Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc.
9:14-cv-80667
| S.D. Fla. | Oct 29, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants under the Fair Housing Act alleging discriminatory advertising and application requirements at a Sonoma Bay rental unit.
- Jonathan Merrigan was the listing/leasing agent for the unit and was named in the Second Amended Complaint for advertisements requiring "report cards for children under 18."
- A clerk’s default was entered against Merrigan after he failed to respond, which ordinarily causes deemed admission of well-pleaded facts in the complaint.
- At trial, other defendants (Sonoma Bay Homeowners Association, Jeanne Kulick, and James Nyquist) participated and the jury found none of them liable under the Fair Housing Act.
- Plaintiffs moved for a default final judgment against Merrigan based on his admitted factual allegations about the advertisement and his statements to a tester.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default final judgment against Merrigan should be entered | Merrigan admitted key factual allegations by default and thus judgment is appropriate | Default judgment would be inconsistent with trial verdicts and Frow doctrine bars inconsistent results | Denied — default judgment would create inconsistency with jury verdicts against related defendants |
| Whether admissions from clerk’s default are controlling despite other defendants’ trial outcomes | Admissions establish liability facts for Merrigan | Collateral estoppel/Frow prevents imposing liability when trial proved exculpatory facts as to related parties | Court declined to apply default judgment due to Frow concerns |
| Whether Frow v. De La Vega applies to co-defendants with related defenses | Plaintiffs argued default admissions suffice regardless | Court noted Frow prevents inconsistent judgments among jointly related defendants | Court applied Frow principle and refused default judgment |
| Effect of jury verdict for participating defendants on defaulted defendant | Plaintiffs asserted separate liability for Merrigan based on advertisement | Court saw liability as logically precluded by jury’s findings about the same practices by participating defendants | Court held jury verdict precluded inconsistent judgment against Merrigan |
Key Cases Cited
- Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1872) (default judgment inappropriate where it would create inconsistent judgments among defendants)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default admits well-pleaded factual allegations but not legal conclusions)
- Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 797 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1986) (Frow bars a plaintiff from obtaining judgment against one defendant when trial produces exculpatory facts that logically preclude liability)
- Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1984) (Frow applies where defendants have joint or closely related defenses)