FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. et al v. RAINBOW REALTY GROUP, INC. et al
| NELLY ESPINOZA, FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC., MORY KAMANO, MARVIN MARTINEZ and NORMA TEJEDA |
| EMPIRE HOLDING CORP., JAMES R. HOTKA and RAINBOW REALTY GROUP, INC. |
| 1:2017cv01782 |
| May 30, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Fair Housing Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
360
ORDER: (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) For the foregoing reasons, the Court: GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify the Court's Summary Judgment Order, 347 , to the extent that it will not consider the sente nce omitted in the corrected version of the Motion to Clarify, [Filing No.347-1]; GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify, 337 , to the extent that it: clarifies Judge Miller's March 27, 2020 Order to certify the question of whether P laintiffs are entitled to an award of statutory class damages under TILA, rather than the FHA; clarifies that any claims of class members for disparate treatment under the FHA seeking compensatory or punitive damages will not be determined as a part of this case; and acknowledges that it did not determine the issue of whether Plaintiffs or class members who were still paying under an RTB Agreement after the initial two years and did not sign a Conditional Sales Contract have a valid ECOA claim; DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify, 337 , in all other respects including with respect to any additional issues that the Court has failed to discern as being raised in the Motion to Clarify; GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to R econsider, 338 , to the extent that it: VACATES the portions of its August 12, 2022 Order, 332 , finding that:TILA and the ECOA do not apply to Plaintiffs who paid past the initial two years of the RTB Agreements and did not sign a Conditional Sale s Contract; Plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil to hold the Named Defendants liable for the actions of the Individual Land Trusts; and Even if Plaintiffs have set forth a prima facie case of disparate impact under the FHA, Defendants have set forth a valid, non-discriminatory business interest to rebut that prima facie case; and GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, 314 , on the issue of joint venture both as to a joint ven ture among the Named Defendants and as to a joint venture between the Named Defendants and the Individual Land Trusts; DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, 338 , in all other respects including on any additional issues that the Cour t has failed to discern as being raised in the Motion to Reconsider; DECLINES TO CONSIDER the Government's Statement of Interest, 349 ;and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting Oral Argument, 340 , to the extent that it SETS a hearing fo r October 19, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in which the parties will be required to address the issues the Court has set forth above. The parties should be prepared for the October 19, 2022 hearing to continue into the following two days, if necessary. The parties shall file witness and exhibit lists for the October 19, 2022 hearing on or before October 12, 2022. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/7/20222. (MRI)
|
|
Filing
332
ORDER - The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 308 , and GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion Motion for Summary Judgment, 314 , to the extent it finds that summary judgment in favor of Defendants is appropriate on Plaintiffs' individual and class TILA claims, their individual and class ECOA claims, and their individual and class FHA disparate impact claims. No partial final judgment shall issue. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Combined Motion i n Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence From Admission at Trial, 253 ; Defendants' Motions in Limine, 259 ; and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs' Trial Witness List and Case-Specific Jury Instructions, 298 , and OVER RULES Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Potential Expert Testimony, 245 , WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-file them by September 10, 2022. Any responses must be filed by September 17, 2022 and no replies are necessary. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties as soon as practicable regarding the resolution of these remaining claims short of the October 17, 2022 trial in this matter. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/12/2022. (JSR)
|
|
Filing
209
ORDER granting 192 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties as soon as practicable regarding the possibility of resolving the remaining claims and issues short of trial. Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr on 3/10/2021. (CBU)
|
|
Filing
176
ORDER granting in part 138 Motion to Certify Class and denying as moot 166 Motion to Supplement their motion to certify class. Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr on 3/27/2020 (See Order for additional information) (CBU)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
