1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

BRANDON R. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO. 1:20-CV-168-AW-JRG 

CAMPUS LODGE GAINESVILLE, 

Et al. 

 

 Defendants. 

 / 

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Now come Defendants, Coastal Ridge Management, LLC and Campus Lodge Gainesville, 

by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby respectfully move this Honorable Court for 

Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are no 

genuine issues of material fact as to the merits of Plaintiff Brandon Smith’s claims and Defendants 

therefore are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The reasons for this Motion are more fully 

set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, which is attached hereto and incorporated 

herein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Cruikshank Ersin, LLC 

 /s/ Elizabeth Cruikshank 

 Elizabeth Cruikshank, Esq. 

 FBN 120345 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 21
2 

 beth@cruikshankersin.com

 6065 Roswell Rd, Ste 680 

 Atlanta, GA 30328 

 770.884.8184 

 770.884.8113 (Facsimile) 

 Attorney for Defendants. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 21
3 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Brandon Smith (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants – Coastal Ridge 

Management, LLC (hereinafter “Coastal Ridge”) and Campus Lodge Gainesville (hereinafter “CL 

Gainesville”) (Coastal Ridge and CL Gainesville are hereinafter collectively referred to as 

"Defendants"), discriminated against him by charging him higher rent than non-African American 

residents. Doc. 16, First Amended Complaint, p. 10. Plaintiff also alleges that Coastal Ridge 

employees retaliated against him for filing this lawsuit and a fair housing claim with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations (the “Commission”). Id. at p. 11. 

Plaintiff’s poorly pled claims are exceedingly frivolous and contrary to indisputable fact. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s discrimination claim – premised (unbelievably) only on a few 

conversations with neighbors – fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted. Simply 

alleging that “Defendants charge me more rent because I am African American”, without more, 

fails to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. But regardless, the irrefutable evidence disproves 

Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff was charged the same rent as other similarly situated CL Gainesville 

residents (which is why, in large part, the Commission, acting in proxy for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, issued a well-reasoned decision on this exact discrimination 

claim, finding there is no “reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice 

occurred”. See Affidavit of Ryan G. Dolan, ¶ 6, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated 

herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Dolan Affidavit”)). 

Plaintiff’s poorly pled retaliation claim is also frivolous and exposes his utter lack of 

understanding of how student housing operates. Plaintiff complains that Defendants “decreased 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 21
4 

Plaintiffs [sic] services in retaliation, [sic] by locking the bedroom door to room 816-B and 

prevented entry from [sic] Plaintiff”. Doc. 16, Amended Complaint, p. 11. What Plaintiff 

conveniently fails to leave out is that Plaintiff did not, and still does not, have the right to access 

Bedroom 816-B. See, generally, Affidavit of Joe McDiffitt, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and 

incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the “McDiffitt Affidavit”). 

Although Plaintiff signed a lease for Bedroom 816-B, Plaintiff never paid his first month’s 

rent toward that lease (or any month thereafter). See, generally, Affidavit of Ashley Rankin, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as 

the “Rankin Affidavit”). Plaintiff, therefore, did not have a legal right to store any of his 

belongings in bedroom 816-B; Plaintiff did not have a legal right to occupy bedroom 816-B; and 

Plaintiff did not have the right to bar CL Gainesville maintenance staff from entering the unit to 

perform necessary maintenance on Bedroom 816-B prior to the commencement of the lease term 

(or thereafter). The Commission also found in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s “harassment” 

claim, which is virtually identical to the retaliation claim before this Court. Dolan Affidavit, ¶ 4. 

The evidence attached to this Motion unequivocally shows that Plaintiff’s allegations are 

frivolous and have no merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with 

prejudice and Defendants should be awarded attorneys fees and costs. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Campus Lodge Gainesville and Coastal Ridge Real Estate 

CL Gainesville is a student housing apartment complex located at located at 2800 SW 

Williston Road, Gainesville, Florida 32608. See McDiffit Affidavit, ¶ 2. CL Gainesville is owned 

and held by a special purpose entity called CL Gainesville Borrower, LLC, a Delaware limited 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 4 of 21
5 

liability company. CL Gainesville Borrower, LLC has no employees; its sole purpose is to own 

the CL Gainesville property. 

Defendant Coastal Ridge Management, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, was 

founded in 2013 as a full-service real estate management firm and is headquartered in Columbus, 

Ohio. With approximately 500 employees, Coastal Ridge manages 60 multifamily housing 

communities (conventional apartments and student housing apartments) in 16 different states, 

including 6 in Florida. McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶ 3. 

Coastal Ridge is responsible for managing CL Gainesville. Managing a student housing 

property like CL Gainesville includes responsibilities such as marketing the property and signing 

leases for new residents, preparing the apartment units for the residents and scheduling move-ins, 

addressing all resident concerns, and the proper maintenance of the facilities. See Rankin 

Affidavit, ¶ 3. 

Coastal Ridge does not discriminate against any applicant or resident on account of race, 

color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Coastal Ridge is committed to 

compliance with all Federal Fair Housing laws. See McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶ 4; See also, Affidavit 

of Kelvin Hendrix, ¶5, attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by this reference 

(hereinafter, “Hendrix Affidavit”). In its history, Coastal Ridge has never been found to have 

violated the fair housing laws. Dolan Affidavit, ¶ 6. The staff at CL Gainesville receive extensive 

training and education in all areas of Fair Housing law. All staff are required to take yearly courses 

on Fair Housing and Discrimination, which includes the requirement of passing a Fair Housing 

quiz at 80%. McDiffit Affidavit, ¶ 4. Each of the employees that have interacted with Plaintiff, 

and all CL Gainesville staff, have taken and passed with a score of 80% or better the following 

training modules related to Fair Housing:

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 21
6 

-Fair Housing Basics 

-Fair Housing Disability 

-Fair Housing Disparate Impact 

-Fair Housing Familial Status 

-Fair Housing for Service Animals 

See McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶4. Each training module educates the staff on issues arising under 

the Federal Fair Housing Laws. Training topics include, but are not limited to: protected classes, 

reasonable accommodations, disparate impact, and prospect screening that does not have a 

discriminatory effect. Coastal Ridge’s goal is to ensure that everyone has the same access to 

housing, amenities, features, and services. Coastal Ridge is committed to making sure each staff 

member knows that a violation of Federal Fair Housing Law is unacceptable, and how to conduct 

business so that no violations would ever occur. Id. 

B. How Coastal Ridge Establishes Rental Rates 

Plaintiff’s discrimination allegation reveals his ignorance on not only how student housing 

leasing operates, but also on the basic concept of supply and demand. Student housing lease 

agreements are 12-month agreements executed on a “per-bed” basis, meaning, an apartment unit 

with two bedrooms will be leased to two different residents under two different lease agreements 

and the two residents share the common areas (e.g., kitchen, living room). McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶ 

6. Coastal Ridge’s Director of Property Management, with assistance from others, meet once per 

year to establish initial rental rates for a prelease cycle. Id. A “prelease cycle” refers to that period 

of time during which a student housing property such as CL Gainesville is preparing to market and 

sell leases to prospective residents for the following school year. After initial rates are set for a 

property’s different floorplans, these rates are evaluated on a weekly basis by the Director of 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 21
7 

Property Management, the Property Manager, the Regional Manager and the Director of Asset 

Management, amongst others. Id. 

Coastal Ridge utilizes a tiered rate system to establish rental rates, meaning that different 

floor plans are priced according to their tier and that the lowest rates are available on the first leases 

signed. From there, rental rates for a particular floorplan are increased, or possibly decreased, 

based on the number of leases that have been signed for that floorplan. Id at ¶ 7. Lease rates are 

not assigned on an individual unit basis; rather, rental rates are established for a tier based purely 

on the number of leases signed at a particular price point for a particular “floorplan”. All student 

housing communities managed by Coastal Ridge, including CL Gainesville, have units that are 

different – different “floorplans”; i.e., some units have 2 bedrooms, some 4 bedrooms, etc. Some 

units may be more desirable based on that unit’s particular floorplan design. Id. 

From time to time, throughout the preleasing cycle, a change may be made to the initially 

approved tiered rental rate plan. Id. At ¶ 8. This is done by adjusting the tiers or assigning a new 

rate or rent concession for all leases of a given floorplan. Property level employees do not adjust 

rental rates; rather, that directive will come from the Director of Property Management or other 

corporate staff. In other words, it is not possible – because of Coastal Ridge’s tiered rate approach 

to pricing directed by the corporate office – for property level staff to increase rental rates for one 

individual for any reason. Id. 

There are several factors that are evaluated when making a change to a floorplan pricing 

tier, such as: 

 Year-over-year preleasing percentage, meaning, if a specific 

floorplan is leasing better or worse when compared to the previous year’s 

preleasing period, then this could lead to price reduction or increase. Basic supply 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 7 of 21
8 

and demand. This does not necessarily follow the property’s overall preleasing 

success; rather, it is evaluated on the property’s success with a particular floorplan 

at the property. 

 Market conditions and competitor performance. On a weekly basis, 

Coastal Ridge completes market surveys to understand how our competitors in that 

market are performing (i.e., the pricing of their units and occupancy rates). 

Id. 

C. The Student Housing “Turnover” Process 

All student housing apartment complexes go through the “turnover” process each summer. 

CL Gainesville is no exception. During the hectic “turn” season (as it is affectionately known in 

the industry), property level staff are responsible for moving out all outgoing residents, performing 

required maintenance (such as painting, cleaning and minor repairs) for hundreds of vacated units 

and vacated bedrooms, and then moving in all new residents for the upcoming school year. 

McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶ 9. 

While conventional apartments have the luxury of spacing out unit turnovers throughout 

the year, student housing unit turnovers occur during a short time span of approximately two weeks 

every summer. Because conventional apartments do not have the same volume of units turning 

over at the same time, the turns can typically be accomplished by in-house maintenance staff, 

whereas student housing providers need to hire outside vendors to get all the work done. Id at ¶ 

10. 

When Plaintiff’s roommate who was initially residing in Bedroom 816-B moved out, CL 

Gainesville maintenance staff, and vendors hired by CL Gainesville, needed access to Bedroom 

816-B to “turn” it. The bedroom needed to be inspected for damage, cleaned, painted, etc., to 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 8 of 21
9 

prepare it for its next resident. Failure to “turn” a unit can result in resident dissatisfaction and the 

deterioration of the conditions of the unit or a bedroom therein. See Affidavit of Johnathan Spence, 

¶ 6, attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter, “Spence 

Affidavit”). 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him by “entering his apartment unit 

without his knowledge”. Doc. 16, Amended Complaint, p. 11. The reality is that Coastal Ridge 

maintenance staff and “turn” vendors were simply trying to do what they were doing for all of the 

CL Gainesville units – “turning” them in preparation for the upcoming school year. Spence 

Affidavit, ¶ 6. Plaintiff continually obstructed Defendants’ efforts to turn Bedroom 816-B by 

refusing access on multiple occasions and not cooperating when trying to schedule an 

accommodating time with Plaintiff. Id at ¶¶ 7,8. Plaintiff was provided advance notice each time 

Defendants or vendors needed to enter the unit to perform maintenance. Id. Plaintiff refused to 

cooperate despite the advance notice given and despite the lease agreement’s provision that allows 

Coastal Ridge staff to enter the unit to perform maintenance. Id.

D. Plaintiff’s Lease Agreements 

Plaintiff executed his first lease agreement with CL Gainesville on July 16, 2019 for 

Bedroom 816-A (the “2019 Lease Agreement”). McDiffitt Affidavit, ¶ 11. The 2019 Lease 

Agreement only indicates the floorplan (2x2, meaning two bedrooms under separate lease 

agreements) and does not indicate the exact unit number or which room in the 2x2 unit Plaintiff is 

assigned to. Id. This is standard in student housing leasing – the lease agreement will indicate the 

floorplan chosen and then the resident will be assigned a roommate and room number prior to 

commencement of the lease term. Plaintiff was provided written notice of which unit he was 

assigned to and who his roommate would be prior to commencement of the 2019 lease term. Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 9 of 21
10 

Prior to the expiration of the 2019 Lease Agreement, Plaintiff renewed his lease agreement 

for bedroom A in unit #816 for a term commencing August 1, 2020 and ending July 31, 2021 (the 

“2020 BR A Lease Agreement”). See Id. at ¶ 12. Because the 2020 BR A Lease Agreement was 

a renewal lease agreement, the lease agreement does indicate Plaintiff’s exact unit number and 

bedroom. Id. As opposed to new leases, renewal lease agreements do contain this information. 

This is standard for student housing properties. Id.1 

Plaintiff did not want CL Gainesville to assign him a roommate during the renewal term, 

so he decided to execute a second lease agreement for Bedroom B in unit #816 for a term 

commencing August 17, 2020 and ending July 31, 2021 (the “2020 BR B Lease Agreement”). The 

2020 BR B Lease does not commence until 17 days after expiration of his 2019 Lease. This 17-

day delay in the commencement of the 2020 BR B Lease Agreement is the time CL Gainesville 

needs to “turn” then unit and bedroom for the new resident that just signed the lease for bedroom 

B. This is called “turning” a unit/bedroom, as described above, and generally involves cleaning, 

painting and minor repairs to the unit/bedroom. Consistent with the standard procedure described 

above, CL Gainesville sent Plaintiff a Room Assignment notification for bedroom B. See Id. at 

¶11. 

After Plaintiff’s former roommate moved out, but prior to commencement of the 2020 BR 

B Lease Agreement, Plaintiff began storing some of his personal items in Bedroom 816-B. Spence 

Affidavit, ¶ 5. Because Plaintiff refused to pay his first months’ rent on the 2020 BR B Lease 

Agreement, Defendants were forced to prohibit Plaintiff from accessing that Bedroom 816-B. But 

because Plaintiff had been storing his possessions in there (despite not having the legal right to do 

                                                            

1 Although not relevant to this case (but relevant to showing how irrational Plaintiff has been throughout this saga),

the room number designations on the renewal lease vs. the new lease isspelled out because Mr. Smith, unbelievably,

does not believe he should be held liable on the 2020 Bedroom B Lease Agreement (if Defendants were to pursue a

breach of contract action against him) because his new lease did not indicate his unit and bedroom number.  

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 10 of 21
11 

so), those possessions were locked inside, but only after Defendants clearly communicated to 

Plaintiff what they were doing in order to give him the opportunity to remove his belongings from 

the second bedroom. Defendants contacted Plaintiff on multiple occasions to coordinate a time to 

unlock the bedroom so that Plaintiff could retrieve his items, but predictably, Plaintiff was not 

cooperative. Id. ¶ 9. 

Plaintiff was essentially holding Bedroom 816-B hostage. He signed a lease agreement 

with no intention of paying rent. When this happens in student housing, the economic damage 

done by such an act is hard to recover from because students have, by that time, already found a 

place to live. Students do not typically move in after the school year begins. This makes mitigating 

damages for lost rent difficult. For this reason, when a resident fails to show up or collect keys 

after signing a student lease agreement, the breach of contract makes the total amount of rent 

immediately due and payable, which will be sent to an attorney to get a judgment on a breach of 

contract action, or, more typically, sent to a collections agency to handle. Rankin Affidavit, ¶ 5. 

When Plaintiff did this to CL Gainesville, CL Gainesville sent the contract to collections, which 

is consistent with standard operating procedure and Plaintiff’s lease agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6. 

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Standard for Summary Judgment 

Defendants must demonstrate “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and they 

are “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary Judgment is 

appropriate where the record reflects there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). A fact is "material" if, 

under the applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case. Hickson Corp. v. N. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 11 of 21
12 

Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2004). A dispute of fact is "genuine" if "the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). 

In order to survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff must show a prima facie 

case of racial discrimination. In order to show a prima facia case, the Plaintiff must show that the 

housing practice was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose or must show it has a 

disproportionate adverse impact on minorities. Smith v Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1044, 1065, 

(4 Cir 1972), Betsey v Turtle Creek Associates, 736 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1984). 

B. The Commission Found in Defendants’ Favor on Nearly Identical Claims to 

the Claims Asserted in this Action. 

As stated above, Mr. Smith filed a fair housing claim with HUD nearly simultaneously 

with filing this lawsuit. Dolan Affidavit, ¶ 6. As in this action, Plaintiff alleged racial 

discrimination with respect to how much rent he was being charged. After its investigation, which 

included interviews of CL Gainesville staff, the Commission found in Defendants’ favor. See 

Dolan Affidavit, ¶ 6. 

Although Plaintiff labeled it “harassment” in the fair housing claim, and not “retaliation” 

as he alleges in this action, the fair housing “harassment” claim is nearly identical to the retaliation 

claim alleged herein (with the exception of the claim’s nexus to the 3 Day Notice to Vacate and 

Plaintiff’s account being sent to collections”). He complains of unauthorized entry to his unit; and 

he complains about CL Gainesville cutting off his access to Bedroom 816-B (despite the fact that 

he did not have a lease agreement in place for that bedroom). Once again, the Commission found 

in Defendants’ favor. Id. It appears that Mr. Smith’s “harassment” claim, asserted prior to his 

account being sent to collections for failure to pay first month’s rent, somehow evolved into a 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 12 of 21
13 

retaliation claim, even though his account had yet to be sent to collections when CL Gainesville 

was trying to “turn” his unit. Accordingly, the only logical facts relevant to Plaintiff’s retaliation 

claim is the fact the Defendants posted a 3-Day notice to vacate Bedroom 816-B and sent his 

account to collections. But as demonstrated herein, the 3-Day notice to vacate and sending his 

account to collections was done in strict compliance with company policy, not in retaliation for 

trying to exercise his civil rights. 

The Commission’s informed judgment in the Plaintiff’s fair housing case is entitled to 

respect and a certain amount of deference. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S. Ct. 161 

(1944). The Commission thoroughly investigated the matter and based its judgment on valid 

reasoning (based on the clear evidence provided to the Commission). Accordingly, Defendants’ 

respectfully request that this Honorable Court not upturn the Commission’s well-reasoned 

judgment. 

C. There is No Genuine Issue of Fact Regarding Whether Defendants 

Discriminated Against Plaintiff on Account of his Race. 

Plaintiff’s discrimination claim is informed by, and premised upon, conversations “with a 

few other tenants of different races”. Doc 16, Amended Complaint, p. 10. These few other 

residents apparently told him that they are paying $30-$40 less than him in monthly rent. Id. This 

is the full extent of Plaintiff’s allegation. He does not allege he is similarly situated to the other 

residents; nor does he allege that he leased the same unit type and signed his lease around the same 

period of time as these other tenants. A discrimination claim devoid of the most basic of factual 

development and based on such a flawed foundation should be dismissed as a matter of law. 

In any event, Defendants did not discriminate against Plaintiff; nor was it possible for 

Defendants to discriminate against Plaintiff in the manner he has alleged. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 13 of 21
14 

In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, the U.S. 

Supreme Court established that the legal framework for discrimination cases brought under the 

Fair housing Act of 1968 is a three-part burden of proof test. Plaintiff must prove that: (1) he is a 

member of a protected class; (2) that he applied for and was qualified to rent the property; (3) he 

was rejected and/or disparately treated; and (4) the rental property remained available thereafter 

and/or others similarly situated received more favorable treatment. See, also, Selden Apartments 

v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (1986), 785 F. 2d 152, 159. 

Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the Defendants to articulate 

some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged discriminatory behavior. McDonald 

Douglas, at 802. Defendants’ burden at that point consists of producing evidence which would 

allow the fact finder to rationally conclude that the alleged discriminatory act had not been 

motivated by discrimination. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981), 450 U.S. 248, 

254-257, 101 S. Ct. 1089. However, the ultimate burden of persuading the fact finder that 

Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff remains, at all times, with Plaintiff. St. 

Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993), 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S. Ct. 2742. 

Plaintiff cannot establish that those similarly situated to him received more favorable 

treatment. Review of CL Gainesville’s leasing records shows that Plaintiff received the same deal 

on his 2020 BR A Lease Agreement and his 2020 BR B Lease Agreement as other “similarly 

situated residents” (i.e., residents who signed their 2020-2021 lease agreement for the same 

floorplan as Plaintiff around the same period of time). Id. at ¶ 13. For example: 

 Audun Cowart, a Caucasian resident, signed a lease agreement on 

February 6, 2020 for bedroom B in unit #518, which is the same 2x2 floorplan as 

Plaintiff’s, for $615.00/month. See Id. at ¶13. Also note that because this was Mr. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 14 of 21
15 

Cowart’s first lease agreement, and not a renewal lease, the agreement does not 

indicate the exact unit number and bedroom assignment, which is consistent with 

Plaintiff’s lease, standard operating procedure, and all the leases described below. 

Id. 

 Haily Woodbury - a Caucasian resident, signed a lease agreement 

on April 27, 2020 for bedroom A in unit #916, which is the same 2x2 floorplan, for 

$615.00/month. Id. 

 Juny Wang – an Asian resident, signed a lease agreement on March 

25, 2020 for bedroom A in unit #528, which is the same 2x2 floorplan, for 

$615.00/month. Id. 

 Spencer Durbin - a Caucasian resident, signed a lease agreement on 

April 27, 2020 for bedroom B in unit #916, which is the same 2x2 floorplan, for 

$615.00/month. Id. 

It may be true that the other residents Plaintiff spoke to may have a different rental rate 

than what was provided to him. But those other residents likely signed their lease agreements at a 

different time and/or for a different floorplan, making them not “similarly situated”. In any event, 

the facts demonstrate that Plaintiff was not discriminated against on account of his race as he 

received the same rental rate as other residents that we know to be “similarly situated”, regardless 

of race. 

 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts other than a blanket statement that a few other tenants 

are paying “$30-$40 less” than Defendant. Plaintiff has not, and cannot, cite any facts, allege any 

practices, or list anything that would lead one to conclude that his rental rate was somehow 

influenced by his race. And, in fact, it would be impossible for CL Gainesville to discriminate on 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 15 of 21
16 

the basis of race because those individuals that are setting the rates do not know the races of the 

individuals that will eventually lease a unit of a particular tier or floor plan. Accordingly, as there 

are no issues of material fact pertaining to Plaintiff’s discrimination claim, Defendants respectfully 

request that this Court issue judgment in their favor on Plaintiff’s frivolous claim of discrimination. 

D. There is No Genuine Issue of Fact Regarding Whether Defendants 

Retaliated Against Plaintiff on Account of his Protected Conduct. 

Plaintiff first alleges that Defendants retaliated against him by entering his apartment 

illegally and locking bedroom B’s door. However, Defendants were justified in their actions for 

multiples reasons: (i) Defendants have a right to enter Plaintiff’s apartment for required 

maintenance per the terms of the lease agreement; (ii) Defendants always provided notice of when 

then they needed to enter Plaintiff’s unit to perform maintenance; (iii) Plaintiff did not have a 

lawful possessory interest to the bedroom he complains he was locked out of against his wishes; 

(iv) regardless of whether Plaintiff filed his fair housing claim or this lawsuit, Defendants were 

simply following their student turn policy. 

Before Plaintiff could proceed with taking possession of bedroom B, CL Gainesville staff 

had to conduct the “turning” process. As explained above, the turning process is a standard 

procedure for student housing providers preparing for the new school year. On July 8, 2020, 

Plaintiff emailed CL Gainesville staff claiming that someone unlawfully entered his unit, but Mr. 

Morales had entered the unit to conduct his portion of the turning process, which is allowed by 

language in the lease agreement. Id. at ¶7. Mr. Morales was checking to see if Plaintiff’s roommate 

was still present in the unit or if he left keys or belongings. Mr. Morales appropriately knocked on 

the door, waited, and opened the door, where he was met by Plaintiff, who prevented his entry. Id. 

Mr. Morales politely agreed to come back the next day. Id. Mr. Morales attempting to enter the 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 16 of 21
17 

unit was entirely justified and necessary to execute the turning process. Id. It is of the utmost 

importance to CL Gainesville that tenants feel that they respect their privacy, and tenants know 

that staff members would not enter their units unless it is for a legitimate, lawful purpose. Id. 

Furthermore, on August 3, 2020, Plaintiff emailed CL Gainesville staff members to inform them 

that he did not want any vendors entering his unit during “turn.” Id. at ¶8. Plaintiff had rejected 

the painters who were present to conduct their portion of the turning process. Id. Plaintiff’s 

interference with CL Gainesville’s attempts to prepare Bedroom 816-B for its next occupant was 

inappropriate and irrational at best, and a violation of the terms and conditions of his lease 

agreement at worst. 

The turning process is necessary to ensure that all units meet the standards set by Coastal 

Ridge Management; not to mention that Coastal Ridge has a legal duty to ensure that its apartments 

and bedrooms are safe to live in. Id. All units undergo the same turning process when residents 

move out and Bedroom B of Plaintiff’s unit was no exception. Id. Plaintiff turning away vendors 

creates unnecessary inconveniences and expenses for the property because the vendors will have 

to come back to the property on a different day. 

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff emailed again stating that someone had once again illegally 

entered his apartment. However, Plaintiff was notified on July 30 and August 3 by Mr. Hendrix 

via email that vendors would be entering the unit, which Plaintiff admits he received and ignored. 

Hendrix Affidavit, ¶11. 

Plaintiff falsely believes that staff members and vendors entering his apartment during this 

time was unlawful and retaliatory. However, under his signed lease agreements, CL Gainesville 

was legally allowed to enter the unit to conduct the turning process. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 17 of 21
18 

After Plaintiff’s roommate moved out and prior to the commencement of the lease for 

bedroom B, Plaintiff, on his own volition, moved his belongings into the bedroom without consent 

or legal authorization. CL Gainesville had every right to lock the door to prevent Plaintiff from 

utilizing bedroom B until the commencement of his lease because he was not paying rent for the 

space until August 17, 2020. 

Despite requesting that he be able to occupy the entire unit alone and executing the 2020 

BR B Lease Agreement, Plaintiff inexplicably chose to not pick up the keys to the bedroom or 

submit any payment of rent. Plaintiff’s actions, or lack thereof, rendered him a “no show” for 

bedroom B, meaning that Plaintiff skipped out on his contractual obligation to pay rent. Rankin 

Affidavit, ¶ 5. When an individual such as Plaintiff is considered a “no show,” the amount due 

under the contract is accelerated and usually sent to collections or an attorney to get a judgement 

for damages. After Plaintiff no showed for bedroom B, Mr. Spence reached out to Plaintiff about 

retrieving his belongings from bedroom B on October 6, 2020. Id. Plaintiff responded that he 

would let Mr. Spence know when he was available, but Plaintiff demanded no further contact with 

Mr. Spence because he was named in the frivolous fair housing complaint and the present lawsuit. 

Id. 

Plaintiff also alleges that Coastal Ridge’s General Counsel, Ryan G. Dolan, retaliated 

against him by using intimidation tactics. This was not retaliation. Mr. Dolan was simply trying to 

do his job. Mr. Dolan tried many times to contact Plaintiff to discuss the fair housing case and this 

litigation, with the hope of an amicable resolution. However, Plaintiff was predictably obstinate 

and irrational. Dolan Affidavit, ¶ 8. Over the course of Plaintiff’s tenancy at CL Gainesville, he 

has demonstrated a pattern of conduct that is irrational and interferes with Defendants good faith 

efforts to provide a clean, safe and healthy living environment for all of CL Gainesville’s residents. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 18 of 21
19 

See, e.g., Rankin Affidavit at Exhibit A (emails regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to abide by Fire 

Marshall Order). More disturbingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has no qualms with being 

dishonest in an apparent effort to perpetuate a fraud upon Defendants and this Honorable Court. 

Id. at ¶ 13; see also, Affidavit of Kevin Schmehl attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 

6. 

Plaintiff also alleges that CL Gainesville’s property manager, Ashley Rankin, filed “false 

documentation”. Doc 16, Amended Complaint, p. 10. The documentation Plaintiff is referring to 

is a three-day Notice to Vacate. Rankin Affidavit, ¶ 5. Plaintiff falsely believes that a CDC 

Declaration prevented him from being evicted from bedroom B. Id. Mr. Dolan explained to 

Plaintiff that the CDC Declaration was irrelevant to bedroom B because Plaintiff had never 

formally taken possession of Bedroom B nor was he living in Bedroom B. Id. Ms. Rankin’s acts 

were completely justified given that Plaintiff had failed to legally take possession and pay rent for 

bedroom B. Id. Ms. Rankin sending the Notice to Vacate was standard procedure for CL 

Gainesville. Id. “Failure to pay rent provides [Defendants] with a legitimate, no-discriminatory 

reason for . . . any allegedly retaliatory conduct.” Ward v. Dickens, 2012 WL 1038184, 3 (W.D. 

Ky. 2012). 

Plaintiff alleges that roaming property manager, Kelvin Hendrix, retaliated against him by 

claiming nonpayment of rent. Mr. Hendrix was correct in asserting that Plaintiff had not paid his 

full rent because there was an outstanding balance on his account. Plaintiff had signed two lease 

agreements, and by signing these binding agreements, he agreed to pay $1,230 for the entire unit, 

which he failed to do. Again, Defendants’ actions were taken in accordance with Coastal Ridge 

policy, not in retaliation for filing this suit or the Fair Housing Case. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 19 of 21
20 

The mere fact that Plaintiff filed a fair housing claim with HUD and a complaint with this 

Honorable Court does not allow him to disregard his contractual duty to pay rent. Nor does it 

somehow provide Plaintiff with access to and legal possession of a bedroom he has yet to pay 

for. Nor does it empower Plaintiff to bar CL Gainesville staff from entering the unit to carry out 

required yearly maintenance. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff has failed to provide, nor could he provide, any facts which would show that 

Defendants treated Plaintiff differently or that Defendants have any practice which is racially 

motivated or would have a disproportionate impact on Plaintiff or any minority. Conversely, 

Defendants have provided ample evidence showing: (1) Plaintiff was treated the same as similarly 

situated residents; and because of Coastal Ridge’s tiered rate approach to leasing, and because of 

who is responsible for setting lease rates (i.e., corporate staff who never meet or would never know 

the race of an applicant or resident, and certainly do not know Plaintiff), it is not possible for 

Coastal Ridge or CL Gainesville to discriminate against a resident in the manner alleged by 

Plaintiff; and (3) all alleged retaliatory actions by Defendants were in fact done pursuant to Coastal 

Ridge policy and authorized by Plaintiff’s lease agreements. Plaintiff’s race was irrelevant to his 

failure to pay rent and Defendants’ need to access the unit to perform maintenance. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants, Campus Lodge Gainesville and Coastal Ridge Real 

estate, by and through counsel respectfully, requests that the Court enter an Order granting their 

Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice; awarding 

Defendants the costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and granting such 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 This 5th day of April, 2021 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 20 of 21
21 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Cruikshank Ersin, LLC 

 /s/ Elizabeth Cruikshank 

 Elizabeth Cruikshank, Esq. 

 FBN 120345 

 beth@cruikshankersin.com

 6065 Roswell Rd, Ste 680 

 Atlanta, GA 30328 

 770.884.8184 

 770.884.8113 (Facsimile) 

 Attorney for Defendants. 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 04/05/21 Page 21 of 21