Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03074/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03074-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Girtha Terry, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3074-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants Capitol Mews Apartments, L.P. (“Capitol Mews”)

and Legacy Partners Residential Development, Inc.’s (“Legacy Partners”) motion for

summary judgment (doc. 13) and statement of facts (doc. 14), plaintiffs’ “Objections for all

the Defendants’ False Motion for Summary Judgment” (doc. 20) and defendants’ reply (doc.

19). For the reasons stated below, we grant defendants’ motion.

On a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., the moving party

carries the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). When the moving

party satisfies this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish

that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553-54. 

This case involves plaintiffs' "search for suitable housing." Complaint (doc. 1) at 1.

Plaintiffs allege a claim of "illegal discrimination." Id. In particular, they contend that

Case 2:06-cv-03074-FJM Document 23 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

plaintiff Girtha Terry "has been discriminated against on the basis of Age - Disabilities, Civil

Rights, etc.) and Breach of [Section 8] Voucher." Id. However, the only allegations

pertaining to defendants Capitol Mews and Legacy Partners contend that Tami Marron, a

Legacy Partners apartment manager, sent plaintiffs an “Over/Under Rent Payment Notice”

on January 25, 2006 “Wilful and Knowingly that PHA had not paid their assistance

payment.” Complaint at 4 (citing Complaint at 19). 

The importance of this allegation is unclear. At most, it implies that Legacy Partners

attempted to charge plaintiffs a portion of the rent that the City of Phoenix’s Section 8

Housing Assistance Program had agreed to pay. Yet the January 25, 2006 notice plaintiffs

complain of simply notified plaintiffs that (1) the City of Phoenix Housing Department failed

to pay its share of the monthly rent and (2) plaintiffs failed to pay plaintiffs’ share of

remaining charges, including various utilities. See Complaint at 19-21 (Over/Under Rent

Payment Notice with Itemizing Charges). This notice in no way supports plaintiffs’ “illegal

discrimination” claim. 

Defendants argue that because plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of (1) allegations of

discrimination, (2) facts supporting a discrimination claim, and (3) allegations regarding

violations of the Fair Housing Act, there are no genuine issues of fact. See Motion for

Summary Judgment at 5. We agree. Defendants’ evidence establishes that defendants

abided by the terms of the lease agreement entered into with plaintiffs. See Affidavit of Tami

Marron, DSOF Exhibit A. Defendant’s evidence also establishes that defendants gave

plaintiffs ample notice of plaintiffs’ non-payment of rent, and credited plaintiffs’ account

when the Phoenix Housing Program’s Section 8 Assistance Department issued subsidy

payments. Id. Defendants have established that there are no genuine issues of fact as to the

claims against them. Plaintiffs have presented no rebuttal evidence. Therefore, we grant

defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We also grant defendants’ motion on an alternative ground. Defendants argue that

plaintiffs’ “Objections” to the motion for summary judgment are non-responsive. Reply at

2. In fact, plaintiffs’ objections seemingly request a default judgment against all defendants.

Case 2:06-cv-03074-FJM Document 23 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Objections at 1. We have already denied plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, see April

10, 2007 Order (doc. 12), and plaintiff has appealed our denial of that motion, see Notice of

Appeal (doc. 15). Plaintiffs also mention a “final judgment” entered in a Maricopa County

Court, but do not explain the significance of that judgment. Objections at 1. Defendants

contend that the referenced judgment was entered in favor of defendant Legacy Partners.

Reply at 2. Next, plaintiffs list and define the terms “willfully and knowingly” and “final

judgment.” Objections at 1-2. This language also appears in their Notice of Appeal, and

adds nothing to their claims. Therefore, we deem plaintiffs’ failure to respond to defendants’

summary judgment motion a consent to the granting of that motion. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants Capitol Mews

Apartments, L.P. and Legacy Partners Residential Development, Inc.’s motion for summary

judgment (doc. 13).

DATED this 14th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03074-FJM Document 23 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3