Defendant's Attorney: Robert Alan Bragalone, Caroline Grace Lindemuth, Gerald Lee Jackson

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Fair Housing Act violation theory.


On May 20, 2020, Backus filed this case alleging claims under the FHA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (FDCPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (RICO). Backus also alleged a negligence claim under Oklahoma law, and he sought a declaratory judgment that defendants' attempts to collect a debt from him violates state and federal law. Each of plaintiff's claims, except for his FDCPA claim, was alleged against all defendants, and the FDCPA claim was alleged against I.Q. Data only. Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Dkt. ## 13, 24) seeking to have all of the claims alleged in the complaint dismissed. The Court granted the motions to dismiss and allowed Backus leave to file an amended complaint “re-alleging certain claims only as permitted by this Opinion and Order ” Dkt. # 33, at 18. Plaintiff was permitted to re-allege his FHA claim against Greenbriar and Gaines and FDCPA claim against I.Q. Data, but he was not permitted to re-allege any other claims or assert new claims that were not included in the original complaint. Id. at 9, 16. Backus filed an amended complaint alleging an FDCPA claim (Count 1) against I.Q. Data, an FHA claim (Count 2) against Greenbriar and Gaines, and a claim (Count 3) under the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA) against Greenbriar and Gaines. Plaintiff has filed a notice of dismissal of his claims against I.Q. Data, and I.Q. Data has been terminated as a party.


Under the FHA, it is unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of . . . that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The FHA also prohibits discrimination “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling” because of a person's handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Discrimination is defined as “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). A failure to accommodate claim under the FHA has five elements: “(1) that the plaintiff . . . is handicapped as defined by the FHA; (2) that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal
Under the FHA, it is unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of . . . that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The FHA also prohibits discrimination “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling” because of a person's handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Discrimination is defined as “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). A failure to accommodate claim under the FHA has five elements: “(1) that the plaintiff . . . is handicapped as defined by the FHA; (2) that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make such accommodation.” Arnal v. Aspen View Condominium Assoc., Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1183 (D. Colo. 2016). The FHA “requires accommodations that are necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without.” Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Center v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917, 923 (10th Cir. 2012). The mere fact that a handicapped person makes a request for accommodation does not mean that the accommodation is necessary, and a defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to review the request for accommodation and determine if the accommodation is necessary under the FHA.

Outcome: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Tulsa Greenbriar I, LLC and Gaines Investment Trust's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 40) is granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: