United States v. THE DORCHESTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION
2:20-cv-01396
| E.D. Pa. | Sep 30, 2020Background
- The Dorchester Owners Association (DOA) maintains a long-standing "no pets" policy but adopted an assistance-animal exception (2009) that imposed extensive documentation and operational restrictions (doctor letter, trainer certification, size/breed limits, freight-elevator use, $1M insurance, fines, etc.).
- DOA amended the policy several times (2018, 2019, 2020), at points removing and later reinstating many onerous restrictions (including insurance, muzzle, and common-area limits).
- Louise Hamburg, a unit owner with severe anxiety, sought approval to keep her 32-pound support dog beginning December 2017, submitting clinician letters; DOA repeatedly demanded a form designed for trained service animals and sought additional information, then rejected or stalled her requests.
- Hamburg filed a HUD complaint (April 2018), reapplied to DOA, and later the DOJ filed suit (March 2020); Hamburg intervened and asserted a claim for punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- DOA moved to dismiss Hamburg’s punitive-damages claim, arguing plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting punitive damages and contending DOJ lacked standing to oppose the motion regarding punitive relief.
- The Court denied DOA’s motion to dismiss the punitive-damages claim, finding the pleadings sufficiently alleged facts that could plausibly support punitive damages and reserving assessment of the evidence for trial; the Court also noted the United States is not seeking punitive damages for itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to oppose DOA's motion | DOJ opposed dismissal to defend Hamburg's and DOJ's enforcement interests | DOA: DOJ never pleaded punitive damages, so DOJ lacks standing to oppose; briefs cannot amend the complaint | Court considered DOJ's opposition; it focused on Hamburg's punitive claim and denied dismissal (did not bar DOJ from opposing) |
| Availability of punitive damages for plaintiffs | Hamburg seeks punitive damages against DOA for malicious or reckless indifference to FHA rights | DOA: Plaintiffs failed to plead factual basis for malice or reckless indifference; punitive claim should be dismissed | Court: Complaint alleges facts from which malice/reckless indifference can be plausibly inferred; denied motion to dismiss punitive damages pending trial evidence |
| Whether government can obtain punitive damages | DOJ did not seek punitive damages for the United States | — | Court observed the Government is not seeking punitive damages for itself and saw no statute authorizing punitive damages in favor of the U.S.; left Hamburg’s individual punitive claim intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual allegations to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard; accept factual allegations and construe pleadings in plaintiff’s favor)
- Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements to plead an FHA reasonable-accommodation claim)
- Alexander v. Riga, 208 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. 2000) (punitive damages under FHA require malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (punitive damages require defendant’s awareness that conduct may violate federal law)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (standards for awarding punitive damages)
- Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, 836 F.2d 173 (3d Cir. 1988) (briefs in opposition cannot amend the complaint)