2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-22-2007 

# S n yde r v . B az argani P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3817

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S n yde r v . B azargani " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 894. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/894NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N O S. 06- 2396, 05- 4051 and 05- 3817
KEN NETH SNY DER ; J AC QU ELI NE SN YD ER A ppel l ees i n N os . 06- 2396, 05- 4051 and 05- 3817
v. T AWOOS BA Z AR GANI ; P AUL BA GHE RP OUR T aw oos B aza r gani , A ppel l anti n N os . 06- 2396 and 05- 4051 Paul B agherpour , A ppel l anti n N o. 05- 3817

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 08845) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J ohn P. Ful l am Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 15, 2007
BEF ORE: M c KEE , S TAP LE TON a n d NYG AARD

C i r cui tJ udges
( Fi l ed: J une 22, 2007)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge:
A ppel l ees K enneth and J acque l i ne Sny derbr oughtthi s act i on al l egi ng that
a p p e llan ts T a w o o s B a z a rg a n i an d P a u l B a g h e rp o u r, in v io latio n o f th e f e d e ra l C iv il R i ght s A ct , t he fe der al Fai rH ous i ng A ct( “FH A ”) and Penns y l vani a’ s H um an R el at i ons A ct( “PH R A ”) , i nqui r ed r egar di ng t he Sny der s ’ r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on and ther eaa ft er
r efus ed t o r entt hem a condom i ni um beca us e theyw er e J ew i s h. B aza r gani w as the ow ner
o f th e c o n d o m in iu m ; sh e h a d a sk e d B a g h e rp o u r, a f rie n d , to a ss ist h e r in f

in d in g a ten a n t. I. P ri or t o tr i al , t he D i stri ctC ou rtenter ed a p art i al sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst B agh erpour on t he is sue of his l i abil i t yun der the P H R A
. It s ruli ng w as as fol l ow s: T he Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ctpr ovi des : “I ts hal l be an u n law fu l discri m inato ryp rac ti ce . . . fo r an yp erso n to . . . m ak e a n yinq u iry o r e licit a n yin f

o rm a tio n . . . co n c e rn in g re lig io u s c re e d o r a n c e stry– in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e le a s e o f a n yh o u s in g a c c o m m o d a tio n .” 4 3 P .S . § 955( h) ( 6)
. I ti s conce ded that , on D ece m ber8, 2000, i n t he cour s e of a tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n w ith p lain tiff K e n n e th S n y d e r, M r. B a g h e rp o u r d id in f ac t ask w h at th e S n y d ers’ reli g iou s af fil iat ion w as. S ince that inq u iry vi ol at ed the s t atut e, pl ai nt i ffs ar e ent i t l ed t o par t i al s um m aryj udgm enton lia b ility, to th a t e x te n t, a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t B a g h e rp o u r.” A pp. at3.3

A ft era tw o- dayt r i al , t he j ur yans w er ed the fol l ow i ng i nt err ogat or i es i n t he fo ll o w ing m an n er: T H E C O U R T : T o y ourfi r s tques t i on: D i d D r . B aza r gani decl i ne t o r entthe condomi ni um t o pl ai nt i ffs beca us e of t hei rr el i gi ous aff

i l i at i on? Y ou say : Y es. N o. 2: I n as ki ng – M r . B agherpourdi d as k aboutpl ai nt i ffs ’ r el i gi on. I n as ki ng that ques t i on, w as M r . B agherpours eeki ng i nform at i on w hi ch w oul d aff ect plai nti ff’s s uit abil i t yas t enan t s? Y ou say : Y es. 3: B yas ki ng aboutpl ai nt i ffs ’ r el i gi on, M r . B agherpourvi ol at ed the Penns y l vani a H um ans R el at i ons A ct : I s D r . B aza r gani al s o l i abl e forthat vi ol at i on, t hati s , w as M r . B agherpourheragentact i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of h i s a g e n c y? Y ou say : Y es. A nd N o. 4: S t at e t he am ou nt of com pen sat orydam ages sust ai ned byplai nti ffs as a r es ul tof the vi ol at i on orvi ol at i ons y ou have f ound. Y ou s ay : $40, 000. 00 A nd N o. 5: S tate th e a m o u n t o f

p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, if

a n y , to b e p a id b ye a c h d e f e n d a n t. Y ou s ay : D r . B aza r gani , $20, 000. 00 and M r . B agherpour , $30, 000. 00 D o y ou al l agree on t ho se answ ers ?4

T H E JU R Y : Y es. A pp. at748- 49. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied m o tio n s o f b o th d e f e n d a n ts f o r a n e w trial. W h ile fin d ing the ju ry ’s ve rdict “e x tr em elyg en ero u s, ” the C o u rtw as “ n o t persu ad ed that there [w as ] j us t i fi cat i on fors et t i ng t he ver di ctas i de. ” A pp. at10. I n r es pons e t o t he d e f e n d a n t s ’ a r g u m e n tt h a ti th a d e r r e d i n s u b m i t t i n g th e p u n i t i v e d a m a g e i s s u e t o th e j u r y, t h e Co u r tru l e d t h a tp u n i t i v e d a ma g e s we r e a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e rth e F HA:

Si nce the j ur y , i n ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , expr es s l yfound thatthe defe ndantA genthad vi ol at ed the t erm s of the s t atut e bym aki ng the prohibi t ed inquiryabo ut r el i gion, and that pl ai nti ffs’ r el i gion w as a s u b s t a n t i a l f

a c t o ri n t h e u l t i ma t e d e c i s i o n n o tt o l e a s e th e p r o p e r t yt o th e m, it w a s e n tir e ly p ro p e r t o s u b m it th e is s u e o f p u n itiv e d a m a g e s to th e ju ry. A l exande rv. R iga , 208 F. 3d 419, 431 ( 3d C i r . 2000) [( hol di ng thatpuni t i ve d am ag es a re a v ail ab le fo r i n tention al vio lat ion s o f th e F H A )]. A pp. at3. B ot h defe ndant s appea l ed. W hi l e thes e tw o appea l s w er e pendi ng ( i
. e. , N os . 05- 3817 and 05- 4051) , B aza r gani fi l ed a thi r d appea l fr om a s uper s edea s or der( N o. 06- 2396)
. T hi s C our tadvi s ed the Sny der s t hat , i f theyobt ai ned an or derfr om the D i s t r i ctC our tw ai vi ng the bond
re q u ire m e n t p e n d in g a d e ter m in a tio n b yth is C o u rt o n th e m e rits o f th e u n d e rly in g a p p e a ls at 05 -40 5 1 an d 0 5 -38 1 7 , B az arg an i’ s ap p ea l at0 6 -23 9 6 w o u ld b e m o o t. T h e S n y d ers obt ai ned s uch an or derfr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tt empora r i l yw ai vi ng anybond r equi r ement pendi ng t hi s C our t ’ s rul i ng on t he mer i t s of B aza r gani ’ s appea l at05- 4051 and B agherpour ’ s appea l at05- 3817. A ccor di ngl y , B aza r gani ’ s appea l at06- 2396 w i l l be5

d ism iss e d a s m o o t. II. A p p e llan t B a g h e rp o u r in sis ts in h is a p p e a l th a t: (1 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ran ti n g p arti al su m m aryjud g m en t on the issu e o f h is l iabili tyu n d er the P H R A ; ( 2 ) th ere is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s f in d in g o f d isc rim in a to ryin ten t; (3 ) th e re is i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tt h e j u r y’ s f i n d i n g th a tth e S n yd e r s s u s t a i n e d a c tu a l i n j u r y; ( 4) t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n noti ns t ruct i ng the j urythati tcoul d aw ar d puni t i ve damages for“i nt ent i onal ” di s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of r el i gi on onl yi f thatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as “w anton an d reckl ess” ( A pp . at74 6); and (5) plai nti ffs’ counsel, i n h i s cl osi ng rem arks, i m pr oper l yas ked the j ur yt o actas “A t t orneyG ener al s ” and “ s end a mes s age” that di s cr i m i nat i on m us tbe puni s hed. W e fi nd eac h of thes e ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve. W e d o n o t u n d e rsta n d B a g h e rp o u r to d isp u te th a t h e a sk e d th e S n y d e rs a b o u t th e ir
r el i gi ous aff

i l i at i on i n connec t i on w i t h t he l eas i ng of a hous i ng acc om m odat i on. N or does he ci t e us t o anyauthor i t yforthe pr opos i t i on that43 P. S. § 955( h) ( 6) does notm ake th is a n u n la w f

u l d is c ri m in a to ry p ra c tic e w ith o u t r e g a rd to th e p u rp o s e o f th e in q u ir y . W e
a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r tt h a tt h e S u p r e m e C o u r to f P e n n s yl v a n i a w o u l d a p p l y § 955( h) ( 6) i n acc or dance w i t h i t s pl ai n m eani ng and thatpart i al s um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at e. W hi l e B agherpourdi d notadmi tthati n as ki ng aboutthe Sny der s ’ r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on he w as “s eeki ng i nform at i on w hi ch w oul d aff ectpl ai nt i ffs ’ s ui t abi l i t yasW e a re m in d f u l o f th e f a c t th a t p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a re n o t a v a ila b le u n d e r t h e P H R A
. 1 See H oy v. A ngel one , 720 A
. 2d 745 ( Pa. 1998)
. T he pl ai nt i ffs pr ocee ded her e on the b asis o f b o th the P H R A an d the f ed era l FH A , h o w ev er, an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s in stru c tio n s o n p u n iti v e d a m a g e w e re c o n sis ten t w ith th e law c o n c e rn in g th e a v a ilab ili ty o f p u n itiv e d a m a g e s u n d e r t h e F H A
. See Al exande rv. R iga , 2 0 8 F . 3 d 4 1 9 , 4 3 1 (3d C ir
. 6 t enant s , ” ther e w as ampl e ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe j uryfi ndi ng t o t hat ef fe ct. S im il arly , the re co rd c o n tai n s am p le direc t and circu m stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt t he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng thatt he Sny der s s us t ai ned ac tual i nj uryi n t he form of m ent al and emot i onal di s t r es s . W hi l e w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatthe j ury ’ s aw ar d of compensa t or ydamages of $40, 000 t o t he tw o pl ai nt i ffs w as gener ous , w e al s o agr ee that i ti s nots o exce s s i ve thati tcan pr oper l ybe s etas i de. T h e D istric t C o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itc o u ld a w a rd p u n iti v e d a m a g e s if it
c o n c lu d e d th a t B a g h e rp o u r in ten tio n a llya sk e d a b o u t th e S n y d e rs’ re lig io u s a f f ili a tio n in
or dert o s ecur e i nform at i on t hatw oul d aff ectthei rs ui t abi l i t yas t enant s and that B a z a rg a n i in ten tio n a llyd e c lin e d to re n t th e c o n d o m in iu m to th e S n y d e rs b e c a u se o f th e ir
re lig io u s a f

f ili a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e c lin e d th e re q u e st o f B a g h e rp o u r’s c o u n se l to i ns t ructt he j ur yt hatt he def endant s ’ conductw oul d have t o be “notonl yi nt ent i onal ” but “w anton an d reckl ess. ” A pp . at74 6. W hil e i ti s true that “w anton an d reckl ess”
m i s conductcan s om et i m es s erve as a su rr o g a te f o r in ten tio n a l m isc o n d u c t, giv in g rise to puni t i ve damage l i abi l i t y , bot h ar e notr equi r ed. I ndeed, w ant on di s r egar d and
r eckl es s nes s ar e gene r al l yr egar ded as i ncons i s t entw i t h i nt ent i onal m i s conduct
. T he D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e c lin in g to g iv e it. 12000) ( “[B]e caus e of the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on [i n vi ol at i on of the

FH A ] , t he pl ai nt i ff ne ed notal s o demonstr at e thatthe conduc tw as part i cul ar l yegr egi ous orm al i ci ous i n or dert o obt ai n puni t i ve damages
. ”)
. W e not e thatB agherpourdoes not t ake i s s ue w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on found by t he j ur yw as a vi ol at i on of the Fai rH ous i ng A ct , and the j ury ’ s ver di ctr egar di ng puni t i ve d a ma g e s c a n t h u s s t a n d b a s e d o n t h a tAc te v e n th o u g h n o ta u t h o r i z e d b yth e P HR A. 7 W e do notagr ee w i t h B agherpourthatthe cl os i ng ar gum entof pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el
as ked the j ur yt o r eac h “a de ci s i on bas ed upon i s s ues out s i de the evi dence and t es t i m ony of [thi s ] cas e. ” B agherpourB r . at13. N ordo w e r egar d hi s r emar ks r efe r enci ng “A t t or neyG ener al s ” and “ s endi ng a mess age” t o be i nappr opr i at e i n an FH A cas e s eeki ng p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . A l exande rv. R iga , 208 F. 3d 419, 425- 26 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( not i ng C on gress ’s rel i ance o n “p ri vate att orney s general ” t o v i nd i cat e a po l i cy“of the highest p rio rity ” e m b o d ied in th e F H A ); S e ttl eg o o de v . P o rtla n d P u b . Sc h o o ls , 371 F. 3d 503, 519 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) ( “R emi ndi ng t he j urythattheyhave the capaci t yt o det erdefe ndant s and
o thers sim il arlysitu ated is certainlylegiti m ate w h ere p u n it ive d am ag es a re a t st ak e.”); The E m er

y- W ar ehous e C o. v. R hode I s l and H os pi talTrus tN

at i onalB ank , 757 F. 2d 399, 4 1 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ se n d a m e ss a g e ” c lo sin g sta tem e n t ap p ro p ria te b e c a u se “ c o u n se l is perm i t t ed to ar gu e t he n eed f or an aw ard of p un i t i ve d am ages as a deterrentagainst sim il ar c o n d u ct bythis de fe n d an t or b yo thers” ). III . B aza r gani , pr ocee di ng pro se , co n tend s tha t th e jud g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt
a g a in s t h e r m u s t b e re v e rs e d b e c a u s e (1 ) o n e o f th e S n y d e rs ’ w itn e s s e s , L a rr yC e is le r,8

comm i t t ed per

j ur ydur i ng hi s cr os s exami nat i on; ( 2) s he and the Sny der s had r eac hed a
s et t l ementagr eementpr i ort o t r i al ; and ( 3) B agherpourcea s ed t o be heragent“as s oon as [s he] l earned aboutt he Sny der s ’ dog” bec aus e s he had made i tcl eart o B agherpourthat
s he w oul d notperm i tan ani m al i n herpr oper t y . B aza r gani B r . atp. 16. W e ar e not per s uaded. C e isle r te stif

ied o n c ro ss e x a m in a tio n th a t h e h a d g ra d u a ted f ro m law sc h o o l, p a s s e d th e b a r, s e c u re d a b a r n u m b e r, a n d p ra c tic e d f o r a p p ro x im a te ly f

o u r ye a rs . B aza r gani i ns i s t s t hatC ei s l erear l i ert es t i fi ed i n an arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng thathe had not
s ecur ed a ba rnum ber
. She di d not , how ever , choos e t o cr os s exami ne hi m attr i al about t hi s al l eged pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement . M or eover , C ei s l er ’ s s t atus w i t h t he barhad
n o th in g to d o w ith h is te stim o n ya n d w a s n o t m a ter ial to a n yiss u e p re se n ted b yth e f a c ts of thi s cas e. I n al l event s , a pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ementof a w i t nes s cl ear l ypr ovi des no b a sis f o r o v e rtu rn in g a ju ry ’s v e rd ict. A s ear l yas the F al l of 2 00 4, the S ny ders offered t o set t l e t heircl ai m s agai nst Ba z a r g a n i wi t h a n e x c h a n g e o f mu tu a l r e l e a s e s . Th e p a r t i e s th e r e a f t e re x c h a n g e d f

o r ms of rel ease, bu tt heycou l d n ot agr ee up on on e t hat B azargani w as w i l l i ng t o si gn . T he las t form s he s ubm i t t ed t o t he Sny der s cont ai ned l anguage the D i s t r i ctC our tdes cr i bed as “vi r tual l yi ncompre hens i bl e. ” A pp. at2. A s tr i al appr oache d, the Sny der s offe r ed B aza r gani a fi nal oppor tuni t yt o s et t l e foran exc hange of m utual gener al r el eas es , s ett i ng a dea dl i ne of A pr i l 29, 2005. O n M ay4, 2005, the Sny der s not i fi ed B aza r gani that , not9

havi ng r ece i ved an e xecut ed r el eas e, theyw oul d pur s ue thei rcl ai m s attr i al
. O n J une 10, 20 05 , fi ve d ay s befo re tri al , B azargani executed and subm i t t ed the form of g eneral rel ease t hathad bee n gi ven t o heri n t he Fal l of 2004. She t hen pr ocee ded t o t r i al w i t houtr ai s i ng
s e t t l e me n ta s a d e f

e n s e . Cl e a r l y , t h e S n y d e r s ’ o f f e ro f s e t t l e me n th a d b e e n wi t h d r a wn befor e B aza r gani exec ut ed a r el eas e and, i n anyevent , B aza r gani i s noti n a pos i t i on aft er t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c tt o ma k e a c o n t r a r yc l a i m. W ith resp ec t t o B ag h erp o u r’s ag en cy , the ju ryd eterm ined that h e w as B az arg an i’ s

“ a g e n t ac tin g w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is a g e n c y .” A p p . at 7 4 8 . T h e re is a m p le e v id e n c e to supp ortt his fi nd i ng , and i tcann ot be di sturbed. M oreove r, the judgm ent does no tres t
s ol el yon t hi s fi ndi ng. T he j ur yal s o concl uded thatD r . B aza r gani per s onal l y“dec l i ne[d] t o r entt he condomi ni um t o pl ai nt i ffs beca us e of thei rr el i gi ous aff i l i at i on, ” id ., w h ich is
a n i nd e pe nd e ntvi ol a t i on of t he FH A , 42 U . S. C. § 3 60 4( a ) , a nd the PH RA , 43 P. S. 9 5 5 (h)(1 ). I V. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt in N o . 0 5 -3 8 1 7 a n d 0 5 -4 0 5 1 w ill b e a f f ir m e d
. T h e a p p e a l in N o . 0 6 -2 3 9 6 w ill b e d ism iss e d a s m o o t.