LaGrasso v. Seven Bridges Homeowners Association Inc
9:20-cv-81163
S.D. Fla.Sep 15, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Deborah LaGrasso sue Seven Bridges Homeowners Association alleging disparate-treatment discrimination based in part on their status as Christians / non‑Jewish community members; that is the only claim remaining and is set for jury trial April 18, 2022.
- Defendant moved in limine to exclude seven categories of evidence: (1) Nov. 22, 2019 tennis‑court incident; (2) Deborah LaGrasso’s Facebook posts and related Association actions; (3) termination/grounds for Tennis Pro Shop manager Leah Nagel; (4) Sept. 6, 2019 fining schedule; (5) alleged fraud in Dec. 2020 Board election; (6) audio/video produced after July 8, 2020; and (7) Palm Beach Post / Boca News Now articles.
- The Court reviewed the parties’ briefing, applied the rule that evidence should be excluded in limine only if clearly inadmissible on all grounds, and recognized parties are generally entitled to present a mosaic of circumstantial evidence for disparate‑treatment claims.
- The Court denied the motion in limine as to the tennis‑court incident, Facebook posts by Mrs. LaGrasso (with restriction that posts by non‑board members require prior court permission), Nagel’s termination (subject to relevance and trial‑level foundation), the Sept. 6, 2019 fining schedule, and post‑suit audio/video recordings (subject to trial objections and context).
- The Court expressed skepticism about the relevance of alleged Dec. 2020 election fraud (because it is after the operative period) but did not categorically preclude it; Plaintiffs must seek leave outside the jury if they wish to offer it. The Court granted the motion to exclude news articles from trial as inadmissible hearsay and misleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Nov. 22, 2019 tennis‑court incident and Association handling | Tennis incident began the conduct showing disparate treatment; circumstantial evidence should go to jury | Court previously found tennis allegations didn’t state an FHA claim; evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial | Denied — may be relevant as circumstantial evidence; trial objections to be ruled on in context |
| 2) Deborah LaGrasso’s Facebook posts and Association actions | Posts are part of the circumstantial mosaic showing discriminatory treatment | Posts (and non‑board comments) aren’t protected FHA rights and may be unfairly prejudicial; non‑board posts not attributable to Association | Denied as to Mrs. LaGrasso’s posts; non‑board posts require prior court permission outside jury |
| 3) Termination of Pro Shop Manager Leah Nagel | Termination is circumstantial evidence relevant to discrimination | Nagel’s termination is unrelated to Plaintiffs and risks mini‑trial and prejudice | Denied — admissibility depends on trial presentation; must seek leave outside jury before offering such evidence |
| 4) Sept. 6, 2019 Association fining schedule | Shows Plaintiffs were treated differently than other residents — relevant to disparate treatment | Schedule wasn’t in effect during the operative period and would mislead jury | Denied — relevant; Defendant can rebut at trial by showing which schedule controlled |
| 5) Alleged fraud in Dec. 2020 Board election | Election fraud is circumstantial evidence of discriminatory governance and bias | Election occurred after operative events and Complaint; irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing | Not excluded pretrial but viewed skeptically as remote; Plaintiffs must seek leave outside jury; news articles on fraud likely inadmissible |
| 6) Audio/video produced after July 8, 2020 | Recordings are highly relevant and support disparate‑treatment claim regardless of production date | Association didn’t have complete recordings when acting; late production would mislead jury about what Association considered | Denied — may be relevant; admissibility and context to be resolved at trial; Defendant may clarify what it actually reviewed |
| 7) Palm Beach Post and Boca News Now articles | Plaintiffs agreed they should not be admitted | Articles are hearsay, contain opinions and pleadings, and would mislead/prejudice jury | Granted — news articles excluded as inadmissible hearsay and misleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (in limine exclusion appropriate only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all grounds)
- Smith v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff may present a mosaic of circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination)