[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11156

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-20042-JAL

EDDY JEAN PHILIPPEAUX, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 

AIMCO, 

DANIEL MELENDEZ, 

General Manager of the Flamingo South Beach Property, 

TIA BUCHANAN, 

Resident Relations Manager, 

MCZ/CENTRUM FLAMINGO II, LLC, 

Flamingo, 

BRYAN KEBDLE, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees,

FLAMINGO SOUTH BEACH,

 Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 15, 2015)

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 10 
2

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Eddy Jean Philippeaux, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua 

sponte dismissal of his second amended complaint, which alleged violations of the 

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Fla. Stat. 

§ 760.20. The district court dismissed Mr. Philippeaux’s complaint on mootness

grounds because, subsequent to filing suit, Mr. Philippeaux vacated the apartment

at issue pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties in a state court 

eviction action.

1

 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I

Mr. Philippeaux is a disabled veteran. At the time of this dispute, he leased 

a ground-floor apartment at Flamingo South Beach Apartments, which are owned 

by MCZ/Centrum Flamingo II LLC. MCZ leased the ground level of its sevenlevel parking garage to a third party, which in turn used the space for a valet 

parking service. Residents of Flamingo Apartments could park on the ground level

of the garage if they pay the hourly valet rate. Alternatively, residents could pay a 

monthly flat rate for the privilege of parking on levels two through seven (if a 

 1 Mr. Philippeaux argues in part that dismissal was improper because his claims are not barred by 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The district court, however,

did not dismiss the case pursuant to any of these doctrines. As a result, we do not address them.

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 2 of 10 
3

space is available), or they could pay a higher monthly flat rate for an assigned 

space on levels two through seven. 

Mr. Philippeaux alleged that MCZ violated the FHA and FFHA by denying 

his request for an assigned, handicapped parking space on the ground level of the 

parking garage. Because he was not given a ground-level parking space, he had to 

park on one of the upper levels of the garage. He claimed that parking on an upper 

level caused him to walk a long distance to reach his apartment, which resulted in 

physical and mental harm (including failure to recover and heel from hernia 

surgery). Mr. Philippeaux argued that an assigned, handicapped parking space on 

the ground level of the garage was a reasonable accommodation under the FHA 

and FFHA.

In his second amended complaint, Mr. Philippeaux requested (1) that MCZ

be enjoined from refusing to make a reasonable accommodation and from 

retaliating against him by evicting him because of his request; (2) a declaration that 

MCZ’s conduct violated the FHA and FFHA; and (3) actual and punitive damages, 

pursuant to the FHA, for discrimination and retaliation. 

After filing his second amended complaint, Mr. Philippeaux submitted a 

motion for preliminary injunction, to which he attached a stipulation and order for 

dismissal in a state court eviction action, which he and a representative of MCZ 

had signed. Pursuant to that stipulation, Mr. Philippeaux agreed to vacate his 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 3 of 10 
4

apartment on March 10, 2014, and MCZ agreed to waive any unpaid rent owed by 

Mr. Philippeaux. The stipulation also dismissed MCZ’s eviction action against 

Mr. Philippeaux. On March 10, 2014, Mr. Philippeaux filed a “notice of plaintiff’s 

status,” in which he indicated that he would be homeless as of March 11, 2014. 

Based on these filings, the district court dismissed Mr. Philippeaux’s second 

amended complaint, finding that, because Mr. Philippeaux had vacated the 

apartment his, claims were moot. Mr. Philippeaux now appeals. 

II

We review the question of mootness de novo. Christian Coal. of Ala. v. 

Cole, 355 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Article III of the United States Constitution requires a live case or 

controversy at the time a federal court decides the case, and “‘a federal court has 

no authority to give opinions upon moot questions[.]’” Zinni v. ER Solutions, Inc., 

692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. 

United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, (1992)). “A case is moot when events subsequent to 

the commencement of a lawsuit create a situation in which the court can no longer 

give the plaintiff meaningful relief.” Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. 

Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 629 (11th Cir. 1998). “[I]t is well settled that a 

federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 4 of 10 
5

whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 

410 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Mr. Philippeaux’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were premised 

upon the allegation that MCZ was in violation of the FHA and the FFHA by failing 

to fulfill his request for an assigned, handicapped parking space on the ground 

level of the parking garage. But during the pendency of the action, Mr. 

Philippeaux vacated his apartment and no longer lives at the Flamingo Apartments. 

Consequently, the district court correctly ruled that Mr. Philippeaux’s claims for 

equitable and declaratory relief were moot. See Jews for Jesus, 162 F.3d at 629.

2

III

Liberally construed, Mr. Philippeaux’s second amended complaint also 

alleged a claim for damages allegedly resulting from MCZ’s refusal to provide an 

assigned, handicapped parking space on the ground level of the garage. That Mr. 

Philippeaux vacated the apartment does not moot any claim for damages he may 

have suffered in the past as a result of MCZ’s alleged violations of the FHA and 

FFHA. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Mr. Philippeaux’s claim for 

damages as moot. See McKinnon v. Talladega Cnty., Ala., 745 F.2d 1360, 1362 

(11th Cir. 1984) (“A claim for damages does not expire upon the termination of the 

wrongful conduct. Unlike declaratory and injunctive relief, which are prospective 

 2 To the extent Mr. Philippeaux sought equitable relief with regard to his retaliation claim, that 

claim was also moot given that Mr. Philippeaux no longer lives at Flamingo Apartments. 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 5 of 10 
6

remedies, awards for monetary damages compensate the claimant for alleged past 

wrongs.”) (citation omitted). 

Nonetheless, we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Philippeaux’s damages claim on 

the alternative ground that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the 

FHA and FFHA. “We may affirm the district court's judgment on any ground that 

appears in the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even 

considered by the [district] court[.]” Powers v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 

1123-24 (11th Cir. 1993). 

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6), where, accepting the 

allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a

complaint fails to state a claim for relief. See Baker Cnty. Med. Servs. v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 763 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 2014). When reviewing whether a complaint 

states a claim for relief, pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Alba v. Montford, 

517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, “plaintiffs must do more than 

merely state legal conclusions; they are required to allege some specific factual 

bases for those conclusions[.]” Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250, 

1263 (11th Cir. 2004). 

“The FHA and the Florida Fair Housing Act are substantively identical, and 

therefore the same legal analysis applies to each.” Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights 

Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014). Under the FHA and the 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 6 of 10 
7

FFHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a renter with disabilities by refusing 

“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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Fla. Stat. 

§ 760.23(9)(b). To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff “must 

prove that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the FHA, (2) he requested a 

reasonable accommodation, (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to 

afford him an [equal] opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling, and (4) the 

defendants refused to make the accommodation.” Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights 

Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014). 

We have held that “[t]he FHA's reasonable accommodation provision 

requires only those accommodations that may be necessary . . . to afford equal

opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 

F.3d 1201, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Equal opportunity means that a disabled person must be afforded the same 

opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling as a non-disabled person. Id. 

Preferential treatment is not required. Id. 

MCZ does not dispute that Mr. Philippeaux is handicapped within the 

meaning of the FHA and FFHA, nor does it dispute that he occupied a dwelling as 

defined by these acts. Rather, the issue on appeal is whether Mr. Philippeaux’s 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 7 of 10 
8

request for an assigned, handicapped parking space on the ground level of the 

garage is a reasonable accommodation. We conclude that it was not. 

First, the ground level of the parking garage was leased to a third-party 

vendor, and residents of Flamingo Apartments were not permitted to park on the 

ground level unless they were willing to pay the hourly valet rate—something Mr. 

Philippeaux was unwilling to do. Because all residents park on levels two through 

seven, providing Mr. Philippeaux a ground-level parking space at no cost or at a 

reduced rate would place him in a better position than all other residents, disabled

and non-disabled alike. 

Second, requiring MCZ to either break its lease agreement with the thirdparty valet vendor, or pay the hourly valet parking fees charged by the vendor so 

that Mr. Philippeaux could park on the ground level, would place an undue 

financial burden upon MCZ. And, as we have said, an accommodation is not 

reasonable if it imposes an undue financial burden on the landlord. See Schwarz, 

544 F.3d at 1220 (analogizing Rehabilitation Act cases to a claim brought under 

the FHA). 

In short, Mr. Philippeaux failed to allege the denial of a reasonable 

accommodation. See Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002)

(“Under the [FHA], plaintiff[ ] have the burden of proving that a proposed 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 8 of 10 
9

accommodation is reasonable.”). As a result, he failed to state a claim under the 

FHA or FFHA. 

III

To state a claim for retaliatory housing discrimination, a plaintiff must assert 

that a defendant coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with his exercise of 

rights granted under the FHA or FFHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3617; Fla. Stat. § 760.37; 

Dixon v. Hallmark Cos., 627 F.3d 849, 858 (11th Cir. 2010). “To establish a 

prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a 

protected activity; (2) the defendant subjected him to an adverse action; and (3) a 

causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Walker v. 

City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying the legal 

framework used in Title VII cases to an FHA retaliation case). “A plaintiff 

engages in statutorily protected activity when he or she protests . . . conduct which 

is actually lawful, so long as he or she demonstrates a good faith, reasonable belief 

that the [conduct engaged in] was . . . unlawful[.]” Harper v. Blockbuster Entm't 

Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1388 (11th Cir. 1998) (Title VII case) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). A plaintiff’s belief that the conduct was unlawful must be 

objectively reasonable. Id. 

Mr. Philippeaux’s second amended complaint failed to establish a prima 

facie case of retaliation. Simply stated, Mr. Philippeaux has not alleged that he 

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 9 of 10 
10

engaged in statutorily protected activity. Rather, he claimed that he was denied a 

reasonable accommodation. His belief that MCZ violated the law by not providing 

him with an assigned, handicapped parking space on the ground level of the 

garage, however, was not objectively reasonable. Mr. Philippeaux admitted that 

the entire ground level of the parking garage was leased to a third party and that all 

the residents at Flamingo Apartments had to park on levels two through seven. He 

also admitted that there were handicapped parking spaces on levels two through 

seven. Moreover, while he claimed that he was evicted because he requested the 

accommodation, the record establishes that the state court eviction action was 

triggered by Mr. Philippeaux’s failure to pay rent.

Because Mr. Philippeaux fails to allege that he engaged in statutorily 

protected activity, he failed to state a claim for retaliation. 

IV

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Philippeaux’s equitable 

claims as moot. We affirm the dismissal of Mr. Philippeaux’s damages claims for 

discrimination and retaliation because he failed to state claims for relief. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11156 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 10 of 10