The Hon. G ordon J. Quis t, United States D is tric t Judge for the Wester n District of Michig an, * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0061n.06 No. 09-4036 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
OVERL OOK MUTU AL

HOMES, I

NC., Plaintiff-Appellee , v. VI CKI E L . SPENCER , individually and as par ent and natural g uardia n of L YN SEY SPEN CER , De fe nd ant/ Counte rc la im Pl a int if fs - Ap pe lla nt, and JOEY SPEN CER , Counte rc la im Pl a int if

f - Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern Di str ic t of

Oh io

Be fo re : BO GG S an d M C KE AG UE , C i rc u i tJ u d ges ; an d QU I S T , Di s t ri ct J u d ge * BO GGS, Circuit J u d ge. Vi ckie Spenc er a ppeals the district c ourt’s holding that Over look Mu tua l H ome s, I nc . ( “ Ov e rl oo k” ), a no n- pr of it mutu a l ho us ingc or

po ratio n, did

no t c onstru c tiv e ly deny her r equest for a rea sonable acc ommodation f or her daug hter’s disability under the Fa ir Housing Act (“ FHA ”) a

nd Ohio’s fa ir housing la

w. As no rea sonable jury

could find that Ove rlook denied the reque st, we af

firm the district cour

t’s g rant of judg ment as a matter of law for Ove rlook.No. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 2 -

I The fa cts of this case are draw n from evidence presente d during a jury trial held on Jul y

23-24, 20 09 . Re vie wi nga

g ra nt o f j ud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l aw, we vie w the evi dence in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the Spenc ers, the non- moving pa rties. See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 50(a)

. Vickie Spenc er ha s been a resident of Over look near ly her e ntire life. He r husband joined he r there in 1994, and their daug hter, L y nsey , was born in 1996. Acc ording to the Spencer s, L y nsey has suffe red f rom an a nx iety disorder since 2004 and has be en tre ated by a psy cholog ist since 2005. The family adopted a

dog , a cocka

poo named Scooby , in October 2005. They

admit that the dog was not
o r i g i n a l l y p r e s c r i b e d b y a m e d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l b u t

c l a i m t h a tS c o o b y h a d

a c a l m i n g e f

f e c to nL yn s e y,
a llo wi nghe r t o r e ma in i n a ro om a lon e and

sle e p in he r o wn be d. I n 2 00 7, a c c or din g to t he Spe nc e rs , L y nsey ’s psy cholog ist re commended that the family use Scooby as a compa nion or emotional support animal to fac ilitate L y

nsey ’s treatment. Th e Spe nc e rs kn e w wh e n the y a do pte d Sc oo by

that O ve rl oo k h a d a

lon g -s tand ing“ no pe t” rule. At fir st, awar e of no e x ceptions to the rule f or persons with disabiliti es, t hey denied having the d o g i n t h eir re sidence . After rec eiving a wa

rning from Ove rlook’s mana g ement, they sent the dog
awa y , but found that L y

nsey ’s sy mptoms worsened. The Miami Valley Fa ir Housing Center (MVF HC) advised the m that Scooby could qualify

as an a ccommodation of L y nsey ’s di sability

under the FH A. The Spenc ers br oug ht the dog back into their home in Aug ust 2007, at which time the MVFH C made a r equest on their be half to Ove rlook for an ac commodation. I n a letter to Overlook dated August 1, 20 0 7 , MVFH C President J im McCarthy stated that Ly

nsey was re ceiving psy cholog ical counseling and that her psy cholog ist ha d rec ommended that she have a “ co m p anionNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 3 - animal/service dog to fac ilitate her tre atment.” The letter a d v i s ed Ov erlook that such an
acc ommodation was requir ed by the FH A. Attache d was a letter from L y nsey ’s psy cholog ist, stating that she had e valuated L

y nsey and re commended a

“ser vice dog .” On Aug ust 10, 2007, Overlook’s leg al counse l replied to McCar thy , stating: “Ove rlook has established a po l i cy all owing disabled re sidents needinga ser vice a nimal to apply

for a waiver .” Ov e rl oo k to ld t

he Spe nc e rs to sub mit a wa ive r re qu e st to Ove rl oo k’ s Bo ard of Tr us te e s, a lon g wi th additional information, including a diag nosis of L y nsey ’s medical c ondition, contact information for her me dical provide rs, a de scription of the tre atment L y nsey was re ceiving , a d escription of the
serv i ce s p rovided by

the dog and the tra ining it had r ece ived, and Ly nsey ’s school and me dical
rec ords. The le tter stated that the r equeste d information was to be sent by Aug ust 24, 2007, adding that Over look would “re fra in f rom instit uting eviction proc eeding s” pendingthe Spence rs’ re sponse. Mc Carthy repl ied in a

le tte r d a te d A ugus t 23 , 2 00 7, statin g that th e Vi c kie Spe nc e r w ou ld submit a waiver r equest, but that Ove rlook was not entitled to all the docume nts and information reque sted. He e nclosed a copy of the F HA g uidelines i s s u ed b y t h e De partment of Justice and the Depa rtment of Housing and Ur

ban De velopment. See Joint State m e nt

o f H U D and DO J, “R e a so na

ble Ac c omm od a tio ns Un de r t he F a ir Ho us ingAc t” (M ay

14 , 200 4) (“ Joint

State me nt” ). Mc Cart

hy a lso explained that Scooby

was not a specia lly -traine d “ser vice animal,” but a “companion animal” that provid e d “ e mo ti o n a l s u

p p o rt an d c o mp an io n s h ip

. ” H e s tate d th a t L y n s e y w a s b e in g tr e ated f or “anxiety disorder a

nd other neurolog ical and e motional conditions t hat impact her ability to car e for hers elf and lea rn , b oth

of wh ic h a re of c e ntr a l im

po rt anc e to h e r d a ily

lif e , a nd thu s are c le a rl yNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 4 - re c og nize d a s ‘ ma

jor lif e a c tiv iti e s. ’” Th e do g , he e xpla ine d, “ a me lio rate s th e e ff e c ts o f h e r d isa

bil ity throug h its mere pre sence and her interac tions with i t.” Vickie Spenc er submitted a wa iver re quest f o r m o n Aug ust 31, 2007, ag ain stating that L y nsey suffere d fr o m “a n x i et y

d i s o rd er , n eu ro l o gi ca l & em o t i o n al co n d i t i o n s ” a n d t h at “[t] he dog

ameliora tes the e ff e c ts o f L y ns e y ’s c on dit ion

thr ou g h it s pres ence and int e ra c tio n w ithhe r. ” Th e fo rm a lso provided the name of L y

nsey ’s ps y cholog ist. Around the same time, Vickie Spenc er f iled housing discrimination char g es ag ainst Overlook with the Ohio Civil Rights Commi ssion (OCRC). The B oard c onsidered the reque st on September 4, 2007. I t determined that it needed additional information bef ore r eac hing a

decision and a

uthorized a lawsuit should the information not be for thcoming. I

n a letter dated Septembe r 11, 2007, Over look’s counsel a g ain re quested a signe d rele ase that would allow the B oard to obtain Ly nsey ’s medica l and counse l i n g re co rd s . The letter stated that the waiver application would “re main pending ” until the rec ords wer e provide d and that if the re quested infor

mation was not provided, Ove rlook would “file su i t to obtain these re cords.” After rec eiving this letter, Vickie Spenc er a nd the Miami V alley Fa ir Housing Center r etained counsel. In a letter to Over look dated September 25, 2007, their attorne y

expressed conc ern “ about the inv a siv e ne ss of the inq uir y . . . int o L y

ns e y ’s me dic a l re c or ds ” and pr op os e d a con feren ce ca ll with L y nsey ’s psy cholog ist as an alter native. The proposed telephone confe renc e did not take place

. Over look did not begin e viction proce eding s ag ainst the S pence rs, nor did i t make an of ficial de cision on the accommodation reque st. I nstead, on October 18, 2007, it filed suit aga inst Vickie Spence r for a dec laratory

judgme nt that it was not require d to make the r equeste d acc ommodation.No. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 5 - Over look asked the district c ourt to decla re that (1) “O verlook must be provide d with medical and counse ling r ecor ds maintained by [L y nsey ’s] psy cholog ist;” (2) “O verlook’s r eq u es t t o be pr ov ide d with c op ie s of me dic a l and c ouns e lin g re c or ds ” did no t viol a te ho us ingdis c ri min a tio n la ws ; (3) “ Over look is not obl igated to waive its no pet rule” should the Spencer s fail to provide “ sufficie nt medical a nd counseling rec ords;” and ( 4) “the dog

. . . is not a service animal as def ined by law, and does not qualify as a r easona ble ac commodation.” Spence r, joined by her husba nd, counter -cla imed. The Sp en ce rs al l eged that, under the F HA and the Ohio fair housing law, Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(H), O verlook’s f ailure to make a r ea sonable a ccommodation denie d L y nsey “an e qual opportunity

to use and e njoy

a dwe lling unit, and ca

used anxi et y an d co n cer

n on the par

t of her pare nts . . . beca

use they believed the family ’s hous ing would be put at risk if they allowed Ly nsey to ke e p he r e mot ion a l su

pp or t anim a l.” Th e y a lso a lle g e d that Ov e rl oo k ne g lig e ntl y fa ile d to tra in its employ ees “ reg ardingthe re quirements of f eder al and state fa i r h o u sing la ws.” The Spencer s
c la ime d to have su ff

e re d “ me nta l anguis h and e mot ion a l dis tr e ss, and the a tte nd ant p hy sic a l in

jur ie s” and soug ht injunctive relief, statutory and punitive damag es, costs, and attorney ’s fe es. Ov e rl oo k mov e d fo r su

mma ry jud g me nt on its ow n c la ims and the Spe nc e rs ’ c ounte rc la ims , on the g rounds that (1) it wa s entitled to obta in inf ormation nece ssary to evaluate Vickie Spenc er’ s reque st; (2) an a

nimal must have training to serve a s a “se rvice animal,” a s require d by the re g ulations of the Ame rica

ns with Disabiliti es Act (ADA); and (3) it had not been ne g lige nt and had take n no action causing the Spencer s harm. The district c ourt denied the motion, holding that, first, there was a question of mate rial fa ct as to whe ther the infor mation sought b y

Over look was nec essar

y , g iven that Over look did not take advanta g e of the opportunity to speak with L y nsey ’s psy cholog ist. S econd,No. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 6 - the cour t held that it was not nece ssary for Scooby to be a trained “servic e animal” in order to qua lify
as a r easona

ble ac commodation under the FHA. Finally , the cour t found that there wer e g enuine issues of mater ial fac t as to whether Over look vi o lated a duty and whe ther the Spenc ers suff ere d harm. The case proce eded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the prese ntation of evi d en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt grant e d O ve rl oo k’ s mo tio n f or jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l aw o n th e Spe nc e rs ’ counter claims, pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 50( a). T h e co urt explained that the Spencer s had to establish five e lements in order to prove that Ove rlook had violated the FHA , thus entitling the Spencer s to damag es and attorney ’s fe es: (1) L y nsey was disabled w ithin the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) O verlook kne w or should rea sonably be expected to have known of the dis a bil ity ; (3 ) the re qu e ste d a c c omm od a tio n w a s n e c e ssa ry to a ff or d Ly ns e y an e qu a l op po rt

un ity to use and e njoy

the dwelling ; ( 4) the acc ommodation wa s rea sonable; and ( 5) Ove rlook ref used to make the ac commodation. The court found t hat, although a reasona ble jury could find for

the Spence rs on t h e f i r s tf o u r e l e m e n t s , t h e y h a d

p r o d u c e d i n s u f f i c i e n tp r o o f

th a tO v e r l o o k

h a d a c tu a l l y denied the ir reque st for a r easona

ble ac commodation. Rather than de ny ing t h e re q u est , the cour t rea soned, Over look had soug ht guida nce from t he court on an unsettl ed question of l aw: whe ther a companion animal must be a spec ially trained “ service animal” in orde r to qualify as an acc ommodation under the F HA . T he c ourt the re fo re e nte re d ju dg me nt a s a matte r o f l aw f

or Ov e rl oo k. Th e Spe nc e rs tim e ly appea led.No. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 7 -

II The sole issue before this court is whether the di strict court e rre d in holding that, as a matter of law, O verlook did not constructively deny the re quest for a

rea sonable a ccommodation by delay ing making a dec ision on the request, re questing s ch o o l and medica l rec ords, and f iling suit for a decla ratory judgme nt. We r eview the district c ourt’s g rant of judgme nt a s a matter of law de novo. Kusens v. Pascal Co., 44 8 F .3 d 3 49 , 3 60 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6)

. Judg me nt a s a ma tte r of law i s a pp ro pr ia te i f “are as o n ab l e j u ry

wo u l d n o th av e al ega l l y

s u ff i ci en tev i d en t i ary

b as i s t o fi n d

fo r [ t h e n o n -m o v i n g] party ” on an issue e ssential to a claim. F ed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). III As amende d by

the Fa ir Housing Amendments Ac t of 1988, the FHA prohibits discrimination “ag ainst any

person in the ter

ms, conditions, or privilege s of sale or renta l o f a dwelling, or

in the provision of servic es or f

acilities in connec tion with such dw elling, beca use of a handica

p . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) . Such discrimination includes “a ref usal to make re asonable acc ommodations in rules, policies, pra ctices, or service s, when such a ccommodations m ay be necessar y to affor d such person e qual opportunity

to use and e njoy

a dwe lling.” Id. § 3604(f) (3)( B) . To prove that a housing provider f ailed to reasonably acc ommodate a disability , a plainti ff must prove that: (1) she suffer s from a disa

bility within the meaning of F HA; (2) the defe ndant knew o r reasonably should have known of the disability ; (3 ) t h e re quested a ccommodation may be nec essar

y to affor d “an e qual opportunity

to use and e njoy

the dwelling ;” (4 ) the ac commodation is reasona ble; and (5) theNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

Th e Oh io F a ir Ho us ing Ac t is su bs tanti ve ly ide nti c a l to the F HA
. Ac c or din g ly , our a na ly sis 2 of the latter

applies to the Ohio law. Se e Gr on e r v. Gol den Gate G ar de ns Ap ar tm e nts , 250 F.3d 1039, 1041, 1047 (6th Cir. 2001) (c alling O hio’s law “a nalog ous” and “ equiva l en t” to the FH A); Carte r v . R us so Re altor

s , 2 00 1 WL

53 70 19 , at *1 (O hio Ap p. 20 01 ) ( “ Cha pte r 4 11 2 p ro pe rl y

is interpre ted in ref

ere nce to f

eder al law.” ). This document i s a p olicy statement, not an a

uthoritative interpre tation of § 3604. See 3 Christ ensen v . Harris Cnty. , 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (“[I ]nt erpr etations contained i n p o l icy statements, ag ency

manuals, and enfor ceme nt guidelines, all of which lack the forc e of law[,] do not wa rr ant Chevron -s tyle defe renc e.”) . I t may of cour se, have the “po we r to persuade .” Se e ibi d

. (c i t i n g Skidmore v . Swift

& Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)).

- 8 - defe ndant re fused to make the ac commodation. Dubois v. Ass’n. o f Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua , 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 ( 9th Cir. 2005). 2 Th e ma tte r be fo re us inv olv e s on ly the la st of the e le me nts lis te d a bo ve : w he the r a

re a so na ble jury could find that Ove rlook “re fused” to ma k e t h e ac commodation reque sted. I n analy zing the issue, we consider (1) the extent to which Over look de lay ed and obstructed the proce ss of neg otiation
ov e r the re qu e ste d ac c omm od a tio n by fi lin g the laws uit ; (2) the state of the law at th e tim e the su it was filed r eg ardingwhether a compa

nion animal needed s p ecial training to qualify as an
acc ommodation; and (3) the fac t that the Spencer s were not evicted, nor was Scooby

remove d from their home. We first consider O verlook’s f ailure to re spond promptly to the Spencer s’ re quest. The Joint Statement issued by

HUD a nd the DOJ, a copy

of which Mc Carthy

provided to Ove rlook, indicates 3 that a housing provider “has an obligation to provide prompt response s to rea sonable a ccommodation
re qu e sts . A n und

ue de lay in r e sp on din g to a

re a so na ble a c c omm od a tio n r e qu e st m ay be de e me d to be a f ail ure to provide a re asonable acc ommodation.” J oint St atement at 11. Moreover , the J ointNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 9 - State me nt s ta te s th a t a

“ fa ilure to r e a c h an a g re e me nt o n a n a c c omm od a tio n r e qu e st i s in e ff e c t a decision by

the provider

not to gr ant the re quested a ccommodation.” Id. at 9. A housing provider, h o we v er , i s en t i t l edt o s ee k i n fo rm at i o nfr o m an al l ege d l y d i s ab l edp erson in order to e stablish the exi stence of the disability and the ne cessity of the a ccommodation. Ac cording to the J oint St atement, [I ]n response to a r equest for a re asonable acc ommodation, a housing pr ovider may reque st reliable disabil i t y -related information that (1) is nece ssary to verify that the person mee ts the Act’s de fini t i o n o f d isability . . . , (2) de scribes the neede d acc ommodation, and (3) sho ws the re lationship between the person’ s disability and the nee d for the r equeste d acc ommodation. Id. at 13. This inquiry

need not be highly

intrusive. “In most cases, a n individual’s medical re cords or deta iled information about the nature of a person’ s disability

is not necessa

ry . . . .” Id. at 13–14. I n thi s c a s e , O v e r lo o k

w a s li k e ly

e n ti tl e d to a s k f o r mo r e in f o r mati o nth anth e Spencer s init i ally provided. The Aug ust 1, 2007, letter from Mc Carthy was the f

irst time Overlook wa s notified of Ly

nsey ’s alleg ed disability

. I t spe cified no diag nosis a nd relied for support on a letter from L y nsey ’s psy cholog ist that merely stated that Ly

nsey was re cei v ing “ psy cholog ical counse ling
s ervices” a

nd require d a “se rvice dog .” This did not allow Over look to verify that a qualify

ing disability exis ted or that the pr oposed ac comm o d at i o n wa s related to the disability . Even a fter
rec eiving McCarthy ’s letter of Aug ust 23, 2007, and the Spence rs’ waiver request of Aug ust 31, 2007, Over look was entitled to ad d i t i o n al i nformation. At the same time, Over look was proba bly not entitled to the broad a cce ss to confidential medica l and school re cords it demande d. I n some circ umstances, a housing pr ovider that re fuses to make a dec ision unless a reque stor pr ov ide s unr e a s o n a

b l y e xc e s s i v e i n f

o r m a tio n c ou ld b e fo un d to have c on str uc tiv e ly de nie d th e re qu e stNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 10 - by “stonewa lling” and s hort-cir cuiting the proce ss. The Spenc ers c laim that Overlook injured the m by keepingthem in limbo, dang ling “the Sword of Damocle s” over their heads. We acknowle dg e that injury may result when a

housing pr ovider u n re asonably delay s responding to a re quest for a n
acc ommodation and that such a delay may amount to a denial. In Gr oo meRe so ur c es Ltd

. v . P ar ish of Jefferson , a par ish that delay ed making a d ecision on a g roup home’s a pplication for a

zoning varia nce f or ninety -five da

y s was held to ha

ve denied a reque st f

or a re asonable acc ommodation. 234 F
. 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 7 ( 5 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. InAstralis Condominium Ass’n. v. Secretary, U .S. Departme nt of Housing and Urban Dev elopment , a c on do min ium a sso c ia tio n’ s y e ar- lon g de lay in g ra nti nga re qu e st for ha ndicappe d parkingspace s constituted a denial. 620 F.3d 62, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2010). Were it not fo r a dd iti on a l f

a c tor s th a t are pr e se nt h e re , th e Spe nc e rs wo uld have pr e se nte d a

jur y iss ue a s to wh e the r O ve rl oo k “ de nie d” the ir re qu e st. Th e se c on d c ir c ums tanc e we c on sid e r i s th e state of the law at th e tim e Ov e rl oo k f ile d it s complaint. I n this case, the district c ourt found that Over look’s need to c larify the law re g ardingthe reque sted ac commodation justified its delay in r esponding to the reque st. I t r easone d that, at the time,

“ the la w w a s qu i t e f

r an k l y f a v o r a b l e t o O v e r l o o k , ” an d

t h a tO v e r l o o k

“ w a s w e l l w i t h i n[i t s ] r i g hts . . . to ge t a cour

t ruling on whether a dog that is the subject of a rea sonable a ccommodation ca n be any companion animal.” I n concludingthat the law “fa vored” Over look, the district court cited Prindable v. Ass’n. of Apartment Owne rs of 2987 Kal akaua , which held that “ evidenc e of individual training ” is requir ed to show that a “ser vice animal” is a r easona

ble ac commodation under the FHA
. 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1256–57 (D. Haw. 2003) , aff ’d on oth e r g

ro un ds su b n om . D ub ois , 453 F.3d at 1179 n.2 (de clining to r eac h issue of “wh et h er the plaintiffs must prove that [a dog ] ‘is anNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

I n their brief

to this court, the Spencer s cite Janush v. Chariti es Housin g De ve lopment 4 Corp. , in wh ic h the c ourt fo un d a tria ble iss ue of fa c t as to whe the r a t e na nt’ s b ir ds and

c a ts c ou ld constitute a re asonable acc ommodation for her mental disability . 169 F. Supp. 2d. 1133, 1136 (N.D

. Cal. 2000) (“ Even if pla i n t i ff ’s animals do not qualify as ser vice a nimals, defenda

nts have not e sta bli sh e d th a t th e re is n o d

uty to r e a so na

bly a c c omm od a te no n- se rv ic e anim a ls. ” ). Th e y a lso c ite two admin is tr a

ti v e la w dec isions holdi ng that landlords must acc ommodate companion a nimals. See Sec’ y , U .S . D e p’ t of Ho us . a nd

Urba n D e v . v . D utra , H U D A L J 0 9

- 9 3

- 1 7 5 3

- 8 , 1 9 9 6 WL 657690 (H UD AL J Nov . 1 2, 19 96 ) (cat pr ov idi nge mot ion a l su pp or t th a t e a se d a

nxie ty and fi br omy a lg ia sy mpt oms a re a so na ble a c c om mo dation ); Sec’ y, U.S. De

p’t of Hous. and Urban Dev . v. Rive rbay Corp. , HUD AL J 02-93-0320- 1, 1995 WL 108212 (HUD AL J Mar. 1, 1995) (“c ompanion dog ” a rea sonable a ccommodation). - 11 - individually

trained se rvice animal’” ). Prindable borrowe d the definiti on of “se rvice animal” f rom the ADA a

nd larg ely relied on the rea soning of a West Virg inia Supreme Court ca se. See I n re Kenna Homes Coop. Corp. , 5 57 S.E .2 d 7 87 , 7 97 (W. Va. 20 01) ( ho ldi ngthat “ so me ty pe of tr a ini ngis
nece ssary to transform a

pet into a servic e animal” ). The Spenc ers dispute that the la w favored O verlook, pointingto severa l fede ral, state, and administrative dec isions holdi ng that companion animals without specia liz ed tra ining may be
rea sonable a ccommodations under t h e R ehabilit ation Act, the F HA, and “ state statutes that ar e
ana log ou s to the F HA .” B ut w e a g re e wi th t he dis tr ic t cou

rt that the re wa s at le a st s ome dis pu te in 4 the law a s to whether a

“ser vice animal” require d training and whether it had to do more than provide comfort a nd companionship to qualify as an a ccommodation. The fa ct that the law is not entire ly cl ear conce rning a re quested a ccommodation will not alway s justify

a housing pr ovider’s f

iling suit rather

than re sponding to a

reque st. Accommodations
are often hig hl y

specific , and in many

case s there w ill be no case law that indicate s a par ticular
acc ommodation is required. Simply claiming that the law is “unclear ” should not entitle the providerNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 12 - to delay and obstruct the a ccommodation proc ess. B ut in this case , the fa ct that Over look could point to c a se law i nd ic a tin g that it wa s no t re qu ir e d to tr e a t Sc oo by a s a n a c c omm od a tio n w e ig hs a g a ins t the re a so na

ble ne ss of a jur

y fi nd ing that its ac tio ns in s e e kin g a dd iti on a l in fo rm a tio n a nd tur nin g to the cour t for cla rification constitut ed a de nial of the Spenc ers’ reque st. Finally , we c onsider the f act that Ove rlook neve r beg an evic tion procee di n gs aga inst the Spencer s, nor was Scooby remove d from their home. This distinguishes the pre sent ca se fr om Groome and As tra lis , in

wh ic h a de lay in r e sp on din g to a re qu e st wa s fo un d to be a de nia l. I n th os e
case s, the delay h ad the ef fec t of deprivingdisabled per sons of the ac commodation. I n Groome , beca use a pa rish delay ed aw ardinga per mit that would allow a company to ope rate a g roup home for Al zhe ime r’ s p a tie nts , th e c omp any wa s un a ble to c los e on the bu ild ingit h op e d to purc ha se and c ou ld not open the fa cility

. 234 F.3d at 200. Simi larly , in As tra lis , a c on do min ium

a sso c ia tio n’ s d e lay

in g ranting a re quest for handica pped parking space s meant that the ac commodation was not ava ilable: “whe n the compla i n an t s u n ilatera lly parke d in those space s, they rec eived violation notices.” 620 F.3d at 69. I n contra st, the Spencer s ’ ca s e i s m ore like Du bo is , in which a c ondominium association g rante d a tempora

ry exemption from its “no animals” by law while it investigated an ac commodation reque st. 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th C i r. 2005). The Ninth Circuit held that, beca use the provide r “neve r ref used to make the reque sted acc ommodation, plaintiffs’ FHA claim nece ssarily failed.” Ib id

. True, O verlook ne ver g rante d the S pence rs a tempor ary exemption from the “no pets” policy , but the more important fa ct is that Scooby was a llowed to sta

y with the family , and they wer e neve r re quiredNo. 09-4036

Ove rlook Mutual Homes, I nc. v. Spe ncer

- 13 - to leave the ir home or otherwise punishe d for Scooby ’s pre sence . Thus, Over look’s actions did not d e n y t h e S p e n c e r s t h e b e n e f i to f S c o o b y’ s c o mp an y.

IV As a g ener al rule, housingproviders should coope rate with residents to resolve disputes over
rea sonabl e a c c o mm o d a ti o n s r a th e r th antu r n in g to th e c o u rts
. B u t g iv e nth a t t h e la w r e g a r d ing
c omp anio n a

nim a ls w a s some wh a t un c le ar at th e tim e that O ve rl oo k s ou g ht a de c larator

y jud g me nt, and given that the S pence rs had the benefit of t heir pet’s company while awaiting the outcome of the litigation, Ov erlook’s failure to e ng ag e in a more constructive dia logue with the Spencer s did not constitute a denia l of their re quest for a n acc ommo d at i o n . Be cause the Spence rs have not raised a question of fact as to this essential element of t heir FHA a nd related claims, we AFF I RM the district court’s g rant of O verlook’s motion for judg ment as a matter of law

.