Court Opinion

ID: 9905761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 14:00:51.848162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.630734
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13709   Document: 27-1    Date Filed: 11/30/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-13709
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        LAWRENCE T. NEWMAN,
        BEVERLY R. NEWMAN,
                                                  Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
        versus
        HERITAGE VILLAGE WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
        INC.,
        PATTI MARTIN,
        in her individual capacity and in her oﬃcial
        capacity as former President and as a
        Board member of the Heritage Village
        West Condominium Association, Inc.,
        ROBIN PARKER,
        in her individual capacity and in her oﬃcial
USCA11 Case: 22-13709     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023    Page: 2 of 10

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13709

        capacity as an Oﬃcer and as a
        Board member of the HeritageVillage
        West Condominium Association, Inc.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00817-MSS-SPF
                           ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Lawrence and Beverly Newman appeal the dismissal of their
        federal and state fair-housing claims against their condominium as-
        sociation and two of the association’s board members. The district
        court dismissed the Newmans’ complaint as res judicata based on
        an earlier state court judgment. We conclude that some of the
        Newmans’ claims were res judicata, and some were barred by the
        applicable statute of limitations. But most of the Newmans’ fair-
        housing claims were not barred by the Florida judgment because
        they alleged a different cause of action than the claims disposed of
        in the state litigation, and many of the surviving claims were not
        obviously barred by the statute of limitations based on the
USCA11 Case: 22-13709      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        22-13709               Opinion of the Court                         3

        allegations in the complaint. We therefore affirm in part, reverse
        in part, and remand for further proceedings.
                                          I.
               The Newmans have been living in Beverly Newman’s fa-
        ther’s condominium in Heritage Village West since shortly before
        the father’s death in 2010. They apparently have never paid the
        fees charged by the Heritage Village West Condominium Associa-
        tion.
               In 2016, the Association filed an eviction action in Manatee
        County, Florida based on the Newmans’ failure to pay. The New-
        mans responded and filed four state-law counterclaims, alleging
        that (1) the eviction action was illegal retaliation for their com-
        plaints about the use of toxic chemicals by the Association and its
        landscaping company, and because they are Jewish; (2) the eviction
        notice and lawsuit constituted an abuse of process; (3) authorizing
        the eviction suit constituted bad faith and reckless or malicious con-
        duct by three individually named Association directors; and (4) the
        Association and the three directors conspired to commit defama-
        tion against them. The state court ultimately entered summary
        judgment in favor of the Association and its directors on all four of
        the counterclaims.
               The Newmans then filed this action in federal district court,
        alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and its Florida
        counterpart. Their federal complaint alleged that the Association
        and two of its board members (neither of whom had been named
        in the state counterclaims) discriminated against them based on
USCA11 Case: 22-13709       Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 4 of 10

        4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13709

        their Jewish heritage and religion and by failing to provide a rea-
        sonable accommodation for Beverly Newman’s extreme sensitiv-
        ity to toxic chemicals. They also alleged, as they did in the state
        eviction action, that the defendants attempted to evict them in re-
        taliation for their 2016 complaints about the use of toxic landscap-
        ing chemicals; harassed Beverly Newman by misusing the litigation
        process in requesting medical records, serving subpoenas, and de-
        manding proof of her chemical sensitivity; and made harmful false
        statements about them because of their Jewish religion and herit-
        age. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by res
        judicata, and this timely appeal followed. See Fed. R. App. P.
        4(a)(1)(A), 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).
                                          II.
                On appeal, the Newmans challenge the district court’s dis-
        missal of their complaint and its rulings on their motion for default
        judgment and several motions to file reply briefs. We review the
        district court’s application of res judicata de novo. Lozman v. City of
        Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069–70 (11th Cir. 2013). We review
        the court’s decision on the motion for default judgment and its ap-
        plication of its local rules regarding reply briefs for abuse of discre-
        tion. Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309,
        1316 (11th Cir. 2002); Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1267 n.22 (11th
        Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-13709        Document: 27-1        Date Filed: 11/30/2023       Page: 5 of 10

        22-13709                 Opinion of the Court                              5

                                            III.
                                             A.
                Florida’s doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between
        the same parties on the same cause of action if a court of competent
        jurisdiction entered a judgment on the merits in the first lawsuit. 1
        Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8, 11–12 (Fla. 1984), superseded by statute
        on other grounds, as stated in Bowen v. Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Reg., 448
        So. 2d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). So long as the cause of action
        is the same and the second suit is between the same parties or their
        privies, the “first judgment is conclusive as to all matters which
        were or could have been determined.” Id. at 12. The cause of ac-
        tion is the same when “the facts or evidence necessary to maintain
        the suit are the same in both actions.” Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.
        2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (en banc) (emphasis in the
        original) (quotation omitted). In other words, “the essential ele-
        ments of the cause of action, and thus the ultimate facts to be
        proved,” must be the same for res judicata to apply. Leahy v. Bat-
        masian, 960 So. 2d 14, 17–18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Claims based
        on facts or conditions that did not yet exist when the first judgment
        was entered are not barred by res judicata. Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing
        Found., Inc., 912 So. 2d 28, 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005).
             Some, but not all, of the claims in the Newmans’ federal
        complaint are barred by res judicata. The same parties or their

        1 In determining whether to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment,

        federal courts must apply the rendering state’s law of preclusion. Lozman v.
        City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1074 n.6 (11th Cir. 2013).
USCA11 Case: 22-13709          Document: 27-1         Date Filed: 11/30/2023          Page: 6 of 10

        6                          Opinion of the Court                         22-13709

        privies are involved in both actions,2 and some (but not all) of the
        causes of action are the same as the counterclaims that were adju-
        dicated on the merits in the state eviction action. Specifically, the
        Newmans’ claim that the 2016 eviction action was filed in retalia-
        tion for their complaints about the use of toxic chemicals and be-
        cause they are Jewish relies on the same facts as their retaliatory
        eviction counterclaim in the state litigation. Their claims that the
        Association misused court process to harass them require proof of
        the same facts that were or could have been alleged to prove the
        abuse-of-process counterclaim that was resolved against them by
        the state judgment. See Verdon v. Song, 251 So. 3d 256, 258 (Fla.
        Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (describing elements of cause of action for
        abuse of process). And their current allegations that the Associa-
        tion and its board members made false derogatory statements
        about them to other residents were or could have been alleged in
        support of their defamation conspiracy counterclaim in the state
        action, at least to the extent that they rely on statements made be-
        fore the state court judgment was entered in March 2020. See Saa-
        deh, 912 So. 2d at 31; see also Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d

        2 Defendants Patti Martin and Robin Parker are in privity with the Association

        to the extent that they are sued in their official capacities as Association board
        members. See AMEC Civ., LLC v. PTG Const. Servs. Co., 106 So. 3d 455, 456 (Fla.
        Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (“A privy is one who is identified with the litigant in inter-
        est.”). The Newmans also sued the board members in their individual capac-
        ities, but they did not allege personal liability or any individual action by Mar-
        tin or Parker with respect to the claims that are barred by res judicata.
USCA11 Case: 22-13709        Document: 27-1        Date Filed: 11/30/2023       Page: 7 of 10

        22-13709                 Opinion of the Court                              7

        1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008) (setting out elements of Florida defamation
        claim).
               But the Newmans also raise new causes of action that were
        not adjudicated in the state lawsuit. Their claim that the Associa-
        tion and board members refused to provide reasonable accommo-
        dation for Beverly Newman’s alleged disability by giving notice of
        toxic chemical use requires proof of different facts than their claim
        that the Association retaliated against them for complaining to
        state agencies about the use of chemicals. Compare 42 U.S.C.
        § 3604(f) and Fla. Stat. § 760.23(7)–(9) with Fla. Stat. § 83.64. And
        their claim that the defendants denied them housing services (in-
        cluding property maintenance and clean up, participation in com-
        mittees and meetings, and community notices) based on their reli-
        gion requires proof of different facts than their state defamation
        claim, even if both lawsuits included allegations of anti-Semitic
        vandalism.3 Compare 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)–(b) and Fla. Stat.
        § 760.23(1)–(2) with Jews for Jesus, Inc., 997 So. 2d at 1106 (describing
        Florida defamation claim); see also Tyson, 890 So. 2d at 1210 (res ju-
        dicata does not bar a subsequent lawsuit alleging a different cause
        of action even if the facts overlap to some degree with a prior
        claim).

        3 We express no opinion as to whether the Newmans have stated a plausible

        claim for relief under federal or state fair-housing laws. That issue was not
        briefed by the parties below and is not before us on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13709       Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 8 of 10

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13709

                                          B.
               The defendants argue here—as they did in the district
        court—that any fair-housing claims that are not barred by res judi-
        cata are barred by the statute of limitations. It is true that the New-
        mans alleged that the defendants discriminated against them begin-
        ning as early as 2008, and that any housing discrimination claims
        arising more than two years before they filed their complaint are
        generally barred under federal and state law. See 42 U.S.C.
        § 3613(a)(1)(A) (authorizing a civil action filed within two years of
        a discriminatory housing practice); Fla. Stat. § 760.35 (same for
        Florida housing discrimination claims). We therefore affirm the
        dismissal of the Newmans’ housing-discrimination claims to the ex-
        tent that they were clearly barred by the statute of limitations based
        on the Newmans’ own allegations. See United States v. Campbell, 26
        F.4th 860, 879 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (“we have discretion to
        affirm on any ground supported by the law and the record that will
        not expand the relief granted below” (quotation omitted)).
                But the Newmans also alleged conduct occurring in and af-
        ter late April 2019, less than two years before they filed their federal
        complaint. And they alleged recurring conduct, such as repeatedly
        spraying toxic chemicals without notice or repeatedly refusing to
        provide maintenance services, without specifying the dates of oc-
        currence. Because it was not apparent from the face of the com-
        plaint whether the statute-of-limitations defense applied to the un-
        dated allegations, the claims based on the undated alleged conduct
        were not subject to dismissal on that ground. See Nance v. Comm’r,
        Georgia Dep’t of Corr., 59 F.4th 1149, 1154 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-13709       Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 9 of 10

        22-13709                Opinion of the Court                          9

                                          C.
               Last, we briefly address the Newmans’ challenges to several
        of the district court’s interlocutory rulings. All of the challenged
        rulings were discretionary, meaning that the district court had a
        “wide range of choice” in how it ruled. McLane Co. v. E.E.O.C., 581
        U.S. 72, 83 (2017). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
        denying the Newmans’ motion for default judgment where the de-
        fendants provided an excuse for their late response to the com-
        plaint, it appeared that the untimeliness was inadvertent, and the
        brief delay caused no prejudice to the plaintiffs. See Perez v. Wells
        Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1338 n.7 (11th Cir. 2014); Mitchell, 294
        F.3d at 1316–17.
                The district court also acted within its discretion in denying
        the Newmans’ motions to file reply briefs. Under the court’s local
        rules, reply briefs generally are not allowed without leave of court.
        M.D. Fla L. R. 3.01(d). The district court’s discretion to grant or
        deny leave to reply under the rule coincides with its inherent au-
        thority to manage its docket to achieve “the efficient and expedient
        resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016); see also
        McLane Co., 581 U.S. at 83 (explaining that some discretionary de-
        cisions are “given an unusual amount of insulation from appellate
        revision for functional reasons” (quotation omitted)).
               The motions raised by the Newmans on appeal sought to
        file reply briefs in connection with their repeated attempts to
USCA11 Case: 22-13709        Document: 27-1         Date Filed: 11/30/2023         Page: 10 of 10

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13709

        obtain a default judgment. 4 The district court denied those mo-
        tions because it considered additional briefing unnecessary. This
        decision was reasonable, and well within the court’s authority. We
        therefore affirm on this issue.
                                              IV.
                We AFFIRM the dismissal of the Newmans’ retaliation
        claim (Count V). We also AFFIRM IN PART the dismissal of the
        Newmans’ other housing discrimination claims, to the extent that
        they allege discriminatory harassment in the form of defamatory
        statements or abuse of court process occurring before entry of the
        state court judgment on their counterclaims in the 2016 eviction
        action, or acts alleged to have occurred more than two years before
        the federal complaint was filed. We otherwise REVERSE the dis-
        trict court’s dismissal of the Newmans’ fair-housing claims, and we
        REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.
            AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
        REMANDED.

        4 The Newmans make a brief reference to the denial of their motion to file a

        reply brief in support of their Rule 60(b) motion. But they do not make any
        significant argument in their opening brief regarding either the district court’s
        decision on their motion to file a reply brief or its denial of their Rule 60(b)
        motion. Those issues are therefore abandoned. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
        Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
        874 (11th Cir. 2008).