IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81163-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

JEFFREY LAGRASSO

and DEBORAH LAGRASSO,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

SEVEN BRIDGES HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC. and 

RACHEL ABOUD TANNENHOLZ,

Defendants.

________________________________/

DEFENDANT, SEVEN BRIDGES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC’S,

MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56 

COMES NOW, Defendant, SEVEN BRIDGES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

(“Association”), by and through its undersigned Counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and

moves this Honorable Court for entry of Final Summary Judgment in favor of ASSOCIATION 

against Plaintiff’s, JEFFREY LAGRASSO (“JL”) and DEBORAH LAGRASSO (“DL”)

(collectively “LaGrassos”). In support, the Association states the following:

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The LaGrassos brought this action for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §3604(b) of the Fair 

Housing Act (“FHA”) against the Association claiming discrimination on the basis of their 

religion in their ability to use services or facilities of the Association, and by the Association’s 

inaction to control the conduct of their neighbor Rachel Tannenholz (“RT”). [D.E. #1, ¶57]. 

LaGrassos also claim the Association violated 42 U.S.C. §3617 of the FHA alleging the 

Association “intimidated them by sending letters threatening and imposing baseless sanctions and 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 1 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 2

fines,” specifically as relating to DL’s postings on her own Facebook blog and interfering “with 

the exercise and enjoyment of” their property rights “by refusing to undertake any action to control 

the behavior of third parties;” both of which the LaGrassos contend creates a “causal link” to 

discrimination based upon the LaGrassos’ religion. [D.E. #1, ¶¶69, 72, 73].

The allegedly discriminatory actions because of the LaGrassos’ religion by the 

Association consist of: (1) the Association’s Board of Directors’ (“Board”) recommendation to 

suspend DL for three months from the use of community common facilities after an altercation on 

November 19, 2020 at the Association’s tennis courts between DL and several women which

recommendation the Association’s Compliance Committee (“Committee”) unanimously voted to 

affirm after a hearing on February 20, 2020. (See Exhibit “B” to D.E. No. 1); and (2) the Board’s 

recommendation to fine DL $5,000.00 and suspend her for 330 days from use of the community’s 

common facilities after DL’s creation of a public Facebook page posting, among other things, 

antisemitic statements, as well as her threat to shoot community resident RT. This 

recommendation was upheld at a July 1, 2020 Committee hearing which DL received the result 

of on July 18, 2020. [D.E. #117 ¶27].

The Association filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint which although it was denied, 

this Court’s December 10, 2020 Order made the following findings with respect the LaGrassos’ 

FHA claims related to the tennis court incident [D.E.# 55].:

• “Given that there exist no allegations pertaining to religion with 

respect to the LaGrassos’ claim arising out of the tennis court 

incident and the Association’s handling of same, I find that they 

have failed to state a cause of action under the FHA based on this 

alleged misconduct.” [D.E.# 55, p. 9]. (emphasis added).

This Court’s Order on the Associations Motion to Dismiss also made the following findings 

regarding the LaGrassos’ 42 U.S.C. §3617 claim against the Association:

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 2 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 3

• “Because I decline to find that Ms. LaGrasso’s making posts on 

her Bridges Seven Facebook page amount to a right protected 

under the FHA, I find that the LaGrassos have failed to sufficiently 

allege the first element of an intimidation claim under § 3617. 

[D.E.# 55, p. 14]. (emphasis added).

• “As to the LaGrassos’ intimidation claim, taking the Complaint’s 

factual allegations as true, I am not satisfied that the Association’s 

conduct of sending letters advice Mrs. LaGrasso for the complaints 

brought against her and the Board’s proposed sanctions for such 

complaints constitutes intimidation that is of a severity as to cause 

the LaGrassos to abandon their housing rights altogether. For this 

reason and that stated in the above subsection, I conclude that the 

LaGrassos have not plausibly alleged an intimidation claim under 

§3617.” [D.E.# 55, p. 15]. (emphasis added).

• “Regarding the interference claim, consistent with my findings in 

Section II, I conclude that the LaGrassos plausibly alleged 

unlawful interferences under a hostile housing environment 

theory based on the Association’s failure to respond to the 

LaGrassos’ allegations of religious discrimination by Mrs. 

Tannenholz and instead to impose additional sanctions on Mrs. 

LaGrasso, conduct alleged to have interfered with the LaGrassos’ 

housing rights in a severe way.” [D.E.# 55, p. 15]. (emphasis 

added).

The LaGrassos failed to amend their Complaint against the Association to correct any deficiencies

by the September 21, 2020 Court deadline. [D.E. #20, ¶10]. Based upon the Court’s finding that 

the LaGrassos failed to state a cause of action under the FHA with respect to the tennis court 

incident, the Association is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to the 

LaGrassos’ §§3604(b) and 3617 FHA claims relating to the tennis court incident. 

Additionally, based upon the Court’s finding that DL’s posting’s to her Facebook page are 

not a right protected under the FHA, the LaGrassos cannot state a viable cause of action for 

violation of the FHA against the Association for fines and suspension of DL as it relates to the

Facebook postings. Because the Facebook postings are not a right protected under the FHA, the 

Association is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to the LaGrassos’ §§3604(b) 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 3 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 4

and 3617 FHA claims regarding the Association letters, suspension and fines concerning the 

Facebook postings. 

Given the findings made by the Court in its December 10, 2020 Order the only claim 

pending before the Court for consideration on Summary Judgment is whether the Association’s 

failure to take action against RT after receipt of JL’s May 27, 2020 and subsequent 

correspondences regarding interactions between RT and DL constitutes either a §3604(b) or a 

§3617 interference claim under the FHA. [D.E. #55], Therefore, the instant Motion for Final 

Summary Judgement addresses the only two remaining claims within the operable Complaint: (1) 

does the evidence establish that RT’s conduct toward the LaGrassos was based upon the 

LaGrassos’ religion, and if so, does the conduct establish violation of §3604(b) by the Association, 

and (2) does the evidence establish that the issues between the LaGrassos and RT based upon the 

LaGrassos’ religion created a hostile housing environment such that the LaGrassos can no longer 

use and enjoy their property thereby establishing §3617 interference claim against the Association 

due to it allowing RT to interfere with the LaGrassos use and enjoyment of their property. As 

will be shown herein, because there is no material dispute as to any genuine issue of material fact 

that would support either a §3604 (b) or §3671 claim, the Association is entitled to final summary 

judgment on Count I and II of the Complaint. 

II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Legal Standard on Motion for Summary Judgment

The court shall grant summary judgment 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). The movant “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of 

the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 4 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 5

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any,’ which it believes 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)). Where the non-moving party bears the 

burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may simply “[point] out to the district court that

there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. In a 

discrimination lawsuit brought under the Fair Housing Act, the burden of proof remains at all times 

with the plaintiffs. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 

Accordingly, the absence of evidence against the Association may serve as a sufficient basis for 

the granting of summary judgment in its favor.

After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(c), the burden shifts to the non-moving 

party to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 (1986). Although all reasonable inferences are to be drawn 

in favor of the non-moving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), he 

“must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. The non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or 

denials of the adverse party’s pleadings, but instead must come forward with “specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 587 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “Where 

the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, 

there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.” Id. “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence supporting the opposing 

party’s position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably 

find for that party.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the non-moving 

party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case on which he has the 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 5 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 6

burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp., 477 

U.S. at 323.

B. The Court’s application of Francis v. Kingspark Manor, Inc., 917 F.3d 109 (2d 

Cir. 2019) to the instant action.

In its Motion to Dismiss, the Association argued that the FHA does not protect against 

neighbor-to-neighbor discrimination because there is no case law in the 11th Circuit recognizing 

this cause of action and therefore failure to control RT cannot be a basis for a violation of the 

FHA. [D.E.#21]. In its Order on the Association’s Motion to Dismiss the Court noted that the 

parties do not cite biding authority from the Eleventh Circuit or the United States Supreme Court 

addressing whether a homeowners Association may be liable under the FHA for its failure to 

address prohibited discrimination from one resident to another. [D.E.#55]. The Court also did 

not identify any such binding authority. [D.E.#55]. Although there are no Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals rulings directly on the issue of neighbor to neighbor discrimination serving as the basis 

for an FHA claim, there are cases within the 11th Circuit that stand for the proposition that the 

FHA does not govern neighbor to neighbor disputes. In Gourlay v. Forest Lake Estates Civil Ass'n. 

of Port Richey, Inc., 276 F.Supp.2d 1222 (M.D.Fla.2003), the Court stated that “the FHA was 

passed to ensure fairness and equality in housing ... not to become some all-purpose civility code 

regulating conduct between neighbors.” Id. at 1232. See also Lawrence v. Courtyards at Deerwood 

Ass'n, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1143 (S.D. Fla. 2004); Court Scott v. Lake Arrowhead Yacht & 

Country Club, Inc., 2016 WL 4541442 (N.D. GA 2016) (“A failure to act does not rise to the level 

of the egregious overt conduct that has been held sufficient to state a claim under section 3617.”); 

Tagliaferri v. Winter Park Housing Authority (2011 WL13175164) (M.D. Fla. 2011)(citing 

Lawrence); Haynes v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 721 S.Supp.2d 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2010)(granting 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 6 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 7

summary judgment with respect to FHA claims arising from actions of neighbors). Under the 

standard expressed in the foregoing cases, the Association would be entitled to summary judgment 

in its favor against the LaGrassos with respect to their claims of §§3604(b) and 3617 FHA 

violations for the Association's failure to act against RT.

However, in its Order on the Association’s Motion to Dismiss the Court relied on the 

Second Circuit case of Francis v. Kingspark Manor, Inc., 917 F.3d 109, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2019) 

cited by the LaGrassos in their Response to the Association’s Motion to Dismiss to find that the 

LaGrassos stated a cause of action for discrimination under §§3604(b) and 3617 of the FHA 

because the Association failed to take action against RT regarding her behavior towards the 

LaGrassos. [D.E.#55]. For the purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment the Association 

will utilize the Francis standard. [D.E.#55].

C. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that would support the 

allegations that Tannenholz’ s conduct was religiously motived, that it rose to 

the level of creating a hostile environment, or that the Association had the 

power to prevent Rachel Tannenholz’ s actions against the LaGrassos. 

There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that would support the allegations that 

RT’s conduct toward the LaGrassos was motived against the LaGrassos’ religion, that it rose to 

the level of creating a hostile environment, or that the Association has the power to prevent RT’s 

actions against the LaGrassos. [D.E.#117 ¶¶23, 25, 26]. Under Francis v. Kingspark Manor, Inc., 

917 F.3d 109, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2019), in order for the LaGrassos to prove a §3604(b) violation of 

the FHA against the Association for its failure to take action against RT, the LaGrassos must 

establish: “(1) [t]he third-party created a hostile environment for the plaintiff . . . ; (2) the housing 

provider knew or should have known about the conduct creating the hostile environment . . . and 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 7 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 8

(3) . . . the housing provider failed to take prompt action to correct and end the harassment while 

having the power to do so.” Id. at 121. 

In the instant case the Board had to make decisions regarding interactions between 

LaGrassos and RT based solely on the information in the Association’s possession at the time it 

took action against DL and this Court must do the same. [D.E.#117 ¶¶15-17]. The only 

information which the Board had before it regarding the interactions between LaGrassos and RT

during the pertinent time frame was: 

1) on May 18, 2020, RT sent the Association’s Property Manager Heidi Womack 

(“Womack”) with a link to DL’s Bridges Seven Facebook page containing postings 

about the Association, antisemitic postings, and a post about RT; and [D.E.#117 

¶19].

2) on or about May 19, 2020, the Board received a security report generated by 

Association security which provided that RT went to DL’s home regarding 

Facebook postings resulting in the police being called; [D.E.#117 ¶¶19-20].

3) on May 27, 2020 JL sent an email to Womack advising that RT harassed his wife 

and children. He also reported there were video and audio recordings of the 

harassment but did not provide them on May 27, 2020. Within the May 27, 2020 

email JL stated that RT trespassed on his property and made statements to his wife 

such as: “You moved in somewhere which is 80% Jewish and you do not belong 

here,” “Move to a Klan neighborhood, that’s where you need to move, to a white 

supremacist area,” “If I was hated as much as you I would move out” “Move the 

fuck out. It’s over for you,” and “I would not want to live where I could not walk 

out with everybody looking at me like I'm fucking crazy and that is the current 

situation whether you like it or not;” [D.E. #117 ¶21].

4) on June 8, 2020 DL advised the Association that she filed a petition for injunction 

against RT regarding the May 18, 2020 incident1; also, on June 8, 2020 the 

LaGrassos sent the Association an incomplete portion of the only telephone call 

between DL and RT at issue.2” [D.E. #117 ¶¶22]; 

5) on June 9, 2020 Womack requested a complete recording of the only phone call 

between DL and RT at issue which the LaGrassos did not provide; and [D.E. #117

¶23]

1 The petition had been filed on June 2, 2020. [D.E. 117, ¶22]. 

2 The call was initiated by DL. [D.E. 117, ¶23]. 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 8 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 9

6) on June 11, 2020, the LaGrassos emailed a partial video from May 18, 2020 

showing RT in the driveway of the LaGrasso’s home speaking to DL while DL was 

on the phone with the police. The video does not show RT engaged in any conduct 

other than laughing in response to DL’s comments to her and filming. In this video 

recording, DL makes a threat to shoot RT.

The foregoing was the only information that the Board had regarding the interactions 

between the LaGrassos and RT when it made its decisions regarding taking actions in this 

matter. [D.E. #117 ¶23]

In applying the first element of Francis to the instant case, the LaGrassos cannot establish 

that their interactions with RT created a hostile environment for the LaGrassos based on their 

religion. The interactions between the two women that the Association was aware of occurred 

between May 18, 2020 and May 20, 2020 and were not ongoing. [D.E. #117 ¶¶23,26]. 

Furthermore, based upon the information that the Board had before it during the relevant time 

period, the interactions did not appear to be predicated upon religion, but were primarily about 

RT’s anger about DL’s personal Facebook attacks posting her image and referring to her as the 

“Seven Bridges Community stripper” and DL’s admitted Facebook postings which RT believed 

were antisemitic. [D.E. #117 ¶¶16-18, 23,25]. The alleged “hostile environment” in this matter is 

highly distinguishable from Francis. In Francis the Court found that hostile environment was 

created when presented with evidence of a neighbors eight month campaign against his African 

American neighbor, subjecting him to racial slurs, calling him a “fucking nigger,” approaching 

his front door and calling him a “fucking asshole,” discussing the plaintiff in derogatory terms 

with other neighbors, standing at his front door and stating “fucking nigger, close your god-darn 

door, fucking lazy, god-damn fucking nigger,” following the plaintiff around and referring to him 

as a “nigger,” and threatening to kill the Plaintiff. Id. at 121. In the instant case there was no 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 9 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 10

ongoing campaign of harassment of the LaGrassos by RT because of their religion. Moreover, 

there was no action on RT’s part for the Board to stop because there is no clear evidence, as there 

was in Francis, that RT was attacking the LaGrassos based upon their religion. [D.E. #117

¶¶23,26]. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that the LaGrassos are 

unable to establish the first element of a prima facie case under the Francis standard. 

In applying the second element of Francis to the instant case, the LaGrassos cannot 

establish that RT created a hostile environment based on their religion, or that they advised the 

Board of same. [D.E. #117 ¶¶23,25,26]. While it is true that the LaGrassos had communications 

with the Association between May 27, 2020 and June 11, 2020 regarding RT, the communications 

were in reference to past activity by RT. [D.E. #117 ¶¶23,26]. The LaGrassos never advised the 

Board of ongoing or escalating harassment on account of their religion by RT against them. The 

Board members testified that they believed the interaction was a dispute regarding Facebook which 

resolved itself and was not continuing. [D.E. #117 ¶¶23,24,26]. The housing provider in Francis

was put on notice by the plaintiff two separate times about ongoing and escalating harassment 

from his neighbor ranging from racial slurs to threats to kill the plaintiff. The notice to the housing 

provider in Francis provided clear and specific detail of ongoing discriminatory statements and 

comments directed towards the plaintiff. Importantly, the plaintiff informed the housing provider 

that the harassment ongoing and escalating and there was no question that it was based solely upon 

the plaintiff’s race. Our case is distinguishable from Francis on this element as well, thus the 

LaGrassos are unable to establish the second element of a prima facie case under the Francis

standard. 

In applying the third and final element of Francis to the instant case, even if the interactions 

with RT against the LaGrassos on account of their religion were ongoing, which they were not, 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 10 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 11

they cannot establish that the Board had the power to take action to prevent RT from interacting 

with the LaGrassos. Again, at the time the Board was notified by the LaGrassos about RT, there 

was no harassment to correct. Even if there had been, Board does not have the authority under its 

Governing Documents or the Florida Statutes to enjoin a resident from calling or visiting another 

individual's property. [D.E. 117, Exhibit J, Article X, Section 1(A)]. Once again, the instant case 

is distinguishable from Francis on this final element as well. In Francis the plaintiff was a tenant 

in an apartment complex. Id. at 121. The housing provider defendants owned and managed the 

complex, and the defendants had the ability to evict the tenant. In the instant case, the LaGrassos 

are homeowners. [D.E. #117 ¶¶7-9]. The Association cannot under its Governing Documents or 

Fla. Stat. Chapter 720 evict homeowners. [D.E. #117 Exhibit J, Article IX, Section 1]. While the 

LaGrassos may argue that the Association does have the ability to send RT a letter regarding her 

behavior toward DL or to suspend RT’s use rights to the common areas, such action does not 

prevent RT from going to the LaGrassos’ house or calling DL. Finally, and perhaps most 

importantly, the LaGrassos notified the Association that they filed with the State Court a 

restraining order against RT, therefore even if the Association could prevent RT from interacting 

with the LaGrassos, which it could not, intervention by the Association was unwarranted because

the LaGrassos were seeking a civil remedy against RT. [D.E. #117 ¶¶22,26]. 

Even in the light most favorable to the LaGrassos, there are no material facts establishing 

that RT referred to the LaGrassos in any derogatory manner regarding their Christian faith, nor do 

the LaGrassos allege that RT’s harassment of them had anything to do with their Christian faith.

[D.E. #117 ¶¶23]. In fact, when asked why he believed the Board did not take action against RT, 

JL replied “[M]aybe because her husband was on the board. Maybe because their friends. Maybe 

it's just because the community is 80% Jewish and we shouldn't live there. I can't answer that 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 11 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 12

question.” [D.E. #117 ¶23]. Analyzing this case under the Francis standard, the LaGrassos cannot 

establish material facts showing that there was a hostile environment, that the Board knew of the 

existence of a hostile environment based on their religion, or that the Board had the ability to 

prevent the hostile environment. Based upon the foregoing the Association is entitled to final 

summary judgment as a matter of law on the LaGrassos’ §3604(b) claim under the elements of 

Francis as to Count I of the Complaint.

D. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that would support the 

LaGrassos claim of unlawful interference under §3617 of the FHA based upon 

religion regarding the Associations lack of action against Rachel Tannenholz 

with respect the LaGrassos complaints, therefore there can be no violation of 

42 U.S.C. §3617 of the Fair Housing Act. 

There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that supports the LaGrassos’ claim of

unlawful interference under §3617 of the FHA based upon religion regarding the Associations lack 

of action against RT therefore there can be no violation of 42 U.S.C. §3617 of the Fair Housing 

Act and the Association is entitled to summary judgment on Count II of the Complaint. To state 

a claim for religious discrimination under §3617 of the FHA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) that 

the plaintiff exercised or enjoyed ‘any right granted or protected by’ Sections 3603-3606; (2) that 

the defendant’s conduct constituted interference; and (3) a causal connection existed between the 

exercise or enjoyment of the right and the defendant’s conduct. Moore v. Camden Property Tr., 

816 F. App’x 324, 335 (11th Cir. 2020). “[A] showing of intentional discrimination is an essential 

element of a §3617 claim.” East–Miller v. Lake County Highway Dept., 421 F.3d 558, 563 (7th 

Cir.2005); see also Simoes v. Wintermere Pointe Homeowners Assoc., Inc., (M.D. Fla 2009) 

WL2216781. Importantly, §3617 extends only to “discriminatory conduct that is so severe or 

pervasive that it will have the effect of causing a protected person to abandon the exercise of his 

or her housing rights.” Lawrence v. Courtyards at Deerwood Assn’n, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1144 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 12 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 13

(S.D. Fla. 2004) (quoting Gourlay v. Forest Lake Estates Civic Ass'n of Port Richey, Inc., 276 F. 

Supp. 2d 1222, 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2003), vacated on other grounds).

The Association has shown as stated above and fully incorporated herein, that the 

LaGrassos’ allegations concerning RT are not about religious discrimination but were instead 

spurred by a Facebook posting made by DL regarding RT. [D.E. #117 ¶¶19-21]. During the 

relevant time period the LaGrassos did not provide the Association with any evidence of 

discrimination by RT against them on account of their religion. [D.E. #117 ¶¶23,26]. The evidence

is that DL advised Association security and the police that on May 18, 2020, RT came to her house 

to discuss DL’s Facebook postings about her. [D.E. #117 ¶¶19,21]. On June 8th and 11tth, 2020, 

the Association was provided with a partial call and notice that the LaGrassos were taking legal 

action against RT for her interactions with DL. [D.E. #117 ¶¶19,21,22]. The LaGrassos provided 

no evidence that RT’s actions created a hostile housing environment based on their religion which 

required the Association to intervene. [D.E. #117 ¶¶19,21,22]. To the contrary, by the time the 

LaGrassos informed the Association about RT’s behavior it was over. ¶¶20,25,26]. The video 

of the May 18, 2020 confrontation at the LaGrassos’ home shows just what DL testified to: That 

RT came to the house, DL was on her balcony filming RT and her daughter, RT was also filming 

DL, t RT and her daughter were smirking and laughing, and some snarky comments were made. 

[D.E. #117 ¶¶19,21,22]. There was no religion mentioned in the video, much less any evidence 

of religious discrimination against the LaGrassos. The Association received no information from 

the LaGrassos of a consistent continued pattern of discrimination by RT due to their religion. 

[D.E. #117 ¶¶19,21,22]. 

The law is clear, §3617 applies only in cases where there is a “pattern of harassment, 

invidiously motivated” that interferes with one or more of the other sections of the Act that are 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 13 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 14

referred to in section 3617. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Interference” is 

more than a “quarrel among neighbors” or an “isolated act of discrimination,” but rather is a 

“pattern of harassment, invidiously motivated.” citing Halprin, 388 F.3d at 330; cf. DiCenso, 96 

F.3d at 1006; Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085, 1090 (10th Cir.1993).) See also Halprin v. The Prairie 

Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Association, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004). In the instant 

case because the Association had no information or knowledge of a pattern of invidiously 

motivated harassment by RT against the LaGrassos based on religion and because the evidence is 

that there was no such pattern the Association is entitled to summary judgment in its favor and 

against the LaGrasso’s on Count II of the Complaint. [D.E. #117 ¶¶1,4,6]. 

There is no evidence showing a causal connection that the LaGrassos were unable to use 

and enjoy their property rights because the Association failed to address RT’s actions. Aside from 

the fact that the evidence indicates that the LaGrassos interactions with DL were unrelated to their 

religion, the unrebutted evidence shows that RT’s interactions with the LaGrassos only occurred 

between May 18, 2020 and May 20, 2020, before the LaGrassos notified the Board of an issue on 

May 27, 2020. After May 20, 2020 LaGrassos had no further interactions with RT. Any references 

to religion made by RT between May 18, 2020 and May 20, 2020 do not establish a sufficient 

causal connection indicating the LaGrassos lost the use and enjoyment of their property rights due 

to religious discrimination or by the Association’s lack of taking any action against RT due to her 

past behaviors. Because there is no causal connection between the LaGrassos’ inability to use and 

enjoy their property because of the Association's failure to address RT the Association is entitled 

to summary judgment in its favor and against the LaGrassos on Count II of the Complaint. 

Finally, “[A] showing of intentional discrimination is an essential element of a §3617 

claim.” East–Miller v. Lake County Highway Dept., 421 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir.2005), see also 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 14 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 15

Simoes v. Wintermere Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 927 (11th Cir. 2010). 

In the instant case there is no evidence that the Boards failure to act against RT was done with the 

intent to discriminate against the LaGrassos due to their religion. To that end, both DL and JL’s 

testimony indicate that the Board’s failure to act against Tannenholz because of religion is 

speculative at best. The Court must not let this matter proceed simply upon “an inkling in my 

[JL’s] brain” that religion could potentially have something to do with this and should grant the 

Association’s summary judgment on Count II of the Complaint

E. There is no evidence supporting the LaGrassos’ claim for punitive damages 

under the Fair Housing Act. 

There is no evidence supporting LaGrassos’ claim for punitive damages under the Fair 

Housing Act against the Association. “The Eleventh Circuit has not discussed when punitive 

damages become available in Fair Housing Act cases.” United States v. Gumbaytay, 757 F. Supp. 

2d 1142, 1150 (M.D. Ala. 2011). But many other circuits have, and they use the standard set forth 

in Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526, 533–39, 119 S. Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed. 2d 

494 (1999), which analyzed when punitive damages are available in a Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act case under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). Id. at 1151 (collecting circuit cases applying the Kolstad 

standard to punitive damages under the FHA). The Court is convinced by these and other decisions 

that the Kolstad standard used to analyze punitive damages in civil-rights cases should also be 

used in FHA cases. See id. (being similarly convinced). 

Under this standard, “[p]unitive damages are appropriate in a federal civil rights action 

when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves 

reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Quigley v. Winter, 598 

F.3d 938, 952–53 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying the Kolstad 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 15 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 16

standard to analyze punitive damages under the FHA). Kolstad held that “the terms ‘malice’ and 

‘reckless [indifference]’ ultimately focus on the actor's state of mind.” Id. at 953 (quoting Kolstad, 

527 U.S. at 535) (entire quotation drawn from Kolstad except for brackets). More specifically, 

they “pertain to the defendant's knowledge that he may be acting in violation of federal law, not 

his awareness that he is engaging in discrimination.” Id. (quoting an Eighth Circuit cases quoting 

Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535) (brackets omitted). Thus, for punitive damages to be available, a 

defendant “must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that [his or her] actions will 

violate federal law.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536; accord Quigley, 598 F.3d at 953; see also Sabal 

Palm Condominiums of Pine Island Ridge Association, Inc. v. M. Fischer, et. al., (S.D. Fla. 2014)

2014 WL 988767, at *23–24.

In the instant case, in order for the LaGrassos to recover punitive damages against the 

Association the evidence must show that RT’s actions were indeed based on the LaGrassos’ 

religion and clearly violative of the FHA. There is no testimony indicating that the Board was 

aware or perceived RT’s actions to be religious discrimination or that the Board's failure to stop 

RT’s actions was motivated by evil motive or intent. Similarly, there is no evidence that the Board 

was aware that its failure to act would violate federal law. [D.E.#117 ¶¶4,6, 25]. The only evidence 

in this action regarding is that the Board was aware of the one time that RT went to the LaGrassos’

home because of a Facebook post alleging that she was a stripper, of a partial audio of a phone 

call, and a partial video of DL and RT’s interactions all supplied to the Association by the 

LaGrassos after the alleged harassment ended. [D.E.#-117¶¶17,18, 25]. The Board members 

testified they acted against DL because she threatened to shoot RT and based on her previous 

assault on other members of the community, the Board felt it had a fiduciary obligation to act due 

to DL’s escalating behavior against other owners. [D.E.#117 ¶¶27]. Finally, LaGrassos present 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 16 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 17

no evidence that shows that the Board was aware that their failure to act against RT would be a 

violation of Federal law. This is because during the relevant time period the LaGrassos did not

present any evidence to the Association showing that RT's actions towards the LaGrassos were

solely based on their religion or that RT’s actions were preventing the LaGrassos from enjoyment 

and use of their property rights. [D.E.#117 ¶¶23,24]. Because there is no evidence establishing 

evil motive or intent or that the Board was aware that their failure to take action against RT would 

be a violation of Federal law, the Association is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on the 

LaGrassos’ punitive damages claim. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Defendant, SEVEN BRIDGES 

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order 

Granting final summary judgment in favor of the Association and against the LaGrassos, finding 

the Association to be the prevailing party in this matter and awarding the Association its reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Relevant provisions of the Fair Housing Act as well as 

the relevant provisions of the Association's Governing Documents and Florida Statutes Chapter 

720 et. eq. , and ordering any further relief this Court deems necessary and appropriate. 

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 17 of 18
LaGrasso v. Seven Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment

Page 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

documents with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is 

being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List in the manner 

specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronically Filing generated by CM/ECF or in 

some other authorized manner for those Counsel or Parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notice of Electronic Filing.

VERNIS & BOWLING OF PALM BEACH, P.A.

Counsel for Defendant, Seven Bridges HOA

884 U.S. Highway One

North Palm Beach, Florida 33408

Telephone No. 561.775.9822

Facsimile No. 561.775.9821

Primary: gjvernis@national-law.com

Knissen@florida-law.com

jfiala@florida-law.com 

Secondary: Cschrader@florida-law.com 

pbfiling@florida-law.com

 /s/ Josef M. Fiala 

G. JEFFREY VERNIS, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 739944

KAREN M. NISSEN, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0883761

JOSEF M. FIALA, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 707570

SERVICE LIST

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-81163– MIDDLEBROOKS/Brannon

Scott A. Weires, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Murdoch Weires, PLLC

14 SE 4th Street, Suite 36

Boca Raton, FL 33432

Telephone No. (561) 347-8700

sweires@murdochweires.com

jliotta@murdochweires.com

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 18 of 18