Opinion ID: 4153008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fairness and Prejudice

Text: Our analysis starts with the principle that an FHA damages claim is, in effect, a tort action governed by general tort rules, and “proximate cause is a classic element of a tort claim.” City of Miami v. Bank of Am. Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1279 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S. Ct. 824, 828-29 (2003)) and Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 195, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 1009 (1974) (“A damages action under [the FHA] sounds basically in tort—the statute merely defines a new legal duty, and authorizes the courts to compensate a plaintiff for the injury caused by the defendant’s wrongful breach.”) (internal alteration omitted), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 2544 (2016). 10 Therefore, this Court has held 9 The Defendants argue that we may affirm because the Plaintiffs invited any error by explicitly agreeing to (1) handle the issue not in the jury instruction but in the verdict form and (2) then by ultimately agreeing to the change in the verdict form. “When a party responds to a court’s proposed jury instructions with the words ‘the instruction is acceptable to us,’ such action constitutes invited error” and “serve[s] to waive [the party’s] right to challenge the accepted instruction on appeal.” United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Frank invited error when he not only agreed with the supplemental instructions and special verdict form, but requested them.”). The Plaintiffs counter that the Defendants misconstrue the record and point out that they did not have a copy of the final verdict form during the charge conference. We need not address invited error because the Plaintiffs, in any event, have not shown the requisite prejudice. 10 In its certiorari grant, the Supreme Court stated “[t]he questions presented are as follows: 1. By limiting suit to ‘aggrieved person[s],’ did Congress require that an FHA plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact? 2. The FHA requires plaintiffs to plead proximate cause. Does proximate cause require more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the 42 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 43 of 73 that proximate cause, as a classic part of a tort claim, is a “required element of a damages claim under the FHA.” Id. at 1278-80. And to prove proximate cause, the Plaintiffs had to show the Rules were enforced against only families with children and caused damages to the Plaintiffs. As recounted above, the Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial was all about proving that the Rules were enforced against them. As the district court observed, the factual issues of whether the Defendants enforced the Rules and the impact of such enforcement on the individual Plaintiffs and the community at large were “hotly and vigorously” contested at trial. As recounted above, nearly every witness who testified at trial spoke about these issues. The property managers spoke about how they enforced the Rules against all residents and how at times the Loitering and Curfew Rules were not enforced at all. The Plaintiffs produced testimony from ten residents, adults and children alike, who testified about how the Rules were routinely enforced against only families with children and how it made them feel angry, sad, embarrassed, cooped up, and bored. Kulick testified extensively about how she went about implementing the Rules, and she also denied that they were enforced in a discriminatory manner. remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies?” (Emphasis added). While these two questions are not at issue here, it is noteworthy the Supreme Court made clear again that proximate cause is an element of an FHA damages claim. 43 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 44 of 73 Thus, the record reflects that the Plaintiffs were allowed to put on a robust and fulsome case regarding whether, and in what manner, the facially illegal Rules were enforced and thereby caused residents any damages. In short, causation is an intensely factual question that was presented to, and decided by, the jury. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ own brief on appeal contends that their “case in chief as to the Loitering and Curfew Rules focused on enforcement and the emotional distress experienced by the families who lived under the regime of the Rules as well as the economic damages they suffered.” Given this fulsome presentation of evidence, it is hardly surprising that on appeal the Plaintiffs do not point to or disclose any probative evidence that they failed to present due to the district court’s earlier partial summary judgment order. 11 Instead, the Plaintiffs point to two instances of testimony that they claim were “misleading.” First, they argue that Vince Larkins, the Center’s president and CEO, was “hamstrung” in his testimony because he was forced to describe the Rules as “allegedly” discriminatory, resulting in a “necessarily halting” explanation that “infected the jury’s deliberations with substantial confusion.” Plaintiffs point to a single sentence in Larkins’s testimony: “Well, we have to 11 The Plaintiffs argue that causation is part of the remedy phase of trial, not part of the liability determination. The Defendants counter that causation goes to liability, not damages. We need not decide that narrow question because the Plaintiffs do not point to any evidence of causation that they failed to present either before or after the district court’s ruling. 44 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 45 of 73 continue to monitor because of many of the—I am trying to be careful because I