Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00552/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00552-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wayne Hiatt
Plaintiff
Sun City Festival
Defendant
Sun City Festival Community Association Incorporated
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) in 

which Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment as to Defendant Sun City Festival 

Community Association Incorporated’s liability with respect to his discrimination claims 

in Counts One and Two of his Complaint. The Motion has been fully briefed and is ready 

for review. (Docs. 49, 50, 67, 68, 69).1 After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the Court 

issues the following Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint against Defendant Sun 

City Festival Community Association (the “Association” or “Defendant”) alleging 

discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., and the 

Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges 

1 Plaintiff argues that Defendant offered “a 123-paragraph sham affidavit [from its 

30(b)(6) witness] that conflicts with not one, but two, prior depositions, and rehashed 

abandoned and factually unsupported defenses,” however, the Court does not rely on the 

affidavit to reach its decision, therefore, it will not address whether it is a sham.

Wayne Hiatt,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sun City Festival Community 

Association Incorporated,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-23-00552-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 6
2

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

that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), 

constant anxiety, and panic attacks. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10; Doc. 49 at 2). Plaintiff engages in 

therapy in the form of woodwork to help reduce the symptoms associated with his 

disability. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10; Doc. 49 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that his garage is the only place 

where he can engage in woodwork. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10; Doc. 49 at 2). The Association’s 

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) prohibits open garage 

doors and further provides that garage doors “shall remain closed at all times except when 

entering or exiting the garage.” (Doc. 7 at ¶ 6; Doc. 50-1 at 375). Because leaving the 

garage door closed often triggers his disability, however, Plaintiff claims that he needs to 

keep his garage door open while he is woodworking inside of his garage. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10; 

Doc. 49 at 2).

In November 2022, Plaintiff sent the Association a request for accommodation 

under the FHA to keep his garage door open while he is woodworking. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 11). In 

January 2023, the Association, through its legal counsel, denied Plaintiff’s accommodation 

request. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 17). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit shortly after. (Doc. 1). On March 29, 

2024, Plaintiff filed this instant motion requesting that the Association be found liable as a 

matter of law for violating the FHA and the AZFHA. (Doc. 49).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden 

of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party can satisfy its burden by demonstrating that 

the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential 

to that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. 

“[I]n entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court . . . may not 

make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing 

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). Instead, a court must view the evidence and draw 

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 6
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

all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Leisek v. 

Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002); E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, 

Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009).

III. DISCUSSION

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to “discriminate against any person . . . in the 

provision of services or facilities in connection with [his] dwelling, because of a handicap” 

of that person or any person associated with that person. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).

Discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, 

practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a disabled] 

person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling . . ..” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); 24 

C.F.R. § 100.204. Arizona courts have noted that the AZFHA is “virtually identical” to the 

FHA. Canady v. Prescott Canyon Ests. Homeowners Ass’n, 60 P.3d 231, 233 n.3 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 2002).

To show that a defendant has violated the FHA, a plaintiff must prove all of the 

following elements: (1) that the plaintiff is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the 

handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the 

handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the 

accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested 

accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 

2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “The reasonable accommodation 

inquiry is highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination.” United States v. 

California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir.1997) (citations 

omitted).

i. Uncontested Elements

Plaintiff has established as a matter of undisputed fact that he had a disability known 

to Defendant and Defendant denied his request to keep his garage door open while he

engaged in woodworking. (Doc. 50 at ¶¶ 2, 14, 21). Indeed, Defendant does not contend 

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 3 of 6
4

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

otherwise. (See generally Doc. 67; Doc. 68 at ¶¶ 2, 14, 21). Therefore, the parties only 

dispute whether Plaintiff’s accommodation was necessary to afford Plaintiff an equal 

opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling and whether the accommodation was reasonable. 

The Court addresses these two elements below.

ii. Necessary Accommodation Element

“To prove that an accommodation is necessary, plaintiffs must show that, but for 

the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing 

of their choice.” Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned 

up); see California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d at 1381 (“Without a causal 

link between defendants’ policy and plaintiff’s injury, there can be no obligation on the 

part of defendants to make a reasonable accommodation.”).

In the instant case, whether Plaintiff needs to have the garage door open to equally 

enjoy his home is a highly contested fact. Plaintiff testified that engaging in woodwork in 

his garage with the door open “allows [him] to feel better and allows [him] to be grounded

and more centered.” (Doc. 50-1 at 431). Plaintiff also provided a note from his nurse 

practitioner which states that Plaintiff’s request for accommodation is necessary because 

he has “several triggers; however the most severe is Claustrophobia” so the “garage door 

may be left open” since Plaintiff “does not do well in small enclosed spaces.” (Doc. 50-1 

at 22). Plaintiff’s nurse practitioner added that “[w]oodworking has become a great source 

of therapy for [Plaintiff]” because “it calms him and helps him stay centered.” (Doc. 50-1 

at 22).

In response, Defendant argues that the Association has a “3,796 square foot 

woodworking facility that residents may utilize any day of the week, and that is open daily 

from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.” (Doc. 67 at 8). Plaintiff’s nurse practitioner confirmed that Plaintiff 

can work in the Association’s woodworking facility for “small increments of time,” 

however, she added that Plaintiff is “most comfortable” in his garage. (Doc. 50-1 at 22).

Defendant also provides evidence showing that Plaintiff has acted contrary to his PTSD 

and claustrophobia because in May 2023, Plaintiff traveled to Bali by plane and vacationed 

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 4 of 6
5

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

there for five months without any access to a woodworking shop in an open garage. (Doc.

67 at 10; Doc. 50-1 at 458). Furthermore, Defendant argues that Plaintiff admits that 

woodworking with the garage door open is not necessary because Plaintiff testified that 

doing other activities in his garage such as drawing, watching TV, designing, and listening 

to music also helps him to feel safe and centered. (Doc. 67 at 10, 14; Doc. 50-1 at 445).

The Court finds that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the garage door 

policy prevents Plaintiff from having an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his home. Thus, 

the Court finds that whether there is a causal link between the garage door policy and

Plaintiff’s disability is a genuine dispute of material fact to be determined by a jury. See 

Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1054 (D. Ariz. 2018) (“A fact 

is material if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is genuine if a reasonable 

jury could find for the nonmoving party based on the competing evidence.”).

iii. Reasonable Accommodation Element

An accommodation is reasonable under the FHA when it imposes no fundamental 

alteration in the nature of the program or undue financial or administrative burdens. 

Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Defendant 

concedes that Plaintiff’s accommodation does not impose any financial or administrative 

burdens. (Doc. 67 at 16 n.1). Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s woodworking 

activities could fundamentally alter the Association due to its noise impact because “[t]he 

Association is a 55+ community whose residents expect a quiet and clear neighborhood 

per the CC&Rs.” (Doc. 67 at 16). However, Plaintiff testified that woodworking is not the 

only therapeutic activity he enjoys from the comfort of his garage. Plaintiff claims that he 

needs to keep his garage door open while he does any activity inside his garage because he 

is claustrophobic. Therefore, Defendant’s general noise concerns do not rebut Plaintiff’s

claim that allowing him to keep his garage door open was a reasonable accommodation.

See id. at 1158.

///

///

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 5 of 6
6

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has met only four of the five elements under the FHA. The remaining 

element—whether Plaintiff’s accommodation was necessary—must be resolved by a 

finder of fact at trial.2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) 

is denied.

Dated this 13th day of August, 2024.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

2 Plaintiff does not move for damages in his request for partial summary judgment. 

As such, any issues concerning damages will also be decided at trial.

Case 2:23-cv-00552-SPL Document 82 Filed 08/13/24 Page 6 of 6