Opinion ID: 56072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In May 2003, Merget, a white male, proceeding pro se, brought an action in federal district court against a number of defendants, including Gene Moss and Edward Kekritz, partners in Kensington Associates, which operates the Kensington, a residential high rise rental property in Broward County, Florida, where Merget formerly lived. Merget also named as defendants Sandra Driscoll, an employee of the Kensington who was responsible for leasing apartments and handling certain administrative duties, Ivan J. Smith & Co. (“Smith & Co.”), a real estate agency, and Nina Lascari, a broker employed by Smith & Co. Merget alleged a multitude of state and federal violations relating to his rental of an apartment in the building. Merget’s principal claims related to episodes of paint fumes and pesticide applications that allegedly caused him physical and emotional 2 injuries. Merget also included, inter alia, a claim alleging that Moss and his agents discriminated against black persons and families with children. After permitting Merget to amend his complaint several times, the district court ultimately dismissed all of his claims except for counts three and five. In relevant part, Merget alleged in count three that the defendants extracted $2,506 in the form of a security deposit from him, and improperly failed to refund that amount. Count five alleged that Moss, Nekritz, Lascari, Driscoll, and Smith & Co. intentionally excluded black persons and minor children from the Kensington through the use of illegal pretexts, including discriminatory credit screening practices, refusing to show apartments to some black applicants or parents of minor children, and failing to hire qualified black employees. Merget claimed that he was injured by the lack of racial and familial diversity, and by the defendants’ scheme to violate federal civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act. Merget asserted that Kensington Associates harbored racial hostility and malice toward “progressive white [persons] who objected” to this conduct. R2-62 at 12. After considering opposing motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on counts three and five, the only remaining counts. With respect to count five, the only claim at issue 3 in this appeal,1 the district court found that despite Merget’s numerous pleadings, he failed to identify specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. Rather, the district court found that Merget made “sweeping allegations that [were] unsupported by record evidence.” R9-316 at 11. Final judgment was entered for the defendants on 9 January 2006, and all other pending motions were denied as moot.