Warren v. Delvista Towers Condominium Ass'n
49 F. Supp. 3d 1082
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- Delvista Towers Condominium Association denied Plaintiff Warren’s request to accommodate an assistance animal under the FHA’s reasonable accommodation provision.
- Warren suffers from Severe Recurrent Major Depression Disorder and PTSD, and his psychiatrist recommended an accommodation for his emotional support dog Amir.
- Delvista requested additional information after Warren and his counsel submitted their accommodation requests; no accommodation was granted.
- Delvista argues Amir is a pit bull banned by a Miami-Dade County ordinance, rendering the accommodation per se unreasonable.
- HUD guidance and notices were invoked to argue that emotional support animals may be reasonable accommodations and need not be specially trained.
- The court considered whether the County breed ban is preempted by the FHA and whether distinct factual questions about direct threat remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an emotional support animal is a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. | Warren contends emotional support animals are reasonable accommodations per HUD rules. | Delvista argues the accommodation is unreasonable under FHA standards because it involves a dog with a breed ban. | An emotional support animal can be a reasonable accommodation. |
| Whether allowing Amir constitutes a reasonable accommodation given direct threat concerns. | Amir’s impact is mitigable and subject to direct-threat assessment. | Amir could pose an inherent threat if not mitigated by alternatives. | Whether Amir poses an unmitigated direct threat is a factual issue for trial, not resolution on summary judgment. |
| Whether the Miami-Dade breed ban makes Warren's request per se unreasonable. | HUD notices preempt state/county breed restrictions on assistive animals. | Breed ban applies automatically to defeat the accommodation. | County ordinance is preempted by the FHA; per se reasonableness not dependent on breed. |
| Whether FHA preemption applies to the county ordinance in this context. | FHA objective of equal housing overrides local breed restrictions. | Local law stands unless preempted by federal enactments. | FHA preempts the county ordinance in this context; breed does not control outcome for purposes of summary judgment. |
| What is the proper impact of HUD guidance in evaluating the reasonableness of the accommodation. | HUD guidance supports treating emotional support animals as reasonable accommodations. | HUD guidance is persuasive but not controlling; factual analysis remains. | HUD guidance is persuasive; the key remaining issue is the direct-threat fact question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (S. Ct. 1986) (genuine dispute required for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (S. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment requires no genuine issues of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (S. Ct. 1986) (burden-shifting after initial showing on motion)
- Four Parcels of Real Prop., in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment standard; absence of evidence can support dismissal)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (reasonable accommodation; direct threat and burden considerations)
- Sabal Palm Condos. of Pine Island Ridge Ass’n, Inc. v. Fischer, 6 F.Supp.3d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (emotional-support animals as reasonable accommodations under FHA)
- Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 666 F.Supp.2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (HUD rule rationale on emotional support animals)
- Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 415 Fed.Appx. 617 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirmation on appeal related to accommodations)
- Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) (FHA preemption of state condominium law)
- Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1977) (preemption analysis framework for federal statutes)