Favourite v. 55 Halley St., Inc.
381 F. Supp. 3d 266
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Favourite, a Black woman of Guyanese descent, owns cooperative shares and a proprietary lease for Apt. 7C at 55 Halley Street; neighbors complained about noise, odors, and disruptive behavior beginning in 2008.
- Neighbor Diane Currenti (6C, directly below 7C) lodged numerous complaints (48 letters spanning 2008–2016); management and the Board repeatedly warned Favourite, facilitated mediation in 2009, and later issued a Notice to Cure (Oct. 2015) and Notice to Terminate (Nov. 2015).
- Incidents included alleged late-night noise, dropping/banging, loud music, parties with marijuana use alleged, and a November 24, 2012 elevator hallway altercation observed by residents.
- Favourite sued in June 2016 asserting federal and state discrimination claims (FHA, §§1981, 1982, 1983, 1985; NY Executive Law), seeking injunctive relief and to prevent termination of her proprietary lease.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court excluded claims arising before June 9, 2014 (FHA two-year limitations) and found no genuine issue of material fact showing discriminatory animus or that the Board’s actions were pretextual.
- Court granted summary judgment dismissing federal discrimination claims with prejudice, dismissed state discrimination claims with prejudice, and declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims (dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants created a racially hostile housing environment under the FHA / §3617 | Favourite contends repeated warnings, termination notices, and certain remarks reflect race-based harassment and interference with housing rights | Board/Residents contend actions responded to numerous, repeated, nonracial complaints about noise, odor, and disruptive conduct; legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons | Court: No reasonable jury could find requisite discriminatory animus or pervasive/severe harassment; summary judgment for defendants |
| Statute of limitations for FHA claims | Favourite asserted continuing violations dating back to 2007 | Defendants argued claims before June 9, 2014 are time‑barred; no tolling/continuing‑violation justification | Court: Excluded pre‑June 9, 2014 claims; continuing violation doctrine not applicable given intermittence and gaps |
| Whether private-actor conduct gives rise to §1983 liability (state action) | Favourite sought relief under §1983 for deprivation of federal rights | Defendants argued they are private actors (cooperative and board); no close nexus or compulsion by state | Court: §1983 claims fail for lack of state action |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims | Favourite sought resolution of state claims in federal forum | Defendants did not oppose dismissal; courts typically decline to retain state claims after federal claims dismissed | Court: Declined to retain jurisdiction; non-federal claims dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting principle)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (pendent/supplemental jurisdiction test)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (continuing violation and standing principles)
- Tomassi v. Insignia Fin. Grp., 478 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (limited weight of stray remarks by non‑decisionmakers)