IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.:

ALAN ORIA, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

SUNCREST TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM INC., 

a Florida non-profit corporation, 

Defendant. 

_______________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

Plaintiff, Alan Oria, an individual (“plaintiff”) sues the defendant, Suncrest Townhouse 

Condominium, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation (hereinafter “defendant association”) for 

damages arising from the association’s violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act, or 42 U.S.C. 

§3604 (hereinafter “the act”) and demands a trial by jury regarding all issues so triable as follows.

INTRODUCTION, VENUE AND JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 

1. This is an action for damages associated with the association’s conduct of violating

the act and by discriminating against the owner based on the plaintiff’s handicap. 

2. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction arising from the violation of the act.

3. The plaintiff resides within the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida.

4. The defendant association performs the operation and management of that certain

building located within the Miami Division, Southern District of Florida. 

5. The plaintiff, as tenant, contracted with a certain unit owner within the building for

the lease of certain property within the building. The contract with the property owner is subject 

to the defendant association’s governing documents and its rules and regulations. The governing 

documents are published and recorded in the public records of Miami-Dade County, Southern 

District of Florida. The governing documents are attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”. 

Case 1:22-cv-23364-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2022 Page 1 of 5
Oria vs. Suncrest Townhouse Condominium Inc. 

Case No.: 

2

6. Venue properly lies in the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida 

because the parties are residing and/or are doing business in the Southern District of Florida, Miami 

Division, and the residential property is located within the Miami Division of the Southern District 

of Florida. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 

7. The act prohibits discrimination based on disability in all types of housing 

transactions1. The act defines persons with a disability to mean those individuals with a mental 

or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The term mental 

or physical impairment may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility 

impairment, HIV Infection, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue, 

learning disability, head injury, and mental illness. The term “major life activity” may include 

seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning, 

speaking, or working. 

8. The rules and regulations of the defendant association include, without limitation,

those governing applications for sales or leases within the units of the building. 

9. The plaintiff, as prospective tenant, sought to lease a unit within the building and 

complied with the defendant association’s rules and regulations through, without limitation, the 

completion of an application for occupancy dated April 28, 2021. The plaintiff is also disabled, 

as that term is defined and recognized by the act, because his leg was amputated. He also has a 

prosthetic leg and a service dog. As a result, the plaintiff completed applications including a 

request for reasonable accommodation and an animal registration form on May 13, 2021.

10. The defendant association reviewed the applications for housing and, while the 

application was originally denied, it was later reversed and the plaintiff, therefore, was permitted 

to reside in the building. 

 1 The Fair Housing Act (justice.gov)

Case 1:22-cv-23364-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2022 Page 2 of 5
Oria vs. Suncrest Townhouse Condominium Inc. 

Case No.: 

3

11. The plaintiff accepted residency and complied with all terms and conditions

contained in the lease and the rules and regulations governing the defendant association. 

12. As a result, in the summer of 2022, the property owner initiated an intent to renew

the lease with the plaintiff. 

13. The defendant association’s governing documents and/or rules and regulations do

not vest the defendant association with the authority to approve or disapprove a renewal of a lease 

with a property owner within the building. 

14. Yet, on February 22, 2022, the defendant association, through its counsel, issued a

letter. The letter provided pretexual reasons for the defendant association to violate its own 

governing documents and its rules and regulations by refusing to approve the renewal of the lease 

between the plaintiff and the property owner of the unit within the building. 

16. On or about May 14, 2022, the plaintiff was forced to vacate the unit due to the

conduct of the defendant association. 

17. The plaintiffs have retained the undersigned law firm and has agreed to pay the

undersigned law firm a reasonable fee for the services. 

18. All conditions precedent has been met or has otherwise been waived or satisfied.

COUNT I—VIOLATION OF 42 USCA §3604(f)(1) and (f)(2)

19. Plaintiffs readopt and reincorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 18, inclusive, as if specifically incorporated herein. 

20. Plaintiffs bring a cause of action sounding in the violation of 42 USCA §3604(f)(1)

and (f)(2) against the defendant association. 

21. Subsection 1 of section (f) of the act provides that is unlawful. . ..to discriminate in

the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter 

because of a handicap of, in part, (i) a renter; (ii) a person residing in or intending to reside in 

that dwelling after it is. . ..rented or made available or (iii) any person associated with the buyer 

or renter”. Subsection 2 of section (f) of the act further provides that is unlawful to “discriminate 

Case 1:22-cv-23364-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2022 Page 3 of 5
Oria vs. Suncrest Townhouse Condominium Inc. 

Case No.: 

4

against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the 

provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of—(i) 

that person; (ii) a person residing in or intending to reside in the building after it is sold, rented, 

or made available or (iii) any person associated with that person. Subsection 3 of section (f) of 

the act defines the term “discrimination” to include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations 

in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford 

such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling”.

22. Plaintiff is a person with a disability that was discriminated by the defendant 

association in the continued occupancy of the property within the building through refusing to 

provide further accommodations on the basis of his disability. 

23. As a direct and proximate result of the association’s violation of the act, the plaintiff

has been damaged. 

DEMAND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

24. Plaintiffs further demand reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs necessitated by 

bringing the pending action against the defendant association. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment finding that the defendant association’s 

conduct is a violation of the Act and further demands any further relief, including actual damages 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses that the Court deems fair, just, and equitable. 

COUNT II—VIOLATION OF 42 USCA § 3617

25. Plaintiff readopts and reincorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 18, inclusive, as if specifically incorporated herein. 

26. Plaintiff brings a cause of action sounding in the violation of 42 USCA § 3617 

against the defendant association. 

27. Defendant association violated 42 USCA § 3617 by engaging in a systematic and 

continuous course of dealing designed to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with the Plaintiff 

in their exercise or enjoyment of residing in the defendant association through its conduct of 

Case 1:22-cv-23364-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2022 Page 4 of 5
Oria vs. Suncrest Townhouse Condominium Inc. 

Case No.: 

5

violating the governing documents by denying the renewal of the lease between the plaintiff and 

the property owner based on the plaintiff’s disability. 

28. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, the plaintiffs have incurred

damages. 

DEMAND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

29. Plaintiff demands reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs necessitated by bringing the

pending action against defendant association. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment finding that the defendant association’s 

conduct is in violation of 42 USCA § 3617 and further demands any further relief, including actual 

and punitive damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses that the Court deems 

fair, just, and equitable. 

Dated this the 15

th day of October, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICES OF 

GEOFFREY D. ITTLEMAN, P.A. 

955 S. Federal Highway, Suite 339

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Tel: (954) 462-8340

Fax: (954) 324-2037

geoffrey@ittlemanlaw.com

-andOMID JOHN, P.A.

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 205-4247

esq@omidjohn.com

By: /s/ Geoffrey Ittleman

Geoffrey D. Ittleman, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 377790

Omid J. Esmailzadegan, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 1004142

Case 1:22-cv-23364-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2022 Page 5 of 5