11-002270 Florida Commission On Human Relations, On Behalf Of Steven And Jamie Terry vs. Hoyt And Nancy Davis, Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc., And John Mcmenamy
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners have proven by direct evidence housing discrimination based on familial status but there is no basis for an award of monetary damages.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN ) )

14RELATIONS, ON BEHALF OF STEVEN )

20AND JAMIE TERRY, )

24Petitioner, )

26)

27vs. ) Case No. 11-2270

32)

33HOYT AND NANCY DAVIS, FLORIDA )

39COASTAL JACKSONVILLE REALTY, )

43INC., AND JOHN MCMENAMY, )

48)

49Respondents. )

51)

52RECOMMENDED ORDER

54Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

65on November 29, 2011, in Jacksonville, Florida, before W. David

75Watkins, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division

84of Administrative Hearings.

87APPEARANCES

88For Petitioners: David A. Organes, Esquire

94Florida Commission on Human Relations

992009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

104Tallahassee, Florida 32301

107For Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis:

113Geoffrey T. Heekin, Esquire,

117Hilary Wilson, Esquire

120One Independent Drive, Suite 2200

125Jacksonville, Florida 32202

128For Respondents John McMenamy and Florida Coastal

135Jacksonville Realty, Inc.:

138N. Mark New, II, Esquire

143McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC

14610407 Centurion Parkway North, Suite 200

152Jacksonville, Florida 32256

155STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

159Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing

166practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as

176amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes

183(2011) 1 / .

187PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

189Petitioner, the Florida Commission on Human Relations

196("Commission"), is a state agency charged with investigating

206complaints of housing discrimination filed pursuant to the

214Florida Fair Housing Act. §§ 760.22 - 760.37, Fla. Stat.

224On August 16, 2010, Steven and Jaime Terry filed a complaint

235with the Commission – dual-filed with the U.S. Department of

245Housing and Urban Development -- alleging Respondents, Hoyt and

254Nancy Davis, John McMenamy, and Florida Coastal Jacksonville

262Realty, Inc., discriminated against them on the basis of

271familial status in violation of section 760.23(1), Florida

279Statutes, and section 804(a) of the Federal Fair Housing Act of

2901988. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

295An investigation of the complaint was made by the

304Commission. On September 17, 2010, the Commission issued its

313determination that there was reasonable cause to believe a

322discriminatory housing practice had occurred in violation of

330section 760.23(1). The Commission's efforts to conciliate were

338unsuccessful, as stated in the Notice of Failure of Conciliation

348entered by the Commission on April 26, 2011. Mr. and Mrs. Terry

360elected to have the Commission act on their behalf pursuant to

371section 760.35(3)(a) Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Y-

3787.001(8)(b)7. On May 5, 2011, the Commission filed a petition

388for relief on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Terry.

397On May 5, 2011, the case was referred to the Division of

409Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") and assigned to Administrative

418Law Judge Lawrence P. Stevenson to conduct a formal hearing on

429the matter. However, on July 12, 2011, the case was transferred

440to the undersigned, and on September 19, 2011, an Order Granting

451Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing was issued setting the

459final hearing for November 29 and 30, 2011, in Jacksonville, Florida. The final hearing was conducted as noticed, at which time

480Petitioners called as witnesses Jamie Terry, John McMenamy and

489Nancy Davis, and offered in evidence nine exhibits. Respondents

498Hoyt and Nancy Davis recalled Nancy Davis as its sole witness,

509and offered four exhibits in evidence. Respondents John McMenamy

518and Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc. called Hoyt Davis

527as their only witness, and offered one exhibit in evidence.

537At the conclusion of the final hearing, the parties

546stipulated that proposed recommended orders would be filed

554within 14 days of the filing of the two-volume official

564transcript with the Division, which occurred on January 18,

5732012. Thereafter the parties filed two separate requests for

582extensions of time to file proposed recommended orders, and

591those requests were granted. On March 5, 2012, Petitioners and

601Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis timely filed Proposed

609Recommended Orders, both of which have been carefully considered

618by the undersigned.

621Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented

629at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and

639on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings

649of fact are made:

653FINDINGS OF FACT

656Background

6571. Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis (the Davises) own a

667residential property located at 1856 Cross Pointe Way,

675St. Augustine, Florida (the Property). The Property is utilized

684exclusively as a rental.

6882. Respondent Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc.

695("Florida Coastal") and its principal John McMenamy ("McMenamy")

707acted as listing agents for the Property (collectively, the

"716Broker Respondents"). Mr. McMenamy and his company have

725managed the rental of the Property for approximately six years.

7353. In association with their listing of the Property, the

745Broker Respondents were responsible for advertising, showing,

752accepting applications for and assisting in the selection of

761tenants for the Property.

7654. At the time of the events in question, the Property was

777being offered for lease at a rate of $1,450 per month.

789Generally, due to its location within a St. Johns County golf

800community and proximity to good schools, the Property rents

809easily and quickly.

812The Rental Applications

8155. On May 14, 2010, Petitioner Jaime Terry (Mrs. Terry)

825contacted McMenamy regarding the Property. McMenamy instructed

832Mrs. Terry on the rental application process. On the afternoon

842of Sunday, May 16, 2010, Petitioners submitted via e-mail their

852rental application, dated May 15, 2010.

8586. On their application, the Petitioners disclosed that

866they had previously declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was

874entered in December 2007 and discharged in January 2009.

883Petitioners also disclosed that they were currently living with

892Mrs. Terry's parents. The application included a statement of

901the Terrys' monthly income, and also disclosed that they had

911three children residing with them -- aged eleven, five and two

922at the time. A memo attached to the application elaborated on

933the bankruptcy and other details of their employment and

942financial situation. Mrs. Terry testified that during the

950application process the Respondents did not solicit additional

958information concerning her employment history.

9637. On May 18, 2010, McMenamy ran a credit check on the

975Terrys using the "Online Rental Exchange." The credit report

984for Jaime Terry reflected a credit score of 664, while Steven

995Terry's assigned score was 649. However, both reports noted

"1004conditional" approval because of the bankruptcy filing.

10118. Although the exact date is unknown, at approximately

1020the same time that the Terrys submitted their application,

1029another couple, Rick and Jessica Egger (the Eggers) contacted

1038McMenamy regarding their interest in possibly renting the

1046Property.

10479. On the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Eggers

1058formally submitted an application to rent the Property. The

1067Eggers' application disclosed that, unlike the Terrys', they did

1076not have a bankruptcy in their history. In addition, the

1086Eggers' combined monthly income was higher than the Terrys' 2 / and

1098the younger of their two children was nine years old. The

1109credit report obtained for the Eggers reflected a credit score

1119of 672 for Jessica Egger and 696 for Rick Egger, with an

1131unconditional approval rating.

1134Respondents' Tenant Selection Process

113810. McMenamy testified that in evaluating applications,

1145potential tenants must meet certain minimum criteria. Factors

1153he considers in assessing applicants include credit checks,

1161criminal background checks, employment status, and rental

1168history. However, he agreed that the evaluation process he uses

1178is subjective.

118011. McMenamy acknowledged that bankruptcy would not

1187automatically disqualify a potential tenant, and in fact,

1195confirmed that he has rented to tenants who have a bankruptcy in

1207their history. With regard to credit scores, McMenamy testified

1216that he considered a score below 500 to be unacceptable.

122612. Mrs. Davis testified that McMenamy manages the entire

1235process of renting the Property on behalf of herself and her

1246husband. Once McMenamy determines the suitability of a

1254prospective tenant, he discusses that tenant with the Davises.

1263McMenamy does not discuss applicants with the Davises that he

1273does not consider eligible. The Davises do not participate in

1283the background screening process and they do not review

1292applicants' credit ratings. However, Mrs. Davis was aware of

1301McMenamy's process for selecting tenants, and she confirmed her

1310understanding that applicants must meet certain minimum

1317requirements. In selecting a tenant, McMenamy looks not only

1326for a candidate that is financially qualified, but also one who

1337will rent the property for a significant period of time, will

1348take good care of the property, and will make monthly rent

1359payments in a timely manner, according to Mrs. Davis.

1368Denial of Petitioners' Lease Application

137313. Mr. Davis testified that he and Mrs. Davis discussed

1383the Petitioners' application with McMenamy. At hearing,

1390Mr. Davis recounted that conversation as follows:

1397Cross-examination by Mr. Organes:

1401Q. Mr. Davis, you stated that you had

1409discussed with Mr. McMenamy the application

1415of Steven and Jaime Terry?

1420A. Yes.

1422Q. And that’s a common practice with Mr.

1430McMenamy as when he receives reasonably

1436qualified applicants, he discusses them with

1442you?

1443A. Yes.

1445Q. And that’s what he did with the Terrys?

1454A. Yes.

1456Q. And you said you did not tell him not to

1467rent to them because of their children?

1474A. That is true, we did not tell him.

1483Q. The issue of children wasn’t discussed

1490at all?

1492A. No.

1494Q. What reason did you give him to tell

1503them why their application was being denied?

1510A. Because of their past rental history and

1518their bankruptcy foreclosure.

1521Q. In general if you don’t approve of an

1530applicant, what reason would you give for

1537denying that applicant?

1540A. I would give that reason, that we didn’t

1549feel that, you know, we probably would get a

1558better applicant and the reason we turned

1565them down is because we didn’t feel that

1573they were suitable for our rental.

157914. There is no evidence in this record as to precisely

1590when the above conversation between the Respondents took place,

1599although based upon Mr. Davis's statement that "we probably

1608would get a better applicant" it is reasonable to infer that it

1620was prior to the Eggers submitting their application on the

1630evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010. 3 /

163815. Early on the morning of Friday, May 21, 2010, McMenamy

1649sent an e-mail to Ms. Terry, which read:

1657Jaime

1658I left a message yesterday but did not

1666hear from you. I spoke to the owner about

1675the application and she was concerned about

1682not really having any rental history and the

1690number of small children. She is a

1697perfectionist and just had the home

1703professionally painted. The one family who

1709lived there had small children and there

1716were handprints all over the walls so that

1724it needed to be repainted. So this was her

1733main concern and therefore does not want to

1741rent to you and the family.

1747If you have any questions please call.

1754Sincerely,

1755John

175616. At hearing, Mrs. Davis maintained that the

1764Petitioners' children were not the determining factor in the

1773decision to deny their application. Rather, it was based on

1783their finances and lack of rental history. Consistent with Mr.

1793Davis's testimony, Mrs. Davis also testified that she and her

1803husband did not instruct McMenamy to reject the Petitioners'

1812application because of their children.

181717. After being informed that their application was

1825denied, Petitioners immediately began searching for alternate

1832housing. Mrs. Terry testified that their primary concern was to

1842locate a rental in a high quality school district. Within a

1853couple of weeks of receiving the denial e-mail from McMenamy,

1863the Terrys located a home at 983 Lilac Loop, St. Johns, Florida.

1875Petitioners entered into a lease for this property on June 6,

18862010; the rent was $ 1,200 per month. Although the Lilac Loop

1899home was acceptable, the Terrys considered it to be inferior to

1910the Property, and Petitioners paid to have the home repainted

1920and wired for cable access. The cable installation fee was

1930$150.00.

193118. On September 22, 2010, Petitioners were notified that

1940the Lilac Loop house was in foreclosure. Petitioners appealed

1949to a default-law organization in an attempt to enforce their

1959one-year lease, but were ultimately unsuccessful. As a result

1968of the foreclosure, Petitioners were forced to seek alternative

1977housing within the same school district, and in November 2010,

1987leased a property at 1528 Summerdown Way, Fruit Cove, Florida,

199732259. The monthly rent at 1528 Summerdown Way was $1,600

2008monthly. Petitioners also incurred additional expenses

2014necessitated by hiring a moving service, in the amount of

2024$773.50. At of the hearing, Petitioners continued to reside in

2034the Summerdown Way rental.

2038The Commission Investigation

204119. On August 16, 2010, the Terrys filed a Housing

2051Discrimination Complaint with HUD alleging they had been

2059unlawfully discriminated against by Respondents based upon their

2067familial status. Thereafter, the Commission opened an

2074investigation of the allegation. As part of that investigation,

2083Respondents were invited to submit written statements setting

2091forth their version of the events at issue, and any defenses to

2103the allegation they wished to raise.

210920. On August 19, 2010, the Davises submitted a written

2119statement to the FCHR. In the first paragraph of that submittal

2130the Davises stated:

2133To Whom it May Concern:

2138We enlisted realtor John MaMenamy to find a

2146new tenant for our rental house at 1856

2154Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, FL 32092.

2161Mr. McMenamy was told that we preferred not

2169to rent to someone with more than one, if

2178any, very small children at this particular

2185time. The reason being we just had to have

2194the interior of the house professionally

2200repainted and repairs made to several areas,

2207the walls in particular. Additionally, in

2213light of the fact there were several highly

2221qualified persons interested in and looking

2227at the house concurrently.

223121. The submittal continued by identifying four former

2239tenants of the Property, as well as the current tenants (the

2250Eggers), all of whom had children living with them.

225922. It is found that McMenamy's e-mail of May 21, 2010,

2270and the Davises' letter of August 19, 2010, constitute direct

2280evidence that Respondents' decision not to rent to Petitioners

2289was based upon their familial status. The testimony of McMenamy

2299and the Davises that familial status was not the reason for

2310refusing to rent to Petitioners is rejected as not credible.

2320CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

232323. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2330jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to

2339sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2011).

234624. The Florida Fair Housing Act, codified in sections

2355760.20 through 760.37 provides, in pertinent part, that:

2363(1) It is unlawful to refuse to sell or

2372rent after the making of a bona fide offer,

2381to refuse to negotiate for the sale or

2389rental of, or otherwise to make unavailable

2396or deny a dwelling to any person because of

2405race, color, national origin, sex, handicap,

2411familial status , or religion.

2415(2) It is unlawful to discriminate against

2422any person in the terms, conditions, or

2429privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,

2437or in the provision of services or

2444facilities in connection therewith, because

2449of race, color, national origin, sex,

2455handicap, familial status , or religion.

2460§ 760.23, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added)

246625. Familial status is "established when an individual who

2475has not attained the age of 18 years is domiciled with . . . a

2490parent. . . " § 760.22(5), Fla. Stat.

249726. The federal Fair Housing Act is "a broad remedial

2507statute," therefore, its provisions are to be generously

2515construed and "its exemptions must be read narrowly." City of

2525Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council , 18 F.3d 802, 804

2536(9th Cir.1994), aff'd , 514 U.S. 725, 115 S. Ct. 1776, 131 L. Ed.

25492d 801 (1995). See Massaro v. Mainlands Section 1 & 2 Civic

2561Ass'n, Inc. , 3 F.3d 1472, 1475 (1lth Cir. 1993) ("Exemptions

2572from the Fair Housing Act are to be construed narrowly, in

2583recognition of the important goal of preventing housing

2591discrimination."). In enacting the Florida Fair Housing Act,

2600the legislature "essentially codified" the U.S. Fair Housing

2608Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. et seq. Dornbach v. Holley ,

2619854 So. 2d 211, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the provisions

2631of the Florida Act are virtually identical to those provisions

2641of the federal Act, federal case authority is persuasive in

2651interpreting Florida's statute.

265427. Petitioners bear the initial burden of proof to

2663establish a prima facie case of discrimination by a

2672preponderance of the evidence. In evaluating housing

2679discrimination claims, courts have applied the burden-shifting

2686analysis developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green , 411 U.S.

2696792, 802-804 (1973), and later refined in Texas Department of

2706Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 252-253 (1981).

2715Following this approach, Petitioners must make a prima facie

2724case for discrimination.

272728. Petitioners may prove discrimination through any

2734combination of direct and indirect evidence, including

2741statistical evidence. However, if they establish a prima facie

2750case of discrimination and Respondents produce any evidence of a

2760legitimate business purpose, Petitioners must prove that the

2768real reason for the complained-of action is discrimination. It

2777is not enough to show that the legitimate business purpose is a

2789pretext. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.

2801Ct. 2742 (1993). In other words, Petitioners at all times

2811retain the burden of proving that either or both Respondents

2821discriminated against Petitioners.

282429. To state a claim of discrimination in the leasing of

2835property pursuant to the FFHA, a petitioner must prove the

2845following: a) The petitioners were members of a protected

2854class; b) The respondents were aware of the petitioner's

2863protected class; c) The petitioners were ready, willing and able

2873to rent the property at issue; and d) The respondents refused to

2885allow the petitioners to rent the property. Woolington v. 1st

2895Orlando Real Estate Servs. , 2011 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 100426; Dkt.

2906# 6:ll-cv-l107 (M.D. Fla. 2011).

291130. Petitioners have proven by direct evidence housing

2919discrimination by both Respondents based on familial status in

2928this case. 4 /

293231. Section 760.35(3)(b) authorizes section 120.569 and

2939120.57(1) hearings on allegations of discriminatory housing

2946practices. Section 760.35(3)(b) provides that, if the

2953administrative law judge finds a discriminatory housing

2960practice, he or she shall issue a recommended order "prohibiting

2970the practice and recommending affirmative relief from the

2978effects of the practice, including quantifiable damages and

2986reasonable attorney's fees and costs." Section 760.35(3)(b)

2993further provides that any circuit court with jurisdiction may

3002enter judgment on the final order of the Florida Commission on

3013Human Relations.

301532. Section 760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes, authorizes the

3022Commission to award compensatory damages to the victim of a

"3032discriminatory housing practice," but only if the damages are

3041quantifiable and their amount has been established by competent

3050substantial evidence. In this instance, the undersigned

3057concludes that based upon this record there is no basis to award

3069monetary damages to Petitioners. Rent paid by Petitioners for

3078the Lilac Loop home was $250.00 per month less than rent for the

3091Property, and in one month alone this differential more than

3101offset the $150.00 cost of cable installation at the Lilac Loop

3112home. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to assess as damages

3122the moving costs and higher rent payments associated with

3131Petitioners' relocation from the Lilac Loop home to the

3140Summerdown property. That relocation was the result of the

3149foreclosure on the Lilac Loop home, an intervening event that

3159was remote in time from, and not proximately caused by, the

3170wrongful act at issue. Moreover, the costs associated with that

3180move were not "natural, direct, and necessary consequences" of

3189Respondents' discriminatory housing practice. Rost v. Bowling ,

3196861 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

320433. Petitioners did not present any evidence upon which an

3214award of attorney's fees and costs may be based.

3223RECOMMENDATION

3224Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3234Law, it is

3237RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations

3245enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of a

3254discriminatory housing practice against the Terrys in violation

3262of section 760.23(1) and (2), and prohibiting further unlawful

3271housing practices by Respondents.

3275DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2012, in

3285Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3289S

3290W. DAVID WATKINS

3293Administrative Law Judge

3296Division of Administrative Hearings

3300The DeSoto Building

33031230 Apalachee Parkway

3306Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3309(850) 488-9675

3311Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3315www.doah.state.fl.us

3316Filed with the Clerk of the

3322Division of Administrative Hearings

3326this 30th day of May, 2012.

3332ENDNOTES

33331/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

3342Statutes are to the 2011 version.

33482/ This finding is based upon Mr. McMenamy's testimony at

3358hearing. The Eggers' Rental Application (McMenamy Ex. 1) does

3367not reflect a monthly income for Rick Egger, but does reflect a

3379net monthly income for Jessica Egger of $2,600.00.

33883/ This inference is corroborated by the statement in Mr.

3398McMenamy's e-mail of May 21, 2010, to Mrs. Terry that "I left a

3411message yesterday but did not hear from you" after which he

3422recounts his conversation with Mrs. Davis and informs Mrs. Terry

3432that their application had been denied.

34384/ Should the Commission in its Final Order award damages in

3449favor of Petitioners, all Respondents, including Florida Coastal

3457Jacksonville Realty, Inc. and John McMenamy, would be jointly

3466and severally liable, since were acting as agents for the

3476Davises.

3477COPIES FURNISHED :

3480Geoffrey T. Heekin, Esquire

3484Post Office Box 477

3488Jacksonville, Florida 32201

3491N. Mark New, II, Esquire

3496McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC

3499Suite 200

350110407 Centurion Parkway, North

3505Jacksonville, Florida 32256

3508David A. Organes, Esquire

3512Florida Commission on Human Relations

35172009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

3522Tallahassee, FL 32301

3525Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire

3530Florida Commission on Human Relations

3535Suite 100

35372009 Apalachee Parkway

3540Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3543kranerl@fchr.state.fl.us

3544Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

3548Florida Commission on Human Relations

3553Suite 100

35552009 Apalachee Parkway

3558Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3561violet.crawford@fchr.myflorida.com

3562Steven Terry

3564Jamie Terry

35661528 Summerdown Way

3569St. Johns, Florida 32259

3573NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3579All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

358915 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3600to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3611will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order Awarding Affirmative Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 29, 2011). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2012
Proceedings: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2012
Proceedings: Affidavit of Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2012
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2012
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Address filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2012
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2012
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Orders filed.
Date: 01/18/2012
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 11/29/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (Joseph Melino) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Hoyt and Nancy Davis' Addendum to Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2011
Proceedings: Defendants Hoyt and Nancy Davis' Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' and Respondents' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulations filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2011
Proceedings: Defendants Hoyt and Nancy Davis' Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2011
Proceedings: Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for November 29 and 30, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2011
Proceedings: Hoyt and Nancy Davis' Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2011
Proceedings: Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2011
Proceedings: Respondents Nancy and Hoyt Davis' Interrogatories to Petitioner Jamie Terry filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Jamie Terry filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2011
Proceedings: Request for Production to Jamie Terry filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 4 and 5, 2011; 9:30 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/29/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Status Report in Response to Order Placing Case in Abeyance filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by August 5, 2011).
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 16 and 17, 2011; 9:30 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Status filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Steven Terry) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Jaime Terry) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/07/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by June 17, 2011).
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash ect. filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Original Return of Service of Jaime Terry.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Original Return of Service of Steven Terry.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by N. Mark New).
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Response to Petition for Relief filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 28 and 29, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Initial Order, Section 2 filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by N. New).
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Order (granting motion for extension of time to respond to initial order).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Housing Discrimination Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Determination filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Determination (Cause) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Failure of Conciliation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Petition for Relief filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2011
Proceedings: Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.

Case Information

Judge:
W. DAVID WATKINS
Date Filed:
05/05/2011
Date Assignment:
07/12/2011
Last Docket Entry:
08/15/2012
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):