with an additional $81,295 against Defendant Peterson and an additional $106,895 against Defendant Johnson.
8

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 1123
B. The Court Should Order Equitable Relief Against Defendants The Fair Housing Act expressly grants this Court the authority to award appropriate equitable relief:
[The court] may award such preventive relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person responsible for a violation of this subchapter as is necessary to assure the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(A). Courts have “not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.” See Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 364 (1977) (Title VII), quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418 (1975). Accord Isabel v. City of Memphis, 404 F.3d 404, 414 (6th Cir. 2005). Courts should use their “broad equitable powers” so as “to make possible the fashioning of the most complete relief possible.” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 364. The district court has broad and flexible powers to shape an effective equitable remedy for fair housing violations. See James v. Lucas Metro. Hous. Auth., 833 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. City of Parma, Ohio, 661 F.2d 562, 567 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181, 1236 (2d Cir. 1987). Once a violation of the law has been found, injunctive relief is appropriate unless the Defendant can demonstrate that “‘there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.’ The burden is a heavy one.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (Clayton Act), quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 448 (2d Cir. 1945). See also Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 189-190 (6th
9

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 1124

Cir. 1983) (Section 1983). In this case, the Defendants cannot show that there is a reasonable likelihood that their discriminatory conduct will not be repeated absent an injunction. In fact, none of the Defendants took responsibility for their conduct at trial nor have they shown any remorse. Defendant Johnson denied the harassment had occurred and Defendant Peterson denied that Defendant Johnson was his or First Pitch Properties, LLC’s agent. In light of Defendants’ conduct and the evidence presented at trial, this Court should exercise its discretion to issue the equitable relief described below.
1. The Court Should Enjoin Defendants From Further Discrimination in Housing on the Basis of Sex and From Further Coercion, Intimidation, and Interference in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The United States requests that this Court enter a general injunction prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in unlawful sex discrimination or unlawful coercion, intimidation or interfering with the rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, the same conduct the jury found the Defendants had engaged in in this case.5 A general injunction of this sort is intended to “prevent future violations” and is appropriate where there “exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633; see also S.E.C. v. Quinlan,

5 Specifically, the United States requests that Defendants be prohibited from the following:

1.

Refusing to rent a dwelling unit, refusing or failing to provide or offer information about

a dwelling unit, or otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling unit to any

person because of sex;

2.

Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of renting a

dwelling unit, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because

of sex;

3.

Making, printing, publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published any notice,

statement or advertisement with respect to the rental of a dwelling unit that states any

preference, limitation or discrimination based on sex; or

4.

Coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with any person in the exercise or

enjoyment of, or on account of her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of her

having aided and encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right

granted by 42 U.S.C. §§ 3603 - 3606.

10

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 1125
2010 WL 1565473, *5 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding entry of injunction upon district court’s finding “a reasonable likelihood of future violations”). In this case, the evidence established that Defendants engaged in multiple and repeated violations of the FHA and a general injunction is appropriate.
2. The Court Should Permanently Enjoin Defendant Johnson From Employment Involving “Dwellings” as Defined by the Fair Housing Act
Congress intended the broadest possible remedies be available in pattern or practice cases brought by the United States under the FHA. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 380 (1982) (recognizing “the broad remedial intent of Congress embodied in the Act”). Thus, the FHA authorizes courts to “award such preventive relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the persons responsible for a violation of this subchapter as is necessary to assure the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(A). An injunction is appropriate where the plaintiff shows:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). See also United States v. Matusoff Rental Co., 494 F.Supp.2d 740, 756 (S.D. Ohio 2007); Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 678 F.Supp.2d 576, 579 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Here, an injunction barring Defendant Johnson from working in residential housing is warranted to “bar future discrimination,” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 364, and is fully supported by the record. An irreparable injury may be presumed as a result of the jury’s verdict that Defendant Johnson engaged in a pattern or practice of
11

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 1126
sexual harassment or denied to a group of persons the rights granted or protected by the FHA that harmed six women. See Matusoff Rental Co., 494 F.Supp.2d at 756; see also Gresham v. Windrush Partners, Ltd., 730 F.2d 1417, 1423 (11th Cir. 1984) (“irreparable injury may be presumed from the fact of discrimination and violations of the fair housing statutes”); United States v. Hayes Int’l Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 1045 (5th Cir. 1969) (“irreparable injury should be presumed from the very fact that the statute has been violated”).
As reflected in the facts recited above, Defendant Johnson’s discriminatory conduct was repetitive and unrelenting and destroyed six women’s sense of safety, security and privacy in their homes. While monetary damages can compensate for such emotional harm, only through the use of its equitable power can a court take specific steps to prevent it from happening again. See Matusoff Rental Co., 494 F.Supp.2d at 756.
The public interest strongly supports eradicating housing discrimination. See United States v. Edward Rose & Sons, 384 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir. 2004); Matusoff Rental Co., 494 F.Supp.2d at 756-57 (6th Cir. 2007). Thus, ensuring that Defendant Johnson can no longer harass tenants in their homes would serve the public interest. Furthermore, the requested injunctive relief would have a deterrent effect as it “serves as a sharp warning” to other rental managers that they face similar consequences if they engage in such conduct. See S.E.C. v. Posner, 16 F.3d. 520, 521-22 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that a permanent ban can serve as a deterrent). And limiting the injunction to residential housing will not unreasonably restrict Defendant Johnson’s ability to earn a living by pursuing other work. Thus, the balance of hardships and a consideration of the public interest weigh in favor of enjoining Defendant Glenn E. Johnson from working in any capacity in residential housing.
12

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 1127
The United States requests that the injunction against Defendant Johnson be a permanent ban on engaging in any work involving “dwellings” as defined by the FHA. Testimony at trial established that Johnson was well aware that federal laws prohibited sexual harassment and that he had resigned from a job in January 2008 after other employees complained that he sexually harassed them. Yet this did not deter Defendant Johnson from continuing to sexually harass female tenants. There is no reason to believe that Defendant Johnson would not sexually harass tenants again if given the opportunity, and without an injunction, there is no adequate mechanism to ensure that Defendant Johnson will not continue his unlawful conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 220 (4th Cir. 1972) (“Denial of an injunction is proper only in cases where, after hearing the defendant and examining the particular circumstances of the violations involved, including the existence of a pattern or practice of past violations, the judge is fully satisfied that the defendant will not continue his unlawful conduct.”). The egregious and persistent nature of Defendant Johnson’s past discrimination suggests a high likelihood that he will continue to violate the FHA if he is again given an opportunity to do so. The permanent injunction proposed by the United States properly curbs this danger.
The equitable relief requested by the United States here is not only reasonable in light of the evidence, but it also accords with FHA relief awarded by other courts. In United States v. Sturdevant, the court permanently enjoined a rental manager who had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race from “working in any capacity in rental housing.” See Sturdevant, No. 07-02233-KHV (D. Kan. May 13, 2010). Courts have also entered consent decrees providing for such relief. See, e.g. United States v. Mills, No. 1:00-cv-00276-SM, consent order at 10 (D. N.H. Nov. 14, 2001) (the court permanently enjoined former manager who had engaged in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing female tenants from future
13

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 1128
involvement in the ownership or management of rental housing properties) (attached as Ex. 7); United States v. Wingo, No. 8:01–cv–504-DOC-AN, consent order at 15 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2002) (court entered a consent decree that enjoined a former rental manager who had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin “from having any involvement in the rental real estate business”) (attached as Ex. 8).
The injunctive relief requested here is also similar to orders issued in other areas of the law where the public interest is at issue. In the securities context, for example, courts have barred defendants from serving as officers and directors in, or even trading the shares of publicly held companies. See Posner, 16 F.3d at 521-22 (predicating the need for a permanent injunction on evidence of the defendant’s extensive pattern of past abuses); S.E.C. v. Rosen, No. 01-0369Civ., 2002 WL 34414715 at *14 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2002) (enjoining defendants from trading securities registered with the S.E.C.) (attached as Ex. 9).6 See also Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174, 184–85 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an injunction, pursuant to Section 409(a) of ERISA, permanently prohibiting a defendant from serving as a fiduciary or service provider to an employee benefit plan). In trade-secrets litigation, courts have prohibited defendants from working in an industry or soliciting customers. See, e.g., Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007) (noting, in the trade-secrets context, that “it is possible for a court to enjoin an employee from working in the relevant industry or soliciting customers for some period of time.”); Uncle B’s Bakery, Inc. v. O’Rourke, 920 F. Supp. 1405, 1437-38 (N.D. Iowa 1996) (granting an injunction barring a former employee from continuing to work for competing
6 But see S.E.C. v. Jones, 476 F.Supp.2d 374, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (refusing to enjoin a defendant from serving as an officer or director of a company where there was no evidence of a need to protect the public from future harm).
14

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 1129
company and balancing the public interest in protecting trade secrets against the fact that the former employee could seek employment in another field); Heatron, Inc. v. Shackelford, 898 F.Supp. 1491, 1502 (D. Kan.1995) (granting an injunction enjoining a former employee who had violated a non-competition clause from working for new employer, and finding that former employee’s interest in continuing in his current position was outweighed by the harm to the plaintiff company and the public interest).
3. The Court Should Enter Additional Specific Injunctive Relief Against Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC
The United States also seeks specific injunctive relief against Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC that is tailored toward ensuring that discriminatory conduct does not occur again at their properties. Specifically, the United States proposes that the Court require that Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC:
(1) Attend, and require their agents and employees to attend, annual training on the Fair Housing Act;
(2) Adopt and implement a nondiscrimination policy; (3) Notify tenants of this policy and of their right to file a complaint or
to contact them directly or contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or the Department of Justice if they believe they have been harassed or otherwise discriminated against; and (4) Report future discrimination complaints and other pertinent information to the United States.
15

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 1130
The United States proposes that this injunctive relief against Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC be ordered for a five-year period.
First, the Court should require Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC, and all of their agents and employees to undergo annual education and training on the FHA. See e.g., City of Parma, 661 F.2d at 577 (requiring city to implement educational program to acquaint employees with their obligations under remedial order). Employees should also be required to sign an acknowledgement that they will comply with the FHA and with Defendants’ policy on nondiscrimination. Such measures are particularly important in this case, as Defendant Peterson testified that he had never required any of his employees to receive training on the FHA.
Second, the Court should require Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties to adopt and implement a written Nondiscrimination Policy, for all residential properties Defendant Peterson or First Pitch Properties, LLC own or manage. Defendants should distribute this policy, along with a pamphlet from HUD describing the Fair Housing Act and its enforcement provisions, to all tenants during the term of this Order. The Policy should also invite tenants to contact Peterson, HUD or the Department of Justice directly if they believe they have experienced or witnessed unlawful discrimination. And Defendants should be required to notify the United States when they receive complaints so that the United Sates can monitor how well Defendants are implementing their nondiscrimination policy. Finally, to the extent the Defendants advertise or maintain a rental office, they should be required to notify the public of their nondiscriminatory practices, and should note that they comply with the FHA in their standard leases, applications, and any promotional materials.
Nondiscrimination policies are an important component of FHA remedial orders. See, e.g., City of Parma, 661 F.2d at 577. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been
16

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 1131
upheld a number of times by courts as being an important component of FHA remedial orders. See e.g., United States v. West Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 230-31 (5th Cir. 1971) (requiring Defendants to maintain records and file reports of compliance with the United States at three-month intervals); Jamestown Ctr.-In-The-Grove Apts., 557 F.2d 1079, 1080-81 (5th Cir. 1977) (directing the district court to impose additional injunctive relief, including record-keeping and reporting requirements); United States v. Brosh, No. 02-CV-0368-DRH, at 13 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2003) (memorandum and order) (requiring Defendants to retain certain records and to make them available to counsel for the United States and HUD) (attached as Ex. 10); Silva, No. A-05CA-710-LY, at 2 (requiring Defendants, for a period of five years, to send to the United States every three months a list of persons with whom Defendants engaged in real-estate related transactions).
Adoption of a nondiscrimination policy, notice to tenants, and reporting requirements are particularly necessary here, where the lack of such a policy and requirements contributed to the discrimination and harm caused to the six women in this case. Some of the women testified that they did not know who Defendant Peterson was, or that he owned the home in which they lived, and that they did not know how to complain to Peterson until well into their tenancies. Moreover, Defendant Peterson ignored complaints from the two tenants who had alerted him to Defendant Johnson’s unlawful discriminatory conduct. Adopting and establishing a nondiscrimination policy ensures that future tenants are informed of their rights not be discriminated against at the subject properties and will know how to contact Peterson, HUD and the Department of Justice directly if there is a problem. Moreover, a requirement that Defendants report future complaints to the United States is appropriate in light of the evidence that Peterson failed to act when Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin complained. This
17

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 1132 requirement will ensure that any legitimate concerns are addressed and provide an incentive for Defendants Peterson and First Pitch Properties, LLC to handle such complaints appropriately.
Finally, the United States proposes that the court retain jurisdiction for five years to ensure compliance with these measures. See United States v. DiMucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1493 (7th Cir. 1989) (recordkeeping and reporting requirements for three years). In this case, due to the continuing and repeated nature of violations by Defendants, the Court’s continuing jurisdiction for five years is necessary to ensure full compliance with the Order and prevent future Fair Housing Act violations.
18

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 1133

III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should asses a civil penalty in the amount of $110, 000 against Defendants ($55,000 against Defendant Johnson and $55,000 against Defendants Peterson and First Pitch), and order the equitable relief set forth in the proposed Order at Attachment A.

Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan

Civil

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General
Rights Division

s/Judith E. Levy_________

s/Jennifer

JUDITH E. LEVY

STEVEN

Assistant United States Attorney

211 West Fort Street, Ste. 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Deputy

(313) 226-9727

JENNIFER

KATE

Civil U.S. 950 Washington, (202)

E. McAllister________ H. ROSENBAUM Chief TIMOTHY J. MORAN Chief
E. MCALLISTER SABLOSKY ELENGOLD Attorneys Rights Division -- HCE Department of Justice Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
D.C. 20530 305-2011

19

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 93 Filed 09/20/10 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 1134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 20, 2010, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff United States= Brief has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of the filing to the following CM/ECF participants.
Don Ferris Jay Courtright
s/Judith E. Levy______ JUDITH E. LEVY Assistant United States
Attorney 211 West Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9727
20

 
 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1243
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD D. PETERSON, GLENN E. JOHNSON and FIRST PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2-09-cv-10333
JULIAN A. COOK, JR. United States District Judge

DEFENDANT PETERSON'S ANSWER TO UNITED STATES MOTION FOR CIVIL PENAL TIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF On August 6: 2010, a jury in this Fair Housing Act case found that Ronnie D. Peterson and First Pitch Properties were liable for the actions of Glenn Johnson on an agency theory. The jury awarded six women who were sexually harassed by Glenn Johnson a total of$36,510 in compensatory damages. The jury also imposed punitive damages of $26,295 against Ronnie Peterson, and $300 against First Pitch Properties. (The punitive damages imposed against Glenn Johnson were $51,895 - approximately twice those imposed against Ronnie Peterson). This Court entered a final judgment on August 6, 2010. (Attached as Exhibit 1) According to the Clerk's docket sheet, the case is closed. (See first page, Exhibit 2). The government has now filed an untimely motion to amend this final judgment by seeking to have this court add civil penalties and injunctive relief. Ronnie Peterson opposes the motion for the reasons below.

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 2 of 16 Pg ID 1244
I. THIS COURT SHOULD DENY THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION BECAUSE IT IS AN UNTIMELY MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT UNDER F.R.CIV.P. 59(e)
This Court entered a final judgment on August 6, 20 10, and closed the case. The government did not file its motion for civil penalties and injunctive relief until 45 days later on September 20,2010. Because this Court entered a Judgment on August 6, 2010, the government' motion is to amend or alter the judgment which was already entered, in order to add civil penalties and/or injunctive relief to that judgment. The only avenue for making such a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is under Rule 59( e) which provides:
"Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment."
Rule 59(e) is strict in its language concerning timeliness - the motion must be filed
within 28 days of entry ofthe judgment. I In fact, there is another rule which makes clear that this
Court has no discretion to allow a late filing. Rule 6(b )(2) states that "A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b). The judgment was entered on August 6, 2010. The government had only until September 3,2010 to file its motion to amend the judgment to add civil penalties and/or injunctive relief. The government waited 17 days too long to ask this Court to amend the judgment to add civil penalties and/or injunctive relief. 2 For this reason alone, this Court must deny the government's motion.
ILast year, the government had only 10 days from the date of entry of the judgment to filed its motion under
F.R.Civ.P.59(e). However, in 2009, Rule 59(e) was amended to allow the moving party 28 days trom entry of the judgment in which to file a motion to amend or alter.
2The government might attempt to argue that they wanted to wait until they got the transcript before they filed their motion here. However, this argument is belied by two facts: 1) the transcripts were filed on August 27, 2010, which gave the government another week to timely file their motion; and 2) they did not rely on the transcript at all in their motion - there was not one transcript reference made in their 19 page motion.
2

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 3 of 16 Pg ID 1245
II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST MR. PETERSON
Under the Fair Housing Act, the District Court "may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the respondent." 42 US.C. 3614(d)(1)(D). In describing how this provision should be applied, the House Judiciary Committee indicated that these civil penalties
are maximum, not minimum penalties, and are not automatic in every case. When determining the amount of a penalty against a defendant the court should consider the nature and circumstances of the violation, the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, the financial circumstances of that defendant and the goal of deterrence, and other matters as justice may require. H.R.Rep. No. 100-71 L at 40(1988). reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2201. The Sixth Circuit ruled 17 years ago consistent with the legislative history that the word "may" in the Fair Housing Act gives the district court complete discretion whether the award
civil penalties. Smith & Lee Associates, Inc. v City of Taylor, Michigan, 13 F.3d 920, 932 (6th
Cir. 1993). If this Court somehow finds that the government's motion is timely, this Court should not
impose civil penalties against Ronnie Peterson because the statutory considerations do not warrant the imposition of such penalties against Ronnie Peterson.
In making this determination, this Court should be careful, as the jury was, in separating out the conduct from Glenn Johnson from Ronnie Peterson. Ronnie Peterson and First Pitch
were found to be liable for punitive damages under an agency theory, not for engaging in sexual harassment on their own. Glen Johnson's actions were reprehensible; in contrast, Ronnie Peterson's acts were ones of omission, not commission. And despite at least two years of investigation, and a year-and-a-half of litigation, the only evidence that the government presented that Ronnie Peterson was told anything about Glen Johnson by any of the many tenants in his 11 houses was the testimony of Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin. The government claims in its
3

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 4 of 16 Pg ID 1246
brief at p. 2 that "Shawn Taylor and Shenel McFarlin testified that they complained to Defendant Peterson about Defendant Johnson's unlawful conduct and harassment in 2006 and 2007." This was not their testimony. Shawn Taylor testified that Glen Johnson had asked her out (which is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act.) Shenel McFarlin testified that she told Ronnie Peterson that Glenn Johnson "was hollering at her." This again is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Ronnie Peterson categorically denied that either Ms. Taylor or Ms. McFarlin told him that Glenn Johnson was asking them out.
In contrast, it is extremely important to note that Shenel McFarlin and Barbara Taylor both informed the Ann Arbor Fair Housing Commission in 2007 that Glenn Johnson had engaged in repeated acts of sexual harassment in graphic detail, and that this information was given to the government, but that neither the Housing Commission, nor the government made this information known to Ronnie Peterson, so that he could do something about it. The Commission and the government sat on this information for months, which kept Ronnie Peterson in the dark, and allowed Glen Johnson to continue his actions on other unsuspecting tenants. Ronnie Peterson would have stopped the harassment if he had known about it. This writer asked the government's expert, Dr. Louis Fitzgerald, her reaction to the Fair Housing Commission not telling Mr. Peterson for more than a year about the harassment. Dr. Fitzgerald said that this "was indeed unfortunate." The same can be said with regard to eviction proceedings. Barbara Scott, Shenel McFarlin, Tameka Williams, and Julena Mills were all evicted, and many fought to stay in the homes. None of the four made complaints to Ronnie Peterson during the eviction proceedings. Mr. Peterson would naturally think that if a tenant wants to stay in his home, things must be O.K. with the landlord/tenancy.
4

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 5 of 16 Pg ID 1247
Thus, even taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, all Ronnie Peterson was told over the three years that Glenn Johnson was around were two short statements by Shenel McFarlin and Shawn Taylor that Glenn Johnson was asking them out. For three years no tenant, no tenant's lawyer, no one from the Ann Arbor Fair Housing Commission, and no one from the government told Ronnie Peterson about Glenn Johnson engaging in quid pro quo and in a pattern and practice of sexual harassment despite Glen Johnson's myriad actions. The Ann Arbor Fair Housing Commission, and the government intentionally failed to tell Ronnie Peterson in early 2007 that two of his tenants were being sexually harassed. In fact Barbara Scott complained that she had been forced to have sex. If Ronnie Peterson had been told by the Fair Housing Commission or by Barbara Scott's attorney in the landlord-tenant proceedings at that time that Glenn Johnson had demanded and got sex from Barbara Scott in order for her to get the key, Ronnie Peterson would have put a stop to Glenn Johnson immediately. This would have prevented four women who later rented from Mr. Peterson - Shenel McFarlin, Sharee McClendon, Tamika Williams, and Julena Mills - from being around Glenn Johnson. Yet the government wants to place all of the blame on Ronnie Peterson.
What is clear from this litigation is that Ronnie Peterson has been a landlord since the 70's, has had numerous tenants over the last 30 years, and that not one of his tenants were sexually harassed until he made the unknowing mistake of allowing Glenn Johnson to volunteer after Mr. Peterson's parents died and he lost interest in the properties. No one in 30 years has accused Ronnie Peterson of sexually harassing anyone. He worked in the juvenile court in Washtenaw County, retired from there, now works for AFSCME, and has been a Washtenaw County Commissioner for seven terms. Because of his popularity, he won a hard fought primary election which was held during the middle of this trial. He rented to tenants who could not find
5

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 6 of 16 Pg ID 1248
anywhere else to live, and did not evict tenants until they had not paid their rent for many months. He rented his properties for 30 years with no problems. He never required an application. He never did a credit check. He never did a background check. Until First Pitch was formed, he did not require leases - they were month to month. He was a good landlord who often did repairs himself. He would never have been sitting in this courtroom but for Glenn Johnson.
The government complains that Ronnie Peterson should never have allowed Glenn Johnson, a convicted felon, to be around his tenants, and that Mr. Peterson should have provided Johnson with training to prevent sexual harassment. The problem with these arguments is that two ofMr. Johnson's employers - Fairfax Manner and the Ypsilanti Public School- also hired Glenn Johnson even though he was a convicted felon, and both provided him with training in sexual harassment before and at the same time that he was around Mr. Peterson's tenants, but according to Fairfax Manner, this did not prevent Mr. Johnson from sexually harassing his female co-employees at Fairfax Manner. Moreover, the government did not produce any evidence that a "one man show" landlord like Ronnie Peterson typically provides training in sexual harassment to a volunteer.
Another factor that this Court should consider in determining the degree of culpability is to compare Glenn Johnson's blameworthiness versus Mr. Peterson. Glenn Johnson's actions were reprehensible, while Ronnie Peterson was found to be his agent. Despite this, the government has made no distinction in the amount of penalties they are asking for - they want the maximum as to both men, as opposed to scaling down the request as to Mr. Peterson in view of the major difference in his blameworthiness.
6

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 7 of 16 Pg ID 1249
Another listed factor is the economic circumstances of Mr. Peterson. It is clear from the uncontested evidence presented at the trial that Mr. Peterson has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on these 11 houses. (The government had its economic CPA expert sitting in court throughout Mr. Peterson's testimony - tellingly, he was not called by the government to refute one iota ofMr. Peterson's tax returns or testimony concerning the properties, or his testimony concerning the current status of the loans on the property.) Mr. Peterson owes almost $650,000 on the mortgages on these properties, even though their market value is at best between $200,000 and $250,000. He cannot walk away from the properties because the $400,000 he has in a C.D. is pledged to University Bank as a personal guarantee on these loans. Not only can't he walk away from these loans - because he is paying interest and property taxes every year on these loans, he is losing between $75,000 and $135,000 per year in actual money in making these payments. His tax returns, which were entered into evidence, shows that he has actual money losses of:
$73,000 in 2005 $102,000 in 2006 $135,000 in 2007 $94,000 in 2008 These are not paper losses. These are interest only mortgage payments, and property tax payments. Practically all of the wages he earns is going to servicing these "upside-down" properties. The final listed factor is deterrence. Mr. Peterson does not need to be deterred - as has been stated, he would not be in this litigation but for Glenn Peterson. He has no one but himself involved with his properties, and in the future, he will never have anyone but himself involved with his properties. On the related matter of injunctive relief, if this Court finds that the
7

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 8 of 16 Pg ID 1250

government's motion is timely, Mr. Peterson has no objection to injunctive relief as long as it is

reasonable. Indeed, from the moment Mr. Peterson was first notified of the sexual harassment by

the government in November, 2008, he was amenable to injunctive relief, but not to money

damages. Consequently, litigation ensued.

For all of these reasons, Defendant Ronnie Peterson asks this Court to deny the

government's motion. Dated: October 4,2010.

/ Don Ferris DON FERRIS P26436
Ferris & Salter, P.C. AS1364
Attorney for Defendant Ronnie Peterson 4158 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 (734) 677-2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 18,2010, a coy of the forgoing Answer to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re Peterson's Witness List has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of the filing to the following CM/ECF participants:

Jay Courtright

Judith Levy

Dated: October 4, 2010.

/ Don Ferris DON FERRIS P26436 Ferris & Salter, P.C. AS1364 Attorney for Defendant Ronnie Peterson 4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48108 (734) 677-2020

8

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 9 of 16 Pg ID 1251 ag.:' 1. Of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, vs.

Case No.

09-cv-l0333

RONALD D. PETERSON, GLENN E. JOHNSON and FIRST PITCH PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.
----------_/

HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF Jury Verdict

This action came before the Court for trial by jury. This action was tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff recover of Defendants the amount of$115,000.00.

Dated: August 6, 2010
Approved as to form:
s/Julian Abele Cook. Jr. U.S. District Court Judge

DA VID J. WEA VER CLERK OF COURT
By: s/Kay Doaks Deputy Clerk

CM/ECF - u.s. District Court:mied

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?33 7497280826386- L_ ...

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 10 of 16 Pg ID 1252

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS

United States of America v. Peterson et al Assigned to: District Judge Julian Abele Cook Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act Plaintiff United States of America
V. Defendant Ronald D Peterson

Date Filed: 01/29/2009 Date Terminated: 08/06/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Cornelius J. Courtright Jay Courtright, Attorney at Law 116 E. Washington St. Suite 230 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-945-9583 Fax: 734-922-2672 Email: jaycourtright7@hotmai1.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer E. McAllister U. S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530 202-514-4713 Email: jennifer .mcallister@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith E. Levy U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-9100 Email: judith.levy@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 10

9/7/20109:34 AM

CM/ECF - u.s. District Courtmied 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS

Doc # 94

Filedhtt1ps0:///0ec4f./m1ie0d.usPcogurt1s.1goov/fcg1i-6binlDPktgRpItD.pl?133253 7497280826386- L_."

Defendant Glen E Johnson
Defendant First Pitch Properties LLC

Donald W. Ferris, Jr.
Ferris & Salter
4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48108 734-677-2020 Fax: 734-677-3277 Email: dferrissalt@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David I. Goldstein 2010 Hogback Road Suite 2 Ann Arbor, MI 48105-9749 734-971-0110 Fax: 734-971-9759 Email: dstinger2684@sbcglobal.net TERMINATED: 04/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W. Ferris, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DaAtDeFoFFcIikDleeAdt VTITexto#fr DoACnONTalTMSdOWPWRLENAR. EFINYetorTriCAs,foPimJlPer.EpdlrAabeiRyn"At"UANwntCittoeEhrdn:JeuSyDrtyaoAtenDpsaepldmoefaarWAnadnm.cFeeare,nircdrai_sA(,AaLffJgnierdasvaiwaynvp,esiptrJeuatolodrlifntdChSge)oefrmeov(nEnpidclneaabtnienthrbsteaydlf:wRio0tfhn2a/R0Jlduo6rn/2yDa0lDd0P9eeD)mtearsnodn. . NS[P(WPFeooeratevrssrishiucsistobeme,nlem1Dbaoy(cYFnoRvesamr-lordprCnie)asaqo,nlu(idDEoennsotDtytneeadcrPolae.defsdt)e:eC1(rs(os0E)tou:2nDn/tN0tey5f(roeF/n2ondee0fd:r]r0ai19n0s(s,)t2Lt:/eDP0v5Wloya/ni2,ana0sJtl0hiduf9t)dfe:)int(haWE\)nvat.(yeEnr[enePdter:e-revC0di2o:/u0s0n5J1t/y2/20d9W0i/9s2hm)0e0irs9es)eAd cctiaosne: ANro]se:

2 of 10

9/7/2010 9:34 AM

CMlECF - u.s. Distric2t :C0o9u-rct:mv-ie1d0333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filedhtt1ps0:///0ec4£m/1ie0d.usPcogurt1s.2govo/cfg1i-6binlDPktgRpIt.Dpl?133254 7497280826386- L_ ...
1 oAMa(DSJC0REKAMG0nfeu6fceoifo2snr/hDlsStorifnc0wvidt/Aetela0Aeario9RNdnaNDdrecfi[nfClNr6[a/icsvSldIureeSh2Oc/OIl)teeiSdt)2TilSmea0TtcsuAdriTdTW:D0int0CeRb(tRrneuJ(iIe0bEIgn9yfEOICn,uOobICerE09iP)nCC,c(tdnyl2EVRfREstFeooDaKg3teK/:CtJeS6ffRo2Ete/raeeEr3Ee/on0TCortSRvoSe1nr#0odrsNnNa/fieOdno5eJv2Yos/:dlf~ro-=]:II2aor]i/dA,u-C0ne-)vNc2fv.lf7~0Ak.~r0.l.eidEopD0iiepN0cOSD(9rc6aPmpx0n4Ee)l9o(ee)/nOTaDPeh9bcF/ADM0KWS.[rnpP2naeSiEIyv5(TeeUtal(bNIFDe2rCEieAPaiTrAx/F(SlajInitc/F2rMRdiLoSEDnoCeteP2neRCbinueIRA0I)itsrcaeWoV0cUdeEtDEnMeIsO0,Cru)v:eeDn0lC:rotiME9lL(eAtyElsVbwaee9dDOnFeJyK()bo,REASldry)R0EVdOoEeidbtoNynC.:EctnD2idTrJnyhfnRIUf.R(-hrtSou/NiITO(IFRtDE-oraiot10feleYEcooRdJsoy-AJIeeln](n9Do3Fdrae-,ndkieInuF-rdNeaPt/-noutfsn-Cdra)trh20e2-ed-lDNfCsSeiaflpnEylpdSI.-()0sr5io/u:dPt-lrEr(in-oOS1ru)o,DDeCd-0/maeefoE-RiD2gn0Rr(enresd9nd-0T.fHDDosEsnM0-aep/O,rae:D)V3uT-o0nItlj60nSltEom.Cfe/doTaDain9-oiPICtE/91onev0-DmroPnF)i1CedEae-e)o8rna.eo6tr-5eInivUtaadECl(n/t-en3Cf/MeMt/rd2*ldF-isg0:ieda2bfLy/rrDtcTe)A0G3ewo8esirl:o0tcyeRd.Is.0oo.errF/..TA)dNl0Vi-f(or2ef)f9Fen2/t0RIEiii9o-reEn2h0tGlGnosr)fEle/(2.ulrnoen(c0I,sGn-id/DlEerdsAtsent6E091-e(icenDeDdeto-OmDna6-/9en)OCrfAerps2lAe-fapJf/oerdFEpOue1om0Rm-2poslEodnsnorer1l-5n0wohsDN:otaeedSsn-RtrD0/e9EisnJlnnudwit)2a-Et6Fid:)ota9us.0xifda:nt3-0h/oe)RPEonihb)l2e1n-,0ov(ernntrenec0Rd-/V5tEJ9nse(0t*huDs-2/EteE3ASnI6i2o-ato/rooCnAa/etoi0N-/0nyl(MDs2oe(gff2vffdtDnE6Co0.Dor3feCnF0i.eJsCD/en9drE/ooe2H0fBwe(uEd2embb)iedfJm0ld9Rldv:a0eedynCmDe(a0e):Uirrm(0pfob)Dsnltrr9Eob0e.sa9eiGlnyaean)oa)eEpraP6n0sTal)(ielitnor/d2r.tltDlEen-o(00-edeMaod)s/(RfnEwtnr9d02i)EocDACset.iunt/6:eirD(AlntFEeSd23itfoloKlSdr/shfr(tesc:Mf020inmeuteEtfcrsPJDor0airdresJtomirnwpate0et90Ptcoud:omehrtltdo4)a9JitareM:acefsntA:ufa/ywt)rhhri23siCednmtsvoM0Joi60odD0gttveuCif2ben(h/nv:3oe2df/en3eAi0/b)n0fmgdl,0r(J9oyim0wetGe4qu(P2aiD/r9Fdf2/ueleano0ri2i)e0oceriadl00vfirda0cAne9cr0eset9inaRber9tsdA).seAyi,)ueciwsbnDrsheGe,anJlrlAeOrteDd2fnUoTfsC6ainodvR(EonfaiNoC)1dvJk/)oEi2wt.mhD9in/pt.2ohslo0fan0in.9t,

3 of 10

9/7/20109:34 AM

CM/ECF - u.s. District COm1:mied

https://ecf.mied.uscom1s.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?33 7497280826386- L_ ...

2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filed 10/04/10 Pg 13 of 16 Pg ID 1255

06/09/2009 06/09/2009 06/1 0/2009 06/1 0/2009 06/11/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009 08/03/2009 08/03/2009
08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/10/2009

06/09/2009)

~'1 I [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition ofShennel McFarlin with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)

[STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Tameka Williams with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
'? I NOTICE of Error re ~~_Certificate of Service, 1 t Certificate of Service. (DEld) (Entered:
06/11/2009)

NOTICE of Error re 21 Notice (Other), 2c Notice (Other), 23 Notice (Other), 24 Notice (Other), 22 Notice (Other). (DEld) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

,,5 I STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook.

__(_K_Do_a_) _(E_n_.te._re_d: 0._6_/.1..1./2009) ._.___. _..

.------------------------------------1

'8 I SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/30/2009 Dispositive Motion Cut-offset for 10/30/2009 Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/201003:00 PM before District

Judge Julian Abele Cook Jury Trial set for 2/2/201008:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Refer to image for additional dates) (KDoa) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

:9 I ORDER OF COURTROOM DECORUM. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook.
(KDo-a)--(-E-nt-e.r-ed-:--0-7-/1-0-/2-0-0-9-) ---------------------

')() I ORDER REFERRING OTHER MATTERS to Magistrate Judge *SCHEER*: *Expedited Status Conference regarding discovery dispute *. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

J I I MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LA W IN
1 SUPPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # Index of Exhibits, # ~ Exhibit A

- 7-22-09 Correspondence with attachments from Donald Ferris, # ] Exhibit B - 7-27-09 Correspondence to Mr. Ferris and Mr. Goldstein, # '1 Exhibit C - 7-8-09 Correspondence from Donald Ferris) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

I 32 RESPONSE to 11 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE
MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUP PORT filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald)

I

(Entered: 08/04/2009)

---------------, I

Minute Entry -Telephone Status Conference held on 8/4/2009, re ,)1 MOTION to Quash I

SUBPOENAS AND IN THE AL TERNA TIVE for Protective Order filed by United States

of America before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (Not placed on record) Disposition:

Motion Granted (MLan) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

------------------------------1

'1: I ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 3 I MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by

0U8n/i1te0d/2S00ta9t)e-s -o-f-A--m-e-ri-c-a-. -S-i-g-n-ed--b-y District Judge J-u--l-ia--n--A--b-e--le---C--o-o--k-.--(-K--D--o-a-) (Entered: Ji

4 of 10

9/7/2010 9:34 AM

CMJECF - u.s. District Court:mied 2:09-cv-10333-JAC-DAS

Doc # 94

Filedhtt1ps0:///0ec4f./m1i0ed.usPcogur1ts.4goov/fcg1i-6bin/DPktgRpItD.pl?1323 56 7497280826386- L_ ...

---0-8- /2WIMNNW0[O(NSK/OORI2OTID11S0TTDRTNNU0oIIEII9aECCEOPC)RSEESPKNS(SOEEgooRrfNnLffaoL~---.~-Tt.<-].1nIreEEIStSr)ILrriWeNTnbTrrdeoogyOMAi:NaOAb[SrrtbSvhTyUMeONyRoirreTd1tIneetNnDTSCRr2EiRUu:DaiotW/oI:_tNEoEtIw0nnCeetC_n.R7idDaiE!aEcFatK/dbNftEeleR2EloilSyddlEgn0ioDreTntort(0QNtaRrtaeODSifL9Ttoycnu]soete)AtOC/atashnPAHait--NstOneaveetF(hoPmeJrlgosetOMda)fOeIPre.LraTtnoEAIintPhsnEDenofNI(o-dAeLdmCyDg"nAreTFARsMAP)EedWf.:miero:DNIlP(oiNetroecF(bCaRt.DPSrraAiTevyPo)iEs.SrccMWironemrdhiTaRoi(tgn(weEsrEotpRAontIeid,(Nrolia.neIcutaL)tTlADtthadDGilaeWeionilv(LocrndvEoJtbEehnigTCyulDydtdnma,Darhao:OstlyndDOkeentJCeeRdrPn)C0fuirDaeiesdtoe9DdnDwOdsAtre(tn/ir:e:E2mtferMifnhbfrc.4enpRisac0)ty#dPr/toose,nS29asLnJ(nG_dr0i/AviEuPge2Atc0iliIdn4tnRseIeo9Tfntg:eN/tinon)Eod2eltdereToer0T0nEsdeTfxb0Je9oRodauy9SAty/fJbr:Ik2lo)eo.ANyifLeM3raf7ho0DvoL/nAUnrED92ai1ucs/0tgxn9iA3eo1tMes0ihCo/pn6set2b19ireEotO./b0enb7r)2dsMaiFxl1ey/Ni0te(2thys0iAe0OiSFt0,iFoRz9Cbtt1ERngiatD0o)i#Jro0aRettAsu1neco0artdEN:asoh4vka40lgPNfmDi.l:d0odd0e-iRLCtfeU0cDnoPIIEAhM.tudMsmPinG:PsPeAeoryMtborIleNidepFrcfsDCeaiotbtrerztneiaegTfn.ewegoRsrarDf(IaeoiFAniLlrsedsdLtrtrrCiics.t,
(MDt0J#ElF(1LeFKu32iuxrioAatrdes/t1mDchns2e1rtgTetir)Eao5ieb0isEnlPcxsa/id/t2a(S,t2)hio)ETtJ00iecDuneb1(JA0dhJ(Elctiu0oEu9i.e-tRuand)nd)rnPmFntiEePagSteridelhreoridor:esg(CpAe)FtpdEnedAJ0ob:erA.u:(t8rseNdEliLrmel/0iei0en2Cadbes1e1tn,vyE/en/C1yr1OL2Dd5eDo4A0eLdr/oof/0i2d:Cb2rEnsk90eote0aD,r)1m0Cl1i,Jed0c.1R0uo)t#/D)orm1CDyJnM:4opo;ua/:nlod2EoltaTdekg0dxiFrsne1ihiefDta0(irwKJlbe)ruaidPiDstlnse,lideoatoCbe#tnanerR)fsrA+oe9ort(irqe/nEbEf2sui,ex7nc4elha/tesG2eiteber70dlCeie/0uFtd2no9olo:0oe3fr1Edk0(0S-.JD3JueFbo/(Wr01Kiyvhl81inoDnc:t/Tsr3h2geo)or0e).ainE1a).(C0lA(nG,E)(od(ME#onLuonltrede~tsvbreseyEtaermede,tfxiod:enhaJr:n,uie0tbld,a09Diit4/Dte2ah#/r2iv3)si7/td-d2r(/ai)20E6ct0e-nt(19.tEe10)Jnr-)ue0ted9rg:eed:

5 of 10

9/7/2010 9:34 AM

CM/ECF - u.s. Distric2t :C0o9u-rct:mv-ie1d0333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filedhtt1ps0:///e0c4£m/1ie0d.usPcogurt1s.5govo/cfg1i-6bin/DPktRgpIt.Dpl?133257 7497280826386- L_ ...

06/09/2010
06/0912010
06/25/2010 07/09/2010
07/1212010
---
07/1212010
07/12/2010 07/13/2010

------------- Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
AMENDED NOTICE TO APPEAR: Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine due 7112/10;Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/19/2010 01:00 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jury Selection set for 7/27/10; Jury Trial set for 7/28/2010 08:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 6/17/2010 09:15 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

NOTICE of Appearance by Cornelius J. Courtright on behalf of Glen E Johnson.

(Courtright, Cornelius) (Entered: 06/25/2010)

-----

MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S TRIAL WITNESSESAND

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE

REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S WITNESS LIST by United States of America.

(Attachments: # Index of Exhibits, # Exhibit 1 - Ronald Peterson's Witness List, # Exhibit 2 - 9-24-09 e-mail Correspondence to Don Ferris from Judith Levy, # Exhibit 3 -
6-23-10 Le-tt-e-r-t-o--D-o-n--F-er-ris) (Levy, J..-u-di-t-h)--(-E-n-te-r-ed-:--0-7-/0-9-/-2010)

MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED

STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered:

07/1212010)

-------------"---"----------

MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED

STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Attachments: # Index of Exhibits, # _ Exhibit 1 - Deposition Transcript of Barbara Denise Scott, # Exhibit 2 -

Complaint of Non-Payment of Rent, # 4 Exhibit Declaration Of Elizabeth Kiyo Wharton, #

:- Exhibit 4 - Barbara Denise Scott's Answer, # Exhibit 5 - Fair Housing Discrimination

ISnutmakme aFryormDi,sp#o=s-itEioxnh,ib#it 6E-xBhiabribtar7a - DBernieifsefoSrcTothte's AMpopteiollnanTt/Oo rdailsmAisrsguCmoemnpt laRinetquaensdtedF,or# I Exhibit 8 - Order of Dismissal of Defendant's Motion For Reconsideration of Motion To
Dismiss Complaint and for Summary Disposition, # _ Exhibit 9 - Claim of Appeal, # Exhibit 10 - Consent Order To Dismiss Defendant! Appellant's Appeal and
Plaintiff/Appellee's Complaint & Settlement Agreement, # I ~ Exhibit 11 - Order To
Release Escrow form, # ~ Exhibit 12 - Order of 1/15/2009 of the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
I I MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE
REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S WITNESS LIST by United States of America. (Attachments: # Index of Exhibits, # Exhibit 1 - Final Pretrial Order, # Exhibit 2 6-23-10 Letter to Jay Courtright) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
ORDER re MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUP PORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES'
MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S WITNESS LIST, ')6 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE, _ MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUP PORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE,.' MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE
REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S WITNESS LIST:( Responses due by 7/19/2010,

60flO

9/7/2010 9:34 AM

CMlECF - u.s. Distric2t :C0o9u-rct:mv-ie1d0333-JAC-DAS Doc # 94 Filedhtt1ps0:///e0c4£m/1ie0d.usPcogurt1s.6govo/cfg1i-6binlDPktRgpIt.DpI?133258 7497280826386- L_ ...
TSAATMI(RMPASIU0DWCENnEL7TLobOnSdDcnIe/nAAeTi'2CtvTMtlaexvINe1yTelMMIMlNride/OOd,eEc2noTOEEdtC)NST0SJidfSI:DoMMTuSo1FIot(EnOdEo0MaIEnFOI0OPOxtik)NSNnet7AehR.RN(st/DtiLe)2AGLeUAAb(rfe1orK0NIMieoNI(sNptMv/fSNdEsorD2DoDyIO"D,.AT:.n0.I7T,so,WU,NLeT1RtUi.m-E#aetM0I0JEIi)i(ADrMMe7ouOt~()FeEhNrFRM/CndT(deINi12RdREMeiScNErOE:O90tIriOrEaTexhnInNaEiPSrO/iTNN.pnh2iG)tsAiT0wuxLPnesJ,IRli0S7tSTI,cArCis(baOUeS(b1OeA/eLLEUuYDeEli2RUEyDs0NdtrpNeiNNSEn3PopDm):PvpootSGU'ADt/nnTtdoe2Pyo-bnIfsiE-aPtE0nNuUnrM0,ryaOol-Ae.8Oiytee.d1lTG(MtdOJR/EUet)P0SRO0:u(ot)oAbRdT-)TxoaDnt6dTfy(NErgprDIF-~0i/iJ(Ei-WnISOt2-BetGkEODU7ieN-7EhOne0nstre-iN/dnoa/A)FtyfRF21aM2FuetrSMRl0eEY1)r(rRS1PU~OrsI/e)EJDAc/PNE92teN2aLda(PnrTd,S0IoRMpDy0E:Ate2SWNtP:1eIfEoL1eten0IAIOsrd0COGrN0INsLiAt,0teNMt)p7aNR)oRGnEoTd7mrlo/TuAbeefI12T:IC/TUDnNSr1sFedy0N3iCArtsTnr9Li:ErE0F/iePJDgioD2iOaI/mAc,7FOgL2nOnEL0lUar/RFh0eE1tefif21H.Ti7NoUmieotrMds10N10l/EiLPrNtne01Nc(i/)MeTDbbRdn2ALo)a6SOnPIyRtye0uS/AeAOoThtcIR(2bF1tIivONLtroeENIAasDANA0yiROe0yNfeocNDD1T_LlIN)'i,EShCvnTSlRIss0h'EnDUmSFGystIEPJ)eobSruFtF,iuPbliPeAanyeETteWdcFdyzEMnrnaJPRAtDWtgiUtlutNIiTtoUODdETseeTIhJdInEf:DNUtrsuEMT)NnRIioai.RtNPDdtASiNGTh7lEeOt#gdSuR'GeN()/EdISSPe1,OCnRdT1eTSO9e(ifAoENS#tEJSet/DiSuFeuB2NDrtLv'nS~artrPl0EeLEIDtastiPe1SrEaetoFEISIioUren0TsLSNngTDeTExsTA.MhdEDhRAGNoaAfbtoI:iRfIm,TeNDb(elfbAfeFSEAyfiCaeeTAtLdCAoIOeSlngImNONerroF'mdBeNbrNeTrsiaFySCsnern-DD,UireobctilJcUiPaoyisOaukJPtC.srI.HoOi)Tch((NREtLnKSsTDeJDOovunoydNO'Ba,gs')SFYeJuC(JEdUTuriniRlNtmihtaIeI)iAnrTneLaEdlD:

7 of 10

9/7/2010 9:34 AM

 
 Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 1 of 10
CLOSED,JURY_TRIAL
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−10333−JAC−DAS

United States of America v. Peterson et al Assigned to: District Judge Julian Abele Cook Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff
United States of America

Date Filed: 01/29/2009 Date Terminated: 08/06/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Cornelius J. Courtright Jay Courtright, Attorney at Law 116 E. Washington St. Suite 230 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734−945−9583 Fax: 734−922−2672 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer E. McAllister U. S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4713 Email: jennifer.mcallister@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith E. Levy U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313−226−9100 Email: judith.levy@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tauras N. Ziedas United States Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226−3211 313−226−9573 Fax: 313−226−3800 Email: peter.ziedas@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline M. Hotz United States Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226−3211 313−226−9108 Email: Jackie.Hotz@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Ronald D Peterson

represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 2 of 10

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W. Ferris , Jr. Ferris & Salter 4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48108 734−677−2020 Fax: 734−677−3277 Email: dferrissalt@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Glen E Johnson

represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David I. Goldstein Law office of David Goldstein 4930 Washtenaw Ave ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 United Sta 734−528−9886 Fax: 734−528−9887 Email: dstinger2684@sbcglobal.net TERMINATED: 04/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant First Pitch Properties LLC

represented by Cornelius J. Courtright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W. Ferris , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/29/2009
02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by United States of America against all defendants with Jury Demand. No summons requested. County of 1st Plaintiff: Wayne − County Where Action Arose: Washtenaw − County of 1st Defendant: Washtenaw. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Donald W. Ferris, Jr appearing on behalf of Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
3 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand and Affidavit of Service by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
4 AFFIDAVIT of Donald W. Ferris, Jr. re 2 Attorney Appearance, 3 Answer to Complaint Service by Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for Glen E Johnson. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
5 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand First Amended Answer To Complaint by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
6 AFFIDAVIT of Don Ferris re 5 Answer to Complaint First Amended Answer To Complaint Affidavit Of Service by Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 3 of 10

02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/20/2009
03/03/2009 03/05/2009 03/18/2009
04/22/2009 04/30/2009
06/05/2009 06/08/2009 06/08/2009 06/09/2009
06/09/2009
06/09/2009
06/09/2009
06/09/2009
06/10/2009 06/10/2009

7 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand Affirmative Defenses by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
8 AFFIDAVIT of Don Ferris re 7 Answer to Complaint Affirmative Defenses Affidavit of Service by Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
9 SUMMONS Issued for *Glen E Johnson* (DHam) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Ronald D Peterson waiver sent on 1/29/2009, answer due 3/30/2009. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
11 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Glen E Johnson. (Goldstein, David) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
12 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 3/23/2009 02:30 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (See image for important information) (KDoa) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
13 Return of Service executed on 2/10/09 as to Glen E Johnson. (JCre) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer E. McAllister on behalf of United States of America. (McAllister, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
Minute Entry −SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for March 23, 2009 ADJOURNED. Scheduling Conference ADJOURNED to 3/30/2009 10:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
15 DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
16 DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Service) (Goldstein, David) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
17 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
18 [STRICKEN] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Glen E Johnson (Goldstein, David) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/08/2009)
19 [STRICKEN] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Glen E Johnson (Goldstein, David) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/08/2009)
20 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Barbara Scott with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
21 [STRICKEN]NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Julena Mills with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
22 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Monique Richardson with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
23 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Shennel McFarlin with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
24 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson Deposition of Tameka Williams with Certificate of Service (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 6/15/2009 (DEld). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
26 NOTICE of Error re 19 Certificate of Service, 18 Certificate of Service. (DEld) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
27 NOTICE of Error re 21 Notice (Other), 20 Notice (Other), 23 Notice (Other), 24 Notice (Other), 22 Notice (Other). (DEld) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 4 of 10

06/11/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009 08/03/2009 08/03/2009
08/04/2009
08/04/2009
08/10/2009
08/20/2009
08/21/2009 09/16/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/24/2009 09/24/2009

25 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
28 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/30/2009 Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 10/30/2009 Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2010 03:00 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jury Trial set for 2/2/2010 08:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Refer to image for additional dates) (KDoa) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
29 ORDER OF COURTROOM DECORUM. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
30 ORDER REFERRING OTHER MATTERS to Magistrate Judge *SCHEER*: *Expedited Status Conference regarding discovery dispute*. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
31 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − 7−22−09 Correspondence with attachments from Donald Ferris, # 3 Exhibit B − 7−27−09 Correspondence to Mr. Ferris and Mr. Goldstein, # 4 Exhibit C − 7−8−09 Correspondence from Donald Ferris) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
32 RESPONSE to 31 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
Minute Entry −Telephone Status Conference held on 8/4/2009, re 31 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE for Protective Order filed by United States of America before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (Not placed on record) Disposition: Motion Granted (MLan) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
33 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 31 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION for Protective Order AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by United States of America. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
34 MOTION for Leave to File TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − First Amended Complaint and Request For Jury Trial, # 3 Exhibit 2 − 6−11−09 letter to Judith E. Levy from Don Ferris, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Filing Endorsement, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Quit Claim Deed) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
35 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
36 WITNESS LIST by United States of America (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
37 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson To Take Deposition of Louise Fitzgerald Duces Tecum (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 9/24/2009 (DWor). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
38 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson To Take Deposition of Rodney Crawford Duces Tecum (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 9/24/2009 (DWor). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
39 [STRICKEN] NOTICE by Ronald D Peterson To Take Deposition of Louise Fitzgerald Duces Tecum (Ferris, Donald) Modified on 9/24/2009 (DWor). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
40 WITNESS LIST by Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
41 NOTICE of Error re 37 Notice (Other). (DWor) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
42 NOTICE of Error re 38 Notice (Other). (DWor) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 5 of 10

09/24/2009 12/07/2009 12/10/2009 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/15/2010 03/11/2010 03/25/2010 04/27/2010 04/27/2010 06/09/2010
06/09/2010 06/25/2010 07/09/2010
07/12/2010 07/12/2010

43 NOTICE of Error re 39 Notice (Other). (DWor) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
44 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
45 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by United States of America against First Pitch Properties LLC, Ronald D Peterson, Glen E Johnson. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
46 ANSWER to Amended Complaint and Affidavit of Service by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
47 ANSWER to Amended Complaint and Affidavit of Service by First Pitch Properties LLC. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
Minute Entry − JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES ARE CANCELLED. Dates will be rescheduled by the Court at a later date. (KDoa) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 3/17/2010 04:00 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
48 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney David I. Goldstein by Glen E Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Service) (Goldstein, David) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
49 ORDER granting 48 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney David I. Goldstein terminated. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
50 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Pretrial Conference set for 7/19/2010 01:00 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jury Trial set for 7/27/2010 08:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
51 AMENDED NOTICE TO APPEAR: Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine due 7/12/10;Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/19/2010 01:00 PM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jury Selection set for 7/27/10; Jury Trial set for 7/28/2010 08:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
52 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 6/17/2010 09:15 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook (KDoa) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
53 NOTICE of Appearance by Cornelius J. Courtright on behalf of Glen E Johnson. (Courtright, Cornelius) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
54 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S WITNESS LIST by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Ronald Peterson's Witness List, # 3 Exhibit 2 − 9−24−09 e−mail Correspondence to Don Ferris from Judith Levy, # 4 Exhibit 3 − 6−23−10 Letter to Don Ferris) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
55 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
56 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Deposition Transcript of Barbara Denise Scott, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Complaint of Non−Payment of Rent, # 4 Exhibit Declaration Of Elizabeth Kiyo Wharton, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Barbara Denise Scott's Answer, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Fair Housing Discrimination Intake Form, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Barbara Denise Scott's Motion To dismiss Complaint and For Summary Disposition, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Brief for The Appellant/Oral Argument Requested, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Order of Dismissal of Defendant's Motion For Reconsideration of Motion To Dismiss Complaint and for Summary Disposition, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Claim of Appeal, # 11 Exhibit 10 − Consent Order To Dismiss Defendant/Appellant's Appeal and Plaintiff/Appellee's Complaint & Settlement

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 6 of 10

07/12/2010
07/13/2010
07/14/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/21/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/22/2010

Agreement, # 12 Exhibit 11 − Order To Release Escrow form, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Order of 1/15/2009 of the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
57 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S WITNESS LIST by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Final Pretrial Order, # 3 Exhibit 2 − 6−23−10 Letter to Jay Courtright) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
58 ORDER re 54 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S WITNESS LIST, 56 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE, 55 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE, 57 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S WITNESS LIST :( Responses due by 7/19/2010, Replies due by 7/21/2010) Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
59 CONSENT TO JURY SELECTION PROCEEDINGS BEING CONDUCTED BY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (DWor) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
60 RESPONSE to 57 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S WITNESS LIST filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
61 RESPONSE to 56 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
Minute Entry − Final Pretrial Conference held on 7/19/2010 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
62 RESPONSE to 56 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
63 NOTICE by United States of America of Intent to Refer to Defendant Johnson's Criminal Conviction (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
64 MOTION to Strike 62 Response to Motion by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
65 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jay Courtright by All Parties. (Courtright, Cornelius) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
66 REPLY to 55 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Expert Report by Dr. Louise Fitzgerald, # 3 Exhibit B − McClendon Deposition Excerpts ( Pages 19, 20, 100, 101) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
67 REPLY to 54 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S TRIAL WITNESSES AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENDANT PETERSON'S WITNESS LIST by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
68 REPLY to 56 MOTION in Limine AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
69 NOTICE by United States of America re 40 Witness List OF DEFENDANT PETERSON (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 7 of 10

07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010
07/27/2010
07/27/2010 07/27/2010
07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010 08/01/2010 08/02/2010 08/03/2010 08/04/2010

70 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF A SINGULAR TRIAL by United States of America (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
71 MEMORANDUM in support of Bifurcated Trial on the Issue of Punitive Damages by Ronald D Peterson (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
72 RESPONSE to 65 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jay Courtright filed by United States of America. (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
73 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
74 NOTICE of hearing on 65 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jay Courtright. Motion Hearing set for 7/27/2010 08:30 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
Minute Entry − JURY SELECTION scheduled for 7/27/10 before Magistrate Judge Whalen ADJOURNED. Jury Selection adjourned to 7/28/2010 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Whalen. Jury trial with Judge Cook will start immediately after the jury selection. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 7/27/2010 re 65 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jay Courtright filed by First Pitch Properties LLC, Glen E Johnson, Ronald D Peterson, United States of America before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. Motion denied. (Court Reporter LAWRENCE PRZYBYSZ) (KDoa) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
75 ORDER denying 65 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
76 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion in Limine; denying 56 Motion in Limine; granting 57 Motion in Limine; granting 64 Motion to Strike and Peterson's request for a bifurcated trial (docket entry no. 71) is denied. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
77 TRIAL BRIEF ON AGENCY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY by United States of America (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
Minute Entry − Voir Dire begun and concluded on 7/28/2010 before Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (Court Reporter Lawrence Przybysz) (FMos) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Impaneled before Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (Court Reporter Lawrence Przybysz) (FMos) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial begun on 7/28/2010 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook and continued to 7/29/10. (Court Reporter LAWRENCE PRZYRYSZ) (KDoa) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial held on 7/29/2010 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook and continued to 7/30/10. (Court Reporter LAWRENCE PRZYRYSZ) (KDoa) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial held on 7/30/2010 and continued to 8/2/10 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Court Reporter LAWRENCE PRZYBYSZ) (KDoa) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
78 Proposed Jury Instructions by Glen E Johnson (Courtright, Cornelius) (Entered: 08/01/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial held on 8/2/2010 and continued to 8/3/10 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Court Reporter JOAN MORGAN) (KDoa) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial held on 8/3/2010 and continued to 8/4/10 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Court Reporter JODI MATTHEWS) (KDoa) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial held and Jury Deliberation began on 8/4/2010 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. Oral Motion for Directed Verdict by Plaintiff and Defendant, DENIED. (Court Reporter JODI MATTHEWS) (KDoa) Modified on

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 8 of 10

08/05/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/27/2010
08/27/2010
08/27/2010
08/27/2010
08/27/2010 09/08/2010

8/5/2010 (KDoa). (Entered: 08/05/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Deliberation Held and continued to 8/6/10. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Deliberation Concluded. (KDoa) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
Minute Entry − JURY VERDICT before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Court Reporter JODI MATTHEWS) (KDoa) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
Minute Entry − Jury Trial completed on 8/6/2010 before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (Court Reporter JODI MATTHEWS) (KDoa) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
79 JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants. Judgment in the amount of $ *115,000.00*. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (KDoa). (Entered: 08/06/2010)
80 Jury Verdict Form (PPau) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
82 COURT EXHIBITS 1−3 (PPau) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
83 Jury Instructions (PPau) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
84 Return of Service of Trial Subpoena as to Shenel McFarlin executed on 7/22/10 (PPau) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
85 Return of Service of Trial Subpoena as to Lesia K. Watkins executed on 7/21/10 (PPau) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
86 TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL (VOLUME 5) held on August 3, 2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nefertiti Jodi Matthews) (Number of Pages: 174) Redaction Request due 9/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through WWW.TRANSCRIPTORDERS.COM before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Matthews, N) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
87 TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL (VOLUME 6) held on August 4, 2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nefertiti Jodi Matthews) (Number of Pages: 196) Redaction Request due 9/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through WWW.TRANSCRIPTORDERS.COM before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Matthews, N) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
88 TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL (VOLUME 7) held on August 7, 2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nefertiti Jodi Matthews) (Number of Pages: 11) Redaction Request due 9/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through WWW.TRANSCRIPTORDERS.COM before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Matthews, N) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
89 TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL (VOLUME 8) JURY VERDICT held on August 6, 2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nefertiti Jodi Matthews) (Number of Pages: 14) Redaction Request due 9/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through WWW.TRANSCRIPTORDERS.COM before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Matthews, N) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
90 Notice of Filing Transcript. (Matthews, N) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
91 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on August 2nd, 2010. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Joan Morgan) (Number of Pages: 141) Redaction Request due 9/29/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/12/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Morgan, J) (Entered:

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 9 of 10

09/08/2010 09/20/2010
10/04/2010 10/08/2010 10/14/2010 10/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010
03/03/2011 05/18/2011 08/25/2016 08/25/2016 08/25/2016 08/25/2016

09/08/2010)
92 Notice of Filing Transcript. (Morgan, J) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
93 MOTION UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Order Awarding Civil Penalties & Injunctive Relief, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Walker v. Crawford, 11−16−99 Memorandum & Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 − USA v. Shanrie Co., Inc., Memorandum & Order, # 5 Exhibit 4 − USA v. Veal, 1−18−05 Order, # 6 Exhibit 5 − USa v. Silva, 1−17−08 Final Judgment, # 7 Exhibit 6 − USa v. Koch, 3−29−05 Memorandum & Order On Plaintiff USA's Motion For a Civil Penalty & Injunctive Relief, # 8 Exhibit 7 − USA v. Sturdevant, 5−13−10 Memorandum & Order, # 9 Exhibit 8 − USA v. Mills, Consent Decree for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, # 10 Exhibit 9 − USA v. Wingo, Consent Decree for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, # 11 Exhibit SEC v. Jerome E. Rosen, # 12 Exhibit 11 − 11−20−03 Memorandum & Order in USA v. Kenneth Brosh) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
94 RESPONSE to 93 MOTION UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by Ronald D Peterson. (Ferris, Donald) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
95 Renewed MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jay Courtright by Glen E Johnson. (Courtright, Cornelius) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
96 REPLY to Response re 93 MOTION UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Ronald Peterson Letter of 8−18−08) (Levy, Judith) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
97 NOTICE of hearing on 93 MOTION UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2010 09:00 AM before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
98 NOTICE by United States of America re 79 Judgment for Installment Payment Agreement as to Ronald Peterson ONLY (Ziedas, Tauras) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 12/20/2010 re 93 MOTION UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed by United States of America before District Judge Julian Abele Cook. Disposition: UNDER ADVISEMENT(Court Reporter JODI MATTHEWS) (KDoa) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
99 ORDER granting 93 Motion. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
100 ORDER granting 95 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Cornelius J. Courtright terminated as the attorney for defendant Glenn E. Johnson. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (See image for important details) (KDoa) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
101 REQUEST by United States of America for issuance of continuing writ of garnishment as to Glen E Johnson and garnishee General Motors LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Writ & Clerk's Notice) (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
102 REQUEST by United States of America for issuance of continuing writ of garnishment as to Glen E Johnson and garnishee State of Michigan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Writ & Clerk's Notice) (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
105 WRIT of continuing garnishment issued as to Glen E Johnson and garnishee General Motors, LLC.. (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
106 WRIT of continuing garnishment issued as to Glen E Johnson and garnishee State of Michigan Department of Treasury. (BGar) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

Case: 2:09-cv-10333 As of: 11/29/2019 03:43 PM EST 10 of 10

08/31/2016 08/31/2016
09/27/2016 10/27/2016 10/28/2016 12/14/2018
12/14/2018 12/14/2018
12/14/2018

103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 102 Request for Writ of Garnishment by USA by United States of America State of Michigan (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 101 Request for Writ of Garnishment by USA by United States of America General Motors LLC (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
107 GARNISHEE disclosure by General Motors LLC as to Glen E Johnson. (Krause, S) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
108 ORDER DIRECTING GARNISHEE General Motors LLC to Pay as to Glen E. Johnson. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (KWin) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 108 Order Directing Garnishee to Pay by United States of America General Motors LLC (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
110 GARNISHMENT Release by United States of America releasing garnishee State of Michigan from further liability in connection with the garnishment issued as to Glen E Johnson . (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 110 Garnishment Release by United States of America State of Michigan (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
112 GARNISHMENT Release by United States of America releasing garnishee General Motors LLC from further liability in connection with the garnishment issued as to Glen E Johnson . (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 112 Garnishment Release by United States of America General Motors LLC (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/14/2018)