A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RO BY NE CA DDY; ANI T A L OGAN, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. J . P . M OR GAN C HAS E BA NK, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 7105 ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 51 5- J H P) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , S EY M OUR , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ffs R o b yn e C ad d yan d A n it a L o g an ap p ea l pro se th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof defendantJ . P. M or gan C has e B ank (“ C h a se ” ) o n th e ir c laim s o f ra c e d isc rim in a tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 in connec t i on w i t h C has e’ s s al e of r eal pr opert y . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m.-2- Standard of

R eview W e r evi ew de novo the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton a c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 1 , a p p lyin g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd a s th e c o u rt b e lo w . See Hampt on v. D i l l ar d D ep’ tSt or es , Inc. , 2 4 7 F .3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 1 1 7 -1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is p ro p e r “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . “I n appl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, w e exa m i ne the fa ctual r ecor d and dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y . ” Hampt on , 247 F. 3d at1118 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . V i ew ed i n t hi s l i ght , t he r ecor d r efl ect s t he fol l ow i ng. Backgr ound M s . C addyand M s . L ogan ar e A fr i can A m er i can s i s t er s . T hei rcl ai m under § 1981 r el at es t o C has e’ s s al e of r eal pr oper t yfor m er l yow ned byM s . L ogan (“ P ro p e rty ” ). A s e a rlya s 2 0 0 1 , M s. L o g a n b e c a m e d e lin q u e n t o n h e r m o n th ly m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts o n th e P ro p e rtya n d sh e w a s o ffe re d a fo rb e a ra n c e p lan to br i ng herpaym ent s curr ent . I n 2002 M s . L ogan w as agai n del i nquenton her m or t gage pa y m ent s and once agai n s he w as offe r ed one orm or e forbear ance p lans , w h ich s h e d id n o t pu rsue . C h ase fil ed a fo rec losu re a cti o n in state co u rt and obt ai ned a de faul tj udgm enton J anuary21, 2004, i n t he amount of $45, 547,C has e cha r act er i zed Logan’ s pr opos al as a “s hor tpay off” beca us e the 1 amount offe r ed w as l es s t han the j udgm entamount att he t i m e the offerw as m a d e . See D efe ndant ’ s R eur ged M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent , R . , D oc. 33 at 6- 7. -3- pl us i nt er es tand cos t s nots peci fi ed i n t he j udgm ent . T he Pr oper t yw as appr ai s ed at$45, 000 and auc t i oned ata s her i ff’ s s al e on M ar ch 18. C has e and M s . C addy w er e the onl ybi dder s att he s al e. C has e opene d the bi ddi ng at$59, 000, and there af ter C h ase an d M s. C ad d yex ch an g ed a total of n inetee n b ids. M s. C ad d y ’s l astbid w as $69 , 50 0. C hase w as decl ared t he h i gh estbidder at$7 0, 00 0. C hase t hen moved t o confi r m t he s her i ff’ s s al e, butt he conf i r m at i on hear i ng w as del ay ed as a r es ul tof M s . L ogan’ s bankrupt cyfi l i ng. O n M ay31, 2004, M s . L ogan offer ed t o payC has e $49, 500 “t o s at i s fyt he defa ul tj udgm entr ender ed aga i ns therand r edee m herhom e. ” R . , D oc. 22, E xhi bi t A . C has e agr eed “t o at l eas t cons i der [thi s ] s hor t pay off offe r ” i f s he 1 s at i s fi ed tw o condi t i ons : “1) Pr oof of a vai l abi l i t yof funds ; and 2) an O r derfr om t he B ankrupt cyC our tappr ovi ng s uch expe ndi tur e. ” Id. , E xhi bi tB . T he part i es di s put e w hetherM s . L ogan s at i s fi ed the fi r s tcondi t i on, butt her e i s no evi dence t hats he obt ai ned the r eques t ed or derfr om t he bankrupt cycour t . O n J une 16 C has e obt ai ned an or derfr om t he bankrupt cycour tt er m i nat i ng t he aut om at i c s t ay a s t o t h e P r o p e r t y. O n J une 28, 2004, C has e r es ponded t o a r eques tfr om M s . L ogan forpay off fi gur es on herl oan. C has e ca l cul at ed the amount ow ed thr ough J ul y1, 2004, asPl ai nt i ffs w er e r epr es ent ed bycouns el thr ough t he r emai nderof t he di s t r i ct 2 cour tpr ocee di ngs , butt hei rcouns el w i t hdr ew aft ert hi s appea l w as i ni t i at ed. -4- $7 4, 21 9, i ncludi ng t he p ri ncipal balance du e on t he loan, i nter est , at t orneyfees, a n d “ c e rta in c o sts a n d e x p e n se s a ss o c iate d w ith th a t p ro c e ss fo r w h ich len d e r is ent i t l ed t o r ei m bur s ement fr om bor r ow erpur s uantt o t he t er m s of the N ot e and M or t gage. ” Id. , E xhi bi tD at2. M s . L ogan di d notacc eptC has e’ s offe rt o pay off he rl oan. A n or derconfi r m i ng t he s her i ff’ s s al e and gi vi ng C has e pos s es s i on of t he Pr oper t yw as ent er ed on J ul y29. O n Sept ember 3, 2004, C has e tr ans ferr ed th e P ro p e rtyb ysp e c ial w a rra n tyd e e d to a th ird p a rty . In A p ril 2 0 0 5 th e sta te cour tfound t hatt he t ot al j udgm entamount r ecove r abl e byC has e w as $53, 844, and or der ed C has e t o payM s . L ogan the di ffe r ence betw een the pr ocee ds of the sh e riff ’s s a le a n d th e ju d g m e n t am o u n t. M s . C addyfi l ed a pr o s e cl ai m i n t he di s t r i ctcour ton D ece m ber28, 2005, a lleg in g ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 1 in c o n n e c tio n w ith h e r a ttem p t to pur chas e and r edee m t he Pr oper t y . She as s er t ed thatC has e s ol d t he pr oper t yt o a w hi t e per s on forl es s t han the amount s he had offer ed, and thatt he s ol e bas i s for C has e’ s r efus al t o s el l hert he pr oper t yw as t hats he i s A fr i can A m er i can. She s oughtactual damages of $150, 000 and puni t i ve damages of $300, 000. A ft er C has e moved fors um m aryj udgm ent , couns el forpl ai nt i ffs fi l ed an a m ended co m p lai n t in Ju n e 2 0 0 6 , ad d ing M s. L o g an as a p lai n ti ff. T h e d istri ct co u rt 2-5-

gr ant ed C has e’ s r eur ged mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n Sept ember 2006 and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on. S e c tio n 1 9 8 1 Cla im S e c tio n 1 9 8 1 “ h a s a sp e c ific f u n c tio n : It p ro tec ts th e e q u a l rig h t o f ‘[ a ]ll per s ons w i t hi n t he j ur i s di ct i on of t he U ni t ed St at es ’ t o ‘ m ake a nd enfor ce contr act s ’ w i t houtr es pectt o r ace . ” D o m in o ’s P izz a , In c . v. Mc D o n a ld , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1246, 1249 ( 2006) ( quot i ng 42 U . S. C . § 1981( a) ) . “‘ [M ] ake a nd enfor ce contr act s ’ i ncl udes t he maki ng, per for m ance , m odi fi cat i on, and t er m i nat i on of contr act s , and the enj oym entof al l benef i t s , pr i vi l eges , t er m s , and condi t i ons of t he contr actual r el at i ons hi p. ” 42 U . S. C . § 1981( b) . “A nycl ai m br oughtunder § 1 9 8 1 , th e re fo re , m u s t in itia lly id e n tif ya n im p a ir e d ‘c o n tr a c tu a l r e la tio n s h ip ,’ underw hi ch the pl ai nt i ff ha s r i ght s . ” D om i no ’s P izza , 126 S. C t . at1249 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . “ S e c t i o n 1 9 8 1 p l a i n t i ffs mu s ti d e n t i f yi nj u r i e s fl o wi n g f

r o m a r aci al l ym ot i vat ed br eac h of t hei row n contr actual r el at i ons hi p, notof s om eone el s e’ s . ” Id. at1252. A cl ai m ant unde r § 198 1 m ustdem on strat e: “(1) t hat the p l ai nti ff i s a m e m b e r o f

a p ro tec ted c las s; (2 ) th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d th e in ten t to d isc rim in a te on t he bas i s of r ace ; and ( 3) t hatt he di s cr i m i nat i on i nt er fer ed w i t h a pr ot ect ed act i vi t yas defi ned i n § 1981. ” Hampt on , 24 7 F . 3d at11 02 . W hen t he p l ai nti ffs’ al l egat i ons of di s cr i m i nat i on ar e bas ed on i nfer ence s , r athert han di r ect ev iden ce – as is the c ase h ere – a c o u rtm u st em p loythe b u rde n -shifti n g fra m ew o rkPl ai nt i ffs di d notbr i ng a cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1982 ort he Fai rH ous i ng 3 A c t (F H A ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 3 6 0 1 e t se q ., b o th o f w h ich p ro v id e m o re sp e c ific p ro tec tio n a g a in st ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in re a l p ro p e rtytra n sa c tio n s. A s n o ted in Hous t on , how ever , t he el ement s of a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e ar e the s ame underei t her § 1 9 8 1 o r § 1 9 8 2 . See 637 F. 2d at741. Fur t her , i n A s bur y v. B r ougham , 8 6 6 F . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 7 9 - 8 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) , we h e l d t h a tt h e e l e me n t s o f a p r i ma fac i e ca s e al l egi ng hous i ng di s cr i m i nat i on w er e the s ame under§ 1982 and under t he FH A : “( 1) [cl ai m ant ] i s a mem berof a r aci al m i nor i t y ; ( 2) s he appl i ed forand w as qual i fi ed t o r entan apa r t m ent[fr om defe ndant ] ; ( 3) s he w as deni ed the oppor tuni t yt o r entort o i ns pectornegot i at e fort he r ent al of [a n apart m ent ] ; and ( 4) t he hous i ng oppor tuni t yr emai ned ava i l abl e. ” See als o Selden Apartm ents v. U. S. D ep’ tof

Hous . & Ur ban D ev. , 785 F. 2d 152, 159- 60 ( 6t h C i r . 1986) ( s t at i ng (c o n tin u e d ...) -6- i n McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -0 4 (1 9 7 3 ). See Hampt on , 247 F. 3d at1107. T he purpos e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s i ni t i al bur den under t he McD onnel lD ougl as f ra m e w o rk is to e lim in a te th e m o st c o m m o n , leg iti m a te r eas ons fort he defendant ’ s conduct , i n or dert o r ai s e an i nfer ence t hati t s act i ons w ere based on i m perm i ssi ble fact ors. See P erry v. Woo dw ard , 199 F. 3d 1126, 1139- 40 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( di s cus s i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s i ni t i al bur den i n w r ongful empl oy m entt er m i nat i on act i on under§ 1981) . I n t he cont extof a c ont r actfort he s al e of r eal pr oper t y , t hi s cour tr equi r es a pl ai nt i ff t o es t abl i s h t he fol l ow i ng pr i m a fa ci e ca s e under§ 1981: t hatt he ow nerpl ace d t he pr oper t yon t he open mar ketfors al e; t hat p l a i n t i ff wa s wi l l i n g a n d a b l e t o b u yt h e p r o p e r t yo n t h e t e r ms s p e c i fi e d b yt h e o wn e r ; t h a tp l a i n t i ff s o a d v i s e d t h e o wn e ra tt h e t i me th e p ro p e rtyw a s a v a ilab le fo r sa le; th a t th e o w n e r re f u se d to so se ll t he pr oper t yt o pl ai nt i ff; and thatt her e i s no appar entr eas on fort he r efus al of the defendantt o s el l t he pr oper t yt o pl ai nt i ff othert han pl ai nt i ff’ s r ace . Hous t on v. B ent tr ee, Lt d. , 6 3 7 F . 2 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 s ubs t ant i vel ys i m i l arpr i m a fa ci e ca s e forhous i ng di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m under § 1 9 8 1 , § 1 9 8 2 a n d F H A ); P hi f f erv. P r oud P ar r otMot orHot el, Inc. , 648 F. 2d 5 4 8 , 5 5 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (s a m e , u n d e r § 1 9 8 2 ); Ha m ilt o n v . Sv a tik , 779 F. 2d 383, 3 8 7 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (sam e, un d er F H A ). -7- T he pr eci s e conduc tbyC has e thatpl ai nt i ffs cont end w as i n vi ol at i on of § 1 9 8 1 h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t d iffic u lt to p in d o w n th ro u g h o u t th e s e p ro c e e d in g s . A lth o u g h theyh av e c o n sist en tl yd en ied th at t h eir clai m s relate to the sh eriff ’s s a le o r t o o th e r a s p e c ts o f th e fo re c lo s u re p ro c e e d in g s , s ee A pl t . B r . at3, t hey h a v e b e e n le s s c le a r r e g a rd in g w h a t o th e r a c tio n s b yC h a s e w e re d is c ri m in a to ry. M s . C addy ’ s or i gi nal compl ai ntal l eged thats he had a t t empt ed t o pur chas e and red ee m p rop ertyo w n ed b yh er sist er, w h ich w as th e su bject of fo rec losu re p ro c e e d in g s, b u t th a t C h a se re f u se d h e r o ffe r b a se d u p o n h e r ra c e a n d in ste a d so ld t he pr oper t yt o a w hi t e per s on fora l es s eramount . R . , D oc. 1. I n t hei ramended co m p lai n t plainti ffs d esc ri b ed in m o re d etail v ariou s ev en ts w ith in the fo rec losu re p ro c e e d in g s a n d a d d e d a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g M s. L o g a n ’s M a y3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , o ffe r to re d e e m h e r h o m e a n d C h a se ’s J u n e 2 8 lette r, p ro p o sin g a lo a n p a y o ff fig u re to M s . L o g a n . Id. , D o c. 30 at 2-3 . T h eyall eg ed g en era ll ythat “D efen d an t’ s conduct. . . w as di s cr i m i nat or ybeca us e of Caddyand Logan’ s r ace . ” Id. a t 3 . B uti n r es pons e t o C has e’ s r eur ged s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, pl ai nt i ffs s t at ed m or e s ucci nct l yt hat D efe ndantdi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tPl ai nt i ffs , bl ack w om en, beca us e of th e ir ra c e b yre q u irin g P lain tiffs to p u rc h a se o r re d e e m th e p ro p e rty forover$70, 000, an amount hi ghert han theycoul d affor d, y et-8-

D efe ndants ol d t he pr oper t yt o a w hi t e per s on for$53, 000, t he l es s er amount t hatPl ai nt i ffs coul d have a ffor ded. Id. , D oc. 34 at2- 3. O n appea l , t heycont i nue t o cont end thatC has e vi ol at ed § 1 9 8 1 b yo ffe rin g to se ll th e P ro p e rtyto th e m fo r o v e r $ 7 0 ,0 0 0 , b u t su b se q u e n tly s e llin g it to a w h ite p e rs o n fo r a le s s e r a m o u n t. See A pl t . B r . at7- 8, 9. Ms. Ca dd

y ’s Cla im M s . C addyfai l ed t o demonstr at e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on under § 1 9 8 1 b e c a u se sh e d id n o t sh o w th a t sh e w a s w ill in g a n d a b le to b u yth e P ro p e rty o n te rm s s p e c ifie d b yC h a s e a t a n ytim e . See Hous t on , 637 F. 2d at741. H erbi ds a t th e sh e riff ’s s a le w e re n o t o ffe rs to p u rc h a se th e P ro p e rtyf ro m C h a se . S h e b id ag ainstC has e t o pur chas e the Pr oper t y , w hi ch att hatt i m e w as s t i l l ow ned byher s i s t er , M s . L ogan. I n anyevent , s he expr es s l yconce des t hathercl ai m does not r el at e t o anyof t he pr ocedur es i n t he for ecl os ur e ac t i on, w hi ch w oul d i ncl ude the con du ctand res ultof the sheri ff’s s al e. A l t ho ug h she assert s on ap peal that C hase offe r ed t o s el l t he Pr oper t yt o b o th h e r a n d M s . L o g a n fo r o v e r $ 7 4 ,0 0 0 , s ee A p lt. B r. a t 4 , 6 , 7 , 9 , th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt h e r c o n te n tio n . C h a se ’s J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , o ffe r w a s m a d e so lelyto M s. L o g a n a s th e b o rro w e r, to payoff he rl oan. T hus , t her e i s no di s put e as t o a mat er i al fac tr egar di ng M s . C a d d y ’s fa ilu re to p u rc h a s e o r a tte m p t to p u rc h a s e th e P ro p e rt yf ro m C h a s e . “[A ] pl ai nt i ff c annots t at e a c l ai m under§ 1981 unl es s he has ( orw oul d have) r i ght s undert he exi s t i ng ( orpr opos ed) contr actt hathe w i s hes ‘ t o m ake a nd-9-

enfor ce. ’ ” D om i no ’s P izza , 1 2 6 S .C t. a t 1 2 5 2 . See als o Hampt on , 247 F. 3d at 1 1 1 8 (a ffirm in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t w h e re c laim a n t d id n o t m a k e o r a ttem p t to m ake a pur chas e fr om defe ndant ) . B eca us e M s . C addyhas nots how n any i m pai r ed contr actual r el at i ons hi p betw een he r s el f and Chase , w e hol d t hatt he d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l yd i s mi s s e d h e rc l a i m a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. Ms. L og a n ’s Cla im M s . L ogan al s o has notes t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on under§ 1981. I tw as herbur den t o s how t hatt he Pr oper t yw as offe r ed fors al e by Ch a s e , t h a ts h e a d v i s e d Ch a s e s h e wa s wi l l i n g a n d a b l e t o b u yi to n t h e t e r ms s p e c ifie d b yC h a s e , a n d th a t C h a s e re f u s e d to s e ll it t o h e r o n th o s e te rm s . See Hous t on , 637 F. 2d at741 . T he onl yevi dence i n t he r ecor d conce r ni ng t he s al e of t he Pr oper t ybyC has e i s a s peci al w arr antydeed tr ans ferr i ng t he pr oper t yt o a thir d p arty . T h at de ed d o es n o t i n d icate the term s o f th e sa le. M o reo v er, M s . L ogan does noteven a l l ege, m uch l es s pr ovi de anyevi dence , t hats he at t empt ed t o pur chas e the Pr oper t yon t he t er m s t hati tw as offe r ed fors al e by C has e, butt hats he w as r efus ed. She cl ai m s i ns t ead thatt he s al e of the Pr oper t yoccurr ed under ci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e C has e offer ed to se ll i t to h e r o n d iffe re n t term s th a n it u lti m a telya c c e p ted f ro m a w h ite pur chas er . H ercl ai m , t hen, i s s i m i l art o a cl ai m of di s par at e tr eatm entundert he Fai rH ous i ng A ct( FH A ) , 42 U . S. C . § 3604( b) , w hi ch makes unl aw fulW e not e thatM s . L ogan does notcl ai m orpr es entevi dence of 4 d isc rim in a tio n b yC h a se in o ffe rin g h e r u n fa v o ra b le lo a n p a y o ff ter m s v is-a -v is otherm ort gag ors. H er cl ai m i s squarel yprem i sed on t he am ou nt atw hich C hase s ol d t he Pr oper t yt o t he thi r d par t y , w ho s he al l eges i s w hi t e. -10- d isc rim in a tio n “ a g a in st a n yp e rso n in th e ter m s, c o n d iti o n s, o r p riv ileg e s o f sa le orr ent al of a dw el l i ng . . . beca us e of r ace . ” S e e Ho n c e v . Vig il , 1 F. 3d 1085, 1088- 89 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( aff i r m i ng j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on cl ai m under FH A w her e pl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o pr ove pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s par at e tr eatm entby sh o w ing land lord ref

u sed to ren t t o o r t o p rov ide w o m en sam e re n tal serv ices); s ee als o C l ar k v. Uni vers alB ui lders , Inc. , 706 F. 2d 204, 207 ( 7t h C i r . 1983) ( under§ 1982, “a bl ack pr os pect i ve buy erof a dw el l i ng demonst r at es di s cr i m i nat or yconducti f he pr oves t hatan ow nerut i l i zes di ffe r entpr i ci ng p o lic ie s w ith re s p e c t to b la c k s a n d w h ite s s im ila rl ys itu a te d ” (q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) . T hus , M s . L ogan purpor t s t o s at i s fyherpr i m a fa ci e bur den t o r ai s e an i nfer ence of C hase’s i ntentt o d i scr i m i nate bydem on strat i ng t hat i toffered her l essfa v o rab le t erm s to p u rch ase the P rop ertythan ito ffere d to a w h it e b u y er. 4 In su p p o rt o f

th is c laim sh e m u st s h o w th a t th is c o m p a riso n is le g a lly r el evant–t hats he and otherpot ent i al buy er s w er e “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed. ” See H ys t en v. B ur l i ngt on N. & Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 296 F. 3d 1177, 1182 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( appl y i ng “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” t es tt o pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e bur den t o s how d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t in e m p lo y m e n t su sp e n sio n c o n tex t); see also C l ark , 706 F. 2d a t 2 0 7 (u p h o ld in g d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 2 th a t b lac k a n d w h ite-11-

buy er s w er e nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed bec aus e homes theypur chas ed on di ffe r ent ter m s w e re n o t co m p a ra b le) ; O t i Kaga, Inc. v. S. D . Hous . D ev. A uth. , 342 F. 3d 8 7 1 , 8 8 3 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g in c laim u n d e r F H A o f ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in aw ar di ng t ax cr edi t s and s t at e fundi ng t hatfundi ng aw ar ded t o non- m ember of p rotec ted c lass w as n o t si m il ar to a w ard so u g h t byclaim an t, an d there fo re claim an t and n o n -m em b er o f p rotec ted c lass w ere n o t si m il arlysitu ated ). A s e v id e n c e o f

C h a se ’s o ffe r to se ll th e P ro p e rtyto h e r, sh e re lies o n its J une 28, 2004, l et t erpr opos i ng t o al l ow hert o payoff he rm or t gage l oan on the P ro p e rt yfo r o v e r $ 7 4 ,0 0 0 . H e re M s . L o g a n m ix e s p ro v e rb ia l a p p le s a n d o ra n g e s . C h ase ’s Ju n e 2 8 let ter pro p o sed a p ay o ff o f h er m o rt g ag e loa n in li g h t of C h ase ’s j udgm enti n t he for ecl os ur e ac t i on, w hi ch i ncl uded the ent i r e out s t andi ng pr i nci pal on t he l oan, i nt er es t , at t or neyfee s and ce r t ai n cos t s . I tw as notan offer t o s el l hert he Pr oper t y . I n fac t , att he t i m e C has e made t he offer , s he s t i l l ow ned th e P ro p e rty , w h ich w a s n o t co n v e y e d to C h a se u n til a m o n th late r. In o rd e r to demonst r at e an i nfer ence of C has e’ s i nt entt o di s cr i m i nat e, s he compar es t he amount of C has e’ s J une 28 l oan pay off pr opos al t o herw i t h C has e’ s s ubs equent s al e of the Pr oper t yt o a thi r d par t y , w ho s he al l eges t o be w hi t e, foran amount sh e a lleg e s to b e les s th a n $ 5 5 ,0 0 0 . B u t th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e th ird p a rty p u rc h a s e r w a s , lik e h e r, s u bje c t to a fo re c lo s u re ju d g m e n t o n th e P ro p e rt y . B ecause M s. L og an an d the subsequ ent purchaserof the P ropertyfrom C haseM s . L ogan appe ar s t o ar gue on appe al t hatt he amount of t he s al e pr i ce 5 fr om C has e t o t he thi r d par t yi s evi dentfr om t he document arys t amp of $78. 00 t hatappea r s on t he s peci al w arr antydeed. She di d notm ake thi s ar gum entbel ow a n d w e d o n o t g e n e ra lly e n te rt a in a rg u m e n ts n o t p re s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See Walkerv. Mather ( In re Walker

) , 9 5 9 F .2 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). M or eover , even on a ppeal M s . L ogan fa i l s t o expl ai n t he cl ai m ed s i gni fi canc e of t he s t amp. -12- w er e nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, hercompar i s on i s notl egal l yr el evantand ca nnot ra is e a n in fe re n c e o f

im p e rm is s ib le d is c ri m in a tio n . See H ys t en , 296 F. 3d at1182. M o re o v e r, ev e n if

it w e re leg a llyre lev a n t, th e re is s im p lyn o e v id e n c e to c o m p le te th e c o m p a ri s o n in o rd e r t o s u p p o rt a n in fe re n c e o f d is c ri m in a to ry in te n t. A l t ho ug h she assert s that the b uy er of t he P ropertyw as w hit e and paid C hase l ess t han $55, 000, s he offer ed no evi dence t o s uppor tei t herof thos e cont ent i ons . She pr es ent ed no evi dence of the s al e pr i ce i n C has e’ s t r ans ferof the Pr oper t yt o t he th ird p a rty . N o r is th e re a n ye v id e n c e o f th e b u y e r’s ra c e . M s. L o g a n a ss e rts 5 that C h ase d o es n o t dispu te t h ese all eg ati o n s an d there fo re the d istri ct co u rt s houl d have de ni ed s um m aryj udgm ent . She m i s under s t ands herbur den as t he pl ai nt i ff i n t hi s act i on. “[W ] her e the non movi ng par t yw i l l beart he bur den of pr oof att r i al on a di s pos i t i ve i s s ue thatpar t ym us tgo bey ond t he pl eadi ngs and des i gnat e s peci fi c fa ct s s o as t o m ake a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he ex ist en ce o f a n elem en t essen ti al t o that p arty ' s ca se in o rde r t o su rviv e su m m ary j udgm ent . ” McKnightv. K i m ber l y C l ar k C or

p. , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h u s, it w a s h e r b u rd e n to c o m e fo rw a rd w ith evi dence i n s uppor tof herfac tual al l egat i ons and s he fa i l ed t o do s o.-13-

W e hol d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof C has e w as corr ect , as nei t herM s . C addynorM s . L ogan has demonst r at ed ma t e r i a l fa c t s i n d i s p u t e , a n d t h e i rc l a i ms u n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 fa i l a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .
E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge