United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
OMEGA T. PERRY
STRATEGIC REALTY CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 21) filed by Defendants Latter & Blum
Property Management, Inc. (“Latter & Blum”)
and Strategic Realty Capital, LLC (“Strategic
Realty”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
Pro se Plaintiff Omega T. Perry opposes the motion.
(Doc. 35.) Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. 38.) Oral
argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered
the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and the
submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the
following reasons, Defendants' motion is denied.
Relevant Factual Background and Parties'
se Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a violation of
the Fair Housing Act. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges one act of
wrongdoing, which allegedly occurred on December 23, 2015.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims: “On 12/23/2015
complainant spoke to leasing agent requesting to view a
3-bedroom apartment. Request was denied. Caucasian male
viewed 3-bedroom apartments within muniets (sic) of dening
(sic) Omega Perry.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff seeks $25,
000, 000.00 in damages. (Doc. 1 at 4.)
attaches to his complaint a “Housing Discrimination
Complaint” alleging discrimination on the basis of
race. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff provides the following summary
Complainant is African American and therefore a member of a
protected group. Complainant lives at [XXXX] Flora Lane,
Baton Rouge, LA 70810. The apartment in question is Place Du
Plantier, [XXX] Lee Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808. The
property is owned by Strategic Realty Capital and the
property management is Latter & Blum Property Management.
The Leasing Agent is Essie Uman. Collectively, they are the
respondents in this matter. The Manager, Brittany (LNU) and
Assistant Manager, Amber (LNU) were not involved.
On December 23, 2015, Complainant spoke to Essie Uman,
Leasing Agent, requesting to view a 3-bedroom apartment. The
leasing agent informed Complainant the golf cart was not
operational and it was too far for her to walk. Complainant
offered his own vehicle for use and was denied. Complaint was
allowed to view a 2-berdr.oom and a 1bedroom apartment. As
complainant was completing an application, a Caucasian male
was informed of two 3-bedroom apartments available for
viewing. The Leasing Agent barrowed a co-worker's vehicle
to show the apartments. Based On the forgoing, complainant
believes he was discriminated against in violation of the
(sic throughout) (Doc. 1 at 4.) The complaint further states:
9. The most recent date on which the alleged discrimination
occurred: December 23, 2015, and is continuing.
(Doc. 1 at 4.)
Relevant Summary Judgment Evidence
to Latter and Blum's President, Plaintiff “was
hired by Latter & Blum and paid $75.00 to conduct testing
activity at Village De Jardin Apartments, specifically to
determine if housing rules and laws were being follows (sic)
by the property managers at that location.” (Affidavit
of Joseph S. Pappalardo, Sr., ¶ 2, Doc. 21-3.)
Plaintiff's “investigation took place at the site
on December 23, 2015.” (Pappalardo Affidavit ¶ 3,
only pieces of evidence are two emails. One reflects that
Plaintiff registered for a drug screen on October 3, 2016.
(Doc. 35-1 at 1.) Someone from Latter & Blum named Kerri
Primeaux is carbon copied on the email. (Doc. 35-1 at 1.) A
second email from Primeaux to Plaintiff is dated a few days
later and states in relevant part: “HR has notified me
that unfortunately we will not be able to offer you
employment at this time. Our offer of employment was
contingent upon passing all pre-employment screenings, and
you did not. Thank you for your time and consideration in
this matter.” (Doc. 35-1 at 3.)
event, in or around January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
housing complaint with HUD. (Doc. 21-4.) This complaint is
virtually identical to the “Housing Discrimination
Complaint” attached to Plaintiff's complaint,
except that this document contains a signed statement, dated
January 12, 2017, that the “Housing Discrimination
Complaint” is true under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 21-4
at 4.) Again, this complaint alleges that the most recent
date of discrimination was December 23, 2015, and the only
allegedly wrongful act in this complaint occurred on that
date. (Doc. 21-4 at 4.) Despite Plaintiff's statement
that the violation is “continuing, ” no other
housing violations are alleged in the housing complaint that
occurred after December 23, 2015. (See Doc. 21-4 at
24, 2017, the Louisiana Department of Justice issued a letter
finding that “there [was] no reasonable cause to
believe that a discriminatory housing practice ha[d]
occurred.” (Doc. 21-5 at 1.) The HUD complaint was thus
dismissed. (See Doc. 21-5 at 1-2.)
Plaintiff's complaint was filed on December 27, 2017.
Defendants' Original ...