<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">For those of you who have clients who have received this organization’s demand letters for housing discrimination.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 448a</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Online Reference: FLWSUPP 3007FAIR</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Top of Form<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Civil rights -- Housing discrimination -- Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act -- Attorney's fees -- Award of attorney's fees to defendant who
prevailed in suit alleging that defendant violated county human rights act and FDUTPA by discriminating against tenants using Section 8 payment vouchers where suit was based on single unlawfully recorded telephone call and plaintiff housing alliance knew from
beginning of suit that it did not possess admissible evidence to establish claim, did not have any evidence of unlawful discrimination, and did not having standing to bring suit</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">FLORIDA FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. OAKWOOD MANOR APARTMENTS, LLC, Defendant. County
Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE22001870, Division 54. September 23, 2022. Florence Taylor Barner, Judge. Counsel: Jibrael Hindi and Jennifer Gomes Simil, Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi, Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff.
Jared Whaley, Coffey Burlington, P.L., Miami, for Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This cause came before the Court for hearing via Zoom on September 20, 2022, on Defendant's March
22, 2022 Motion for Sanctions (“57.105 Motion”) and Defendant's May 12, 2022 Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs (“FDUTPA Motion”) (together, “Motions”). The Court, having reviewed both Motions; Plaintiff's September 9, 2022 Amended Response
thereto; the docket of this case;<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn34"><span style="color:blue">1</span></a></sup></b> the docket of <i>Florida Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. 25 Plaza Corp.</i>;<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn35"><span style="color:blue">2</span></a></sup></b> the
authorities cited by the parties; and having heard argument of counsel, the Motions are GRANTED as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">PROCEDURAL HISTORY</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This action was based on a single phone call placed Plaintiff's “field tester,” Ryan Turizo, on September
30, 2020. Plaintiff originally filed this case in Circuit Court on January 14, 2021.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn36"><span style="color:blue">3</span></a></sup></b> Its two-count Complaint
alleged a one count of housing discrimination based on source of income under the Broward County Human Rights Act (“Ordinance”),Ch 16 ½, § 35 and a derivative second count under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 501.201, et seq., Fla. Stat.,
based on a <i>per se</i> violation of the Ordinance. Plaintiff alleged that an unidentified “field tester” placed a phone call to Defendant on September 30, 2020. <i>Id</i>. ¶¶ 11-14. Plaintiff alleged that during this single phone call, its “field tester”
was told that rental property was available, but that Oakwood Manor did not accept Section 8 Payment Vouchers. <i>Id</i>. ¶ 15.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Plaintiff alleged that the phone call constitutes a “discriminatory housing practice” by “discriminating,
based on source of income, against prospective tenants” under the Ordinance, and that Plaintiff had been damaged by being “forced to divert resources” from its “programs and services designed to advance fair housing in Florida,” including “counseling, education,
and outreach.” <i>Id</i>. ¶¶ 5, 9, 14, 18-19, 27.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn37"><span style="color:blue">4</span></a></sup></b> Based on these allegations, Plaintiff contended that
it was “aggrieved person” with standing to sue under the Ordinance. <i>Id</i>. ¶¶ 24-27.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">After eleven months without record activity, and the issuance of a Notice of Lack of Prosecution,
Plaintiff simultaneously dismissed the Circuit Court action and re-filed the case, with a substantively identical complaint, in County Court on January 5, 2022. Plaintiff propounded discovery (including a Request for Production, Requests for Admission, and
Interrogatories) with initial process.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn38"><span style="color:blue">5</span></a></sup></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim on February 1, 2022.
Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production and Interrogatories on February 8, 2022. Separately, Defendant served -- but did not file -- the 57.105 Motion on February 28, 2022. Defendant also responded to Plaintiff's discovery on February 28,
2022.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn39"><span style="color:blue">6</span></a></sup></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Relevant here, Defendant provided Plaintiff with sworn interrogatory responses and internal email
correspondence showing that -- contrary to Plaintiff's allegations -- Defendant accepted Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, and other forms of government assistance, in compliance with the Ordinance. Defendant specifically requested any documents, including
recordings, of the phone call described in the Complaint.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's discovery, or produce any recordings or documents, despite
this Court's Order dated March 8, 2022 requiring production by April 1, 2022. Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion to dismiss in writing on March 2, 2022. The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 8, 2022. On March 28, 2022, the Court entered a written
order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Ordinance and FDUTPA, and for lack of standing, on March 28, 2022, giving Plaintiff 20 days leave to amend.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Plaintiff did not amend this pleading or voluntarily dismiss the action. Instead, at a hearing on
April 18, 2022 -- the final day on which Plaintiff could file an amended pleading under the Court's March 28, 2022 order -- Plaintiff's counsel stated on the record, during Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery -- that Plaintiff would not be filing an amended
complaint. Based on that representation, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">On May 12, 2022, Defendant timely filed its FDUTPA Motion seeking taxation of fees and costs as the
prevailing party. The Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's post-dismissal discovery requests by September 6, 2022. In response to those requests, Plaintiff produced -- for the first time in the nearly two-year pendency of this
action -- a recording Mr. Turizo made of the September 30, 2020 phone call.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn40"><span style="color:blue">7</span></a></sup></b> As detailed further below,
the recording appears to have been done without actual consent of the party being recorded and contradicted Plaintiff's characterizations of the call in its pleadings and unsworn interrogatory responses.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn41"><span style="color:blue">8</span></a></sup></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Section 57.105</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Fla. Stat. § 57.105 provides in relevant part:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">(1)Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid by the prevailing
party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney should have known that a claim
or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">a. was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">b. would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1)(a) & (b).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Section 57.105(a) provides that sanctions are mandatory if the asserted claim would not be supported
by the application of existing law to the material facts. <i>See, e.g., Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp.</i>, 768 So. 2d 482, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2003a]; <i>Albritton v. Ferrera</i>, 913 So. 2d 5, 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly
D2099a]. Unlike the prior version of the statute, the current version authorizes “an award of attorney's fees when a claim, pleading, or other filing -- as opposed to the entire case -- is without merit.” <i>Country Place Comm. Ass'n, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Mortg.
Acquisition Corp.</i>, 51 So. 3d 1176, 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D31a]; <i>see also Albritton</i>, 913 So. 2d at 8 (1999 amendment “lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney's fees”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">A claim is “supported by material facts” under Section 57.105 when “the party possesses <b>admissible
evidence sufficient to establish the fact </b>if accepted by the finder of fact.” <i>Schurr v. Silverio & Hall, PA</i>, 290 So. 3d 634, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) [45 Fla. L. Weekly D367b] (emphasis added).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Section 57.105 sanctions are available against a party and its attorneys unless an offending pleading
is withdrawn within twenty-one days of service. Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1) & (4); <i>see also Visoly</i>, 768 So. 2d at 490. “The purpose of 57.105 is to discourage baseless claims in civil litigation by placing a price tag through attorney's fee awards on losing
parties who engage in these activities.” <i>Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 410 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1982).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Section 57.105 also seeks to deter meritless “individual allegations,” not just an entire lawsuit
or count in a complaint. <i>Davis v. Bailynson</i>, 268 So. 3d 762, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) [44 Fla. L. Weekly D328d]. “Individual allegations” refers to “a series of allegations framing a theory of liability based on a factual scenario that is not supported
by law.” <i>Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">A trial court's findings under § 57.105(1) must be based on substantial competent evidence presented
to the court at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial record. <i>See, e.g., Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson</i>, 170 So. 3d 136, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1573f].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">FDUTPA</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">When considering the award for attorneys' fees and costs under FDUTPA, some suggestive factors to
be considered by the court might include: “(1) the scope and history of the litigation; (2) the ability of the opposing party to satisfy an award of fees; (3) whether an award of fees against the opposing party would deter others from acting in similar circumstances;
(4) the merits of the respective positions-including the degree of the opposing party's culpability or bad faith; (5) whether the claim brought was not in subjective bad faith but frivolous, unreasonable, groundless; (6) whether the defense raised a defense
mainly to frustrate or stall; (7) whether the claim brought was to resolve a significant legal question under FDUTPA law.” <i>Humane Soc. of Broward Cty, Inc. v. Florida Humane Soc.</i>, 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D702c]. Some factors
may not apply in certain cases, and not all factors need to be considered in every case. <i>Id</i> .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">1. Plaintiff does not dispute, either in its papers or at the hearing on the Motions, that Defendant
is the prevailing party under both Section 57.105 and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Court finds that Defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of both Motions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">2. Competent substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Plaintiff knew or should have known
that its claims were unsupported by material facts and the application of then-existing law to those facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">3. The Court takes compulsory judicial notice of Sections 934.02-06, Florida Statutes (“Wiretap Act”).
The Wiretap Act plainly prohibits the interception of communication (which includes recording of phone calls) unless all parties to the communication have given prior consent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">4. The Court had the opportunity to review the phone call at the hearing. The Court finds that the
recording Mr. Turizo made of the September 30, 2020 phone call<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn42"><span style="color:blue">9</span></a></sup></b> was not made with explicit consent of
the party being recorded in derogation of the Wiretap Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">a. At 00:07-11, Angela answers the phone and says “thank you for calling Oakwood Manor Apartments, this is Angela, how may I help you.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">b. At 00:08-09 -- simultaneously with Angela speaking - Mr. Turizo mumbles in a nearly inaudible voice “this call is being recorded.” The speaking voice Mr.
Turizo uses is for this statement is markedly different, and in a much lower tone and register, than the speaking voice he uses on the remainder of the phone call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">c. Nothing in the phone call indicates that Angela heard Mr. Turizo's statement, and she did not otherwise consent to Mr. Turizo recording the call.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn43"><span style="color:blue">10</span></a></sup></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">5. Directly contrary to the Complaint's allegations, Angela did not tell Mr. Turizo that housing was
available. At 00:17, Mr. Turizo asks, “do you have something available like, right around now,” Angela responds, “no, I don't.” This exchange occurs prior to any mention of Section 8 housing choice vouchers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">6. At 00:31 seconds -- after being told that no housing is available - Mr. Turizo asks, “um, do you
guys take the Section 8 assistance vouchers,” Angela responds, “no, we are pretty much full, we do not accept, um, vouchers.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">7. Contrary to Plaintiff's pleadings, Angela's statement does not show that Defendant “refuses” to
accept Section 8 vouchers, based on the full context of the conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">8. Plaintiff did not allege, nor present any evidence, that Mr. Turizo (or any Section 8 voucher holder)
was refused available housing, as a tester or otherwise, based on any discriminatory classification under the Ordinance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">9. No reasonable fact finder could conclude that Angela heard Mr. Turizo's statement “this call is
being recorded,” or that she otherwise consented to having the call recorded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">10. The Court finds that Angela did not consent to Mr. Turizo recording the phone call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">11. As such, the phone call was plainly unlawful, and would have been inadmissible under the Wiretap
Act. Because the phone call formed the entire basis for this Plaintiff's claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff knew or should have known that it did not possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its claims before filing this lawsuit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">12. Further, Plaintiff knew or should have known, based on the improperly recorded phone call, that
there had been no unlawful discrimination based on source of income.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">13. The Court finds, based on the record evidence, that Plaintiff engaged in bad faith conduct by
recording and using the phone call as the basis of this action without the consent of the party to the call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">14. Plaintiff had actual knowledge that neither Plaintiff nor Mr. Turizo was an “aggrieved person”
under the clear and unambiguous statutory language of the Ordinance, at the inception of this lawsuit and thereafter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">15. Plaintiff continued to litigate this action, and oppose dismissal, after Defendant provided Plaintiff
on February 25, 2022 with internal email correspondence showing that Defendant accepts applicants with Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers; sworn interrogatory responses on February 28, 2022 affirming that (a) Defendant accepts Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
and other forms of government assistance and (b) Defendant had 15 residents in the two years preceding the interrogatory responses who received Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers or other governmental assistance; and denied, in response to requests for admission,
that Defendant refuses to accept Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn44"><span style="color:blue">11</span></a></sup></b> So, in addition to knowing that
its claims were unsupported by material facts <i>ab initio</i>, Plaintiff knew after the lawsuit that its claims were unsupported by material facts, and wrongfully continued the litigation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">16. The Court finds that Plaintiff lacked material facts to support its claims under the Ordinance
and FDUTPA <i>ab initio</i>. Plaintiff - a corporation - is not, and has never been, eligible to receive Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. Mr. Turizo, the “field tester,” was not, and is not, a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holder. There was never any
allegation, or evidence, that Plaintiff was acting on behalf of a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holder. Absent such facts, there is no plausible claim of unlawful discrimination based on source of income under the Ordinance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">17. Plaintiff's alleged theory of standing was that the phone call “forced” the Alliance “to divert
resources from” its “programs and services designed to advance fair housing,” including “counseling, outreach, and educational efforts, “into this litigation,” Compl. ¶¶ 4, 19. The Court finds that this claim was not supported by material facts, either at
the inception of the lawsuit or thereafter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">18. Plaintiff did not present any admissible evidence<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn45"><span style="color:blue">12</span></a></sup></b> that
it in fact offered any fair housing related programs and services, as alleged in its complaints. Defendant presented competent substantial evidence, in the admissible form, that Plaintiff did not in fact offer, or expend resources on, fair housing related
programs and services as alleged. Specifically, Defendant presented Plaintiff's 2020 IRS 990-EZ Short Form Tax Return; statements made by Mr. Turizo in an October 30, 2020 Sun-Sentinel Article; and the absence of any documents produced by Plaintiff to support
its “diversion of resources” allegations, showing that Plaintiff did not in fact offer or expend resources on fair housing related programs and services. In fact, the record evidence demonstrated that no resources were diverted as a result of any action by
the Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that that Plaintiff's alleged injury -- “diversion of resources” -- was unsupported by material facts.<b><sup><a href="http://www.floridalawweekly.com/newsystem/showfile.php?file=../supfiles/issues/vol30/#fn46"><span style="color:blue">13</span></a></sup></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">19. Further, as the Court noted in its March 28, 2022 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, FDUTPA plainly
does not allow for recovery of any damages other than actual damages. <i>See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Recovery Perf. & Marine</i>, 38 So. 3d 178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1122a]; <i>Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc.</i>, 45 So. 3d 819, 824-25
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1817a]; <i>Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Corgnati</i>, 715 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1706b]. FDUTPA specifically does not allow recovery for consequential damages. <i>Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">20. Plaintiff never alleged, nor presented any evidence, that it suffered actual damages. Instead,
its pleadings alleged purely consequential damages, which are not recoverable under FDUTPA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">21. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not suffer the consequential damages alleged in its
complaints. Plaintiff's September 9, 2022 Notice of Filing did not contain any admissible evidence, Plaintiff attached what purport to be flyers for events (none apparently related to fair housing) beginning on October of 2020 through 2021 and 2022. Even if
presented in admissible form, these documents contradict Plaintiff's allegations of “mission frustration” and “diversion of resources” based on a phone call that occurred in September of 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">22. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff knew <i>ab initio </i>that its claims for
relief and theory of standing were unsupported by material facts, and the application of then-existing law to those facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">23. The Court has considered and weighed the discretionary <i>Humane Society </i>factors in accordance
with the foregoing. The Court places great weight on the third, fourth, and fifth factors. Even if the Plaintiff had a commendable purpose, the manner in which this litigation was set up -- recording a phone call without actual consent, and then misrepresenting
its contents for two years - was appalling and shocked the judicial conscience. This behavior should be deterred. The Court finds that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith for the reasons stated above. Devfendant met its burden of proof by demonstrating that Plaintiff
does have the resources to pay a fee award based on the tax return evidence. Plaintiff, however, did not present evidence that it could not satisfy an award of fees and instead, Plaintiff sought and was granted a protective order against pre-entitlement discovery
on that issue. Beyond that, the record evidence, in the form of Plaintiff's 2020 tax returns, shows that Plaintiff has some ability to satisfy an award of fees. The scope and history of the litigation, given its basis, weighs in Defendant's favor. The remaining
factors are inapplicable or slightly favor Plaintiff. In balancing the <i>Humane Society </i>factors, the factors heavily weigh in favor of an award of fees and costs against Plaintiff in order to deter futire conduct as occurred in this action in the manner
in which it occurred in this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant Oakwood Manor is the prevailing party for purposes of this action under Section 57.105 and
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, under FDUTPA and as a sanction
under Section 57.105;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The parties are directed to comply with the Court's July 19, 2022 Preliminary Order on taxation of
fees and costs, effective September 20, 2022, prior to setting an evidentiary hearing on amount.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">__________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn34"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">1</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn34"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The
Court takes compulsory judicial notice of the docket of this case, including the previously-filed action CACE-21-000980, pursuant to Sections 90.902-903, Florida Statutes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn35"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">2</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn35"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Case
No. Case No. 2020-025636, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn36"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">3</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn36"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 14, 2022 Notice of Filing and Request for Compulsory Judicial Notice, Ex. A (Docket) and B (Complaint for Housing Discrimination). The Court finds that the Complaint is competent, admissible evidence for purposes of this proceeding under Section
90.803(18), Florida Statutes as both party admissions and adoptive admissions, to the extent that Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories manifested an adoption or belief in the truth of the allegations theirein. <i>See, e.g., State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Higgins</i>, 788 So. 2d 992, 1007 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D111a], <i>approved</i>, 894 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly S533a]).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn37"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">4</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn37"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Count
II of the Complaint alleges a claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (“FDUTPA”), which is entirely based on, and derivative of, the Ordinance violation alleged in Count I.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn38"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">5</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn38"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 14, 2022 Notice of Filing and Request for Compulsory Judicial Notice, Ex. D (Jan. 5, 2022 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn39"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">6</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn39"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 19, 2022 Notice of Filing and Request for Compulsory Judicial Notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn40"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">7</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn40"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Plaintiff's
unsworn Interrogatory Responses confirm that Ryan Turizo was the “field tester” who made the September 30, 2020 phone call. <i>See</i> Defendant's September 15, 2022 Notice of Filing Record Evidence, Ex. A (Plaintiff's September 6, 2022 Responses to Second
Set of Interrogatories).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn41"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">8</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn41"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The
Court is troubled by Plaintiff's apparent refusal to verify or swear to its interrogatory responses, despite requests from the Defendant to do so and the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn42"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">9</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn42"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Plaintiff
produced the recording in conjunction with its September 6, 2022 discovery responses. <i>See</i> Defendant's September 15, 2022 Notice of Filing Record Evidence at Ex 1 (Plaintiff' Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories); Ex. 2 (place holder for recording
of phone call). The Court listened to the phone call at the September 20, 2022 special set hearing, and grants leave of court to file a USB drive containing the electronic file of the recorded phone call with the Clerk of Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn43"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">10</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn43"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">It
was undisputed that Oakwood Manor does not record its employees' phone calls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn44"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">11</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn44"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 19, 2022 Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1 (Defendant's February 28, 202 Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories); Ex. 2 (Defendant's February 28, 202 Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production); Ex. 3
(Defendant's February 28, 2022 Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn45"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">12</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn45"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 19, 2022 Objection to Plaintiff's September 9, 2022 Notice of Filing is well-taken.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="fn46"><b><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">13</span></sup></b></a><span style="mso-bookmark:fn46"></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Defendant's
September 15, 2022 Notice of Filing Record Evidence, Ex. A (Plaintiff's September 6, 2022 Response to Second Set of Interrogatories); Ex. 6 (2020 IRS 990-EZ Short Form Return of Organization); Ex. 7 (Oct. 31, 2020 South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Convicted felon
says he's fighting unfair housing. Landlords say he's in it for the money.”)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">* * *<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Bottom of Form<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Michael Geo. F. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Attorney at Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The MGFD Law Firm PA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Countryside Colonial Center<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2753 SR 580, Suite 209, Clearwater, FL 33761-3351<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">P 727-726-1900/F 727-726-7440<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">mike@mgfdlaw.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Primary Eservice: eservice@mgfdlaw.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="http://www.mgfdlaw.com/"><span style="color:windowtext">www.mgfdlaw.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmissions,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized and prohibited. Any transmission of confidential and/or privileged material to persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s)
shall not be construed as a waiver of any privilege or confidence. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact the sender and delete the material. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>