United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
L. ROSENBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss at docket entry 11. The Motion has been fully
briefed. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants'
Motion is granted.
is an African-American woman of the Muslim faith. DE 1 at 1.
Plaintiff was a tenant leasing a certain condominium in the
town of Palm Beach. Id. The homeowner's
association for that condominium, Rizon East Homeowner's
Association, Inc. (“Rizon”), is a Defendant in
this case. Id. at 2. Plaintiff's lease expired
on November 15, 2015. Id. Although Plaintiff's
landlord approved Plaintiff for a renewal of her lease, Rizon
did not. Id. at 3. Rizon's authority to deny
Plaintiff an extension of her lease was derived from the
terms of the lease itself. Specifically, paragraph twenty of
Plaintiff's lease (which is attached to her complaint) is
conditioned upon Rizon's approval. Compare DE
1-1 at 9 (conditioning the lease upon Rizon's approval,
“if applicable, ” with DE 1-4 at 2
(stating that a person who leases a unit must have board
approval). Plaintiff alleges that she was denied a renewal of
her lease because she is African-American and because she is
of the Muslim faith. See generally DE 1. Rizon's
asserted reasons for denying Plaintiff a renewal are attached
to Plaintiff's complaint and include the following:
1. Excessive noise complaints from Plaintiff's neighbors.
2. Cans and cigarettes being “tossed” from
Plaintiff's balcony down onto a pool deck.
3. Plaintiff's boyfriend's status as an undocumented
4. Aggressive language that Plaintiff's boyfriend used
towards another tenant on multiple occasions.
5. The contention that Plaintiff and her boyfriend had an
argument in a stairwell, observed by a Rizon board member, in
which Plaintiff and her boyfriend “slapped” each
other and made “quite a commotion” which, as
Rizon contends, could have resulted in law enforcement
DE 1-2 at 2. After Rizon denied Plaintiff's renewal,
Plaintiff filed the instant case.
has brought the following counts: Violation of the Fair
Housing Act against Defendant Rizon (Count I), Violation of
the Fair Housing against individual Rizon board members
(Count II), Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 against Rizon
(Count IV),  violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 against
individual Rizon board members (Count V), Intentional
Interference with a Contractual Relationship against Rizon
(Count VI), Intentional Interference with a Contractual
Relationship against individual board members (Count VII),
Intentional Interference with an Advantageous Business
Relationship against Rizon (Count VIII), and Intentional
Interference with an Advantageous Business Relationship
against individual board members (Count IX).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the
allegations in a complaint as true and construe them in a
light most favorable to the plaintiffs. See Resnick v.
AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). At
the pleading stage, the Complaint need only contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). All that is required is that there are “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 547 (2007).