Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CIVIL CASE NO.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
) Injunctive Relief Sought
ISLE OF PARADISE “B”, INC., )
ISLE OF PARADISE “C”, INC., )
and )
ISLE OF PARADISE “E”, INC., )
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the United States of America (“United States”), alleges as follows:

1. The United States brings this action to enforce the provisions of Title VIII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 3601 et seq. (the “Fair Housing Act”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345,

and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because (1) the claims alleged herein

arose in the Southern District of Florida, and (2) the properties that are the subjects of this

Complaint are located in the Southern District of Florida.

1
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 2 of 9

DEFENDANTS AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES

4. Defendant Isle of Paradise “B”, Inc. (IOP “B”) is a Florida not-for-profit

cooperative corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida.1 IOP “B” is the owner

of the 30-unit multifamily building known as the “Monticello” or “Building B,” located at 450

Paradise Isle Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.

5. Defendant Isle of Paradise “C”, Inc. (IOP “C”) is a Florida not-for-profit

cooperative corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. IOP “C” is the owner of

the 30-unit multifamily building known as the “Georgetown” or “Building C,” located at 460

Paradise Isle Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.

6. Defendant Isle of Paradise “E”, Inc. (IOP “E”) is a Florida not-for-profit

cooperative corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. IOP “E” is the owner of

the 30-unit multifamily building known as the “Williamsburg” or “Building E,” located at 465

Paradise Isle Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.

7. Building B, Building C, and Building E are each referred to as a “Subject Property”

or “Building” and collectively as the “Subject Properties” herein.

8. Each of the Subject Properties is a “dwelling” within the meaning of the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).

9. Each Subject Property is managed by its own Board of Directors, or Association,

and governed by its governing documents, including Certificates of Incorporation, Bylaws, and

Proprietary Leases.

1
“‘Cooperative’ means that form of ownership of real property wherein legal title is vested in a
corporation or other entity and the beneficial use is evidenced by an ownership interest in the
association and a lease or other muniment of title or possession granted by the association as the
owner of all the cooperative property.” See Fla. St. § 719.103(12). For simplicity, this
Complaint refers to individual shareholders or members in the corporation as “unit owners.”
2
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 3 of 9

10. Each Defendant leases the land on which its Building is located, which is owned

by the Layne family, under a long-term lease starting in or around 1965.

11. Each Defendant’s governing documents were created in or around 1964 or 1965 by

the same individual original subscribers and incorporators and were substantially identical at the

time.

12. Residents of the Subject Properties share access to a common recreation facility,

with a clubhouse and pool, also located on the Isle of Paradise. The recreation facility is owned

and operated by Isle of Paradise Recreation, Inc., which is managed by a Board of Directors

composed of one Board member from each Defendant, as well as one member from Isle of Paradise

“A”, Inc., one member from Isle of Paradise “D”, Inc., and one member from Isle of Paradise “F”,

Inc. Isle of Paradise “A”, Inc., Isle of Paradise “D”, Inc., and Isle of Paradise “F”, Inc. are Florida

not-for-profit cooperative corporations which own the multifamily buildings located on Isle of

Paradise known as “Building A,” “Building D,” and “Building F,” respectively. They are not

Defendants.

13. Since at least 2015, Building B was not “housing for older persons” (“HOPA”)

consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b).

14. From at least 2015 until at least June 21, 2021, Building C was not HOPA consistent

with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b).

15. Since at least 2015, Building E was not HOPA consistent with the requirements of

42 U.S.C. § 3607(b).

DEFENDANTS’ DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICES

16. Since well before 2015, each Defendant’s Proprietary Lease included the following

statement: “No member, or approved lessee of a member’s Apartment, shall permit any child under

3
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 4 of 9

the age of twelve (12) years to reside in any of the apartments except as otherwise provided herein,

and except for children born to resident members after the acquisition of their lease.” This

statement is referred to as the “no child under 12” policy in this Complaint.

17. The Proprietary Lease is the contract between each unit owner and the respective

Defendant that transfers the apartment unit to the owner.

18. Since at least 2015, each Defendant’s Proprietary Lease, including the “no child

under 12” policy, has been shared with or otherwise communicated to new unit owners, as well as

some prospective owners or renters and real estate agents. In addition, the Proprietary Lease is

required by state law to be recorded with, and publicly available via, the County Recorder of

Deeds.

19. Since at least 2015, Defendants’ “no child under 12” policies were implemented

through each unit owner individually, through real estate agents pursuant to the provisions of each

Subject Property’s governing documents, and/or through each Defendant’s Board of Directors.

20. For example, in June 2020, a real estate agent for the owner of a unit in Building B

told a prospective renter and her real estate agent that the owner could not rent the unit to her

because she had a child under the age of 12. The real estate agent provided a copy of the governing

documents for that Subject Property to the renter and her agent, which contained the “no child

under 12” policy.

21. As another example, the Department of Justice conducted three online familial-

status rental tests on Building B and Building E in August 2020. Testing is a simulation of a

housing transaction that compares responses given by housing providers to different types of

home-seekers to determine whether illegal discrimination is occurring. The testing evidence

showed that real estate agents were using the Defendants’ “no child under 12” policy as the reason

4
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 5 of 9

to refuse to rent to families with children. Department of Justice employees posing as prospective

renters with children were specifically told that they could not rent available units at the Subject

Properties because the Defendants did not allow children under the age of 12.

22. Since at least 2015, Building B has not had any residents age 12 or under. For

purposes of this Complaint, “residents” mean persons whose primary residence is at a Subject

Property and does not include owners of individual units who do not reside full-time at the Subject

Property.

23. Since at least 2015, Building C has not had any residents age 12 or under.

24. Since at least 2015, Building E has not had any residents age 12 or under.

25. Defendant IOP “C” has described itself as an “adult” community or residence. For

example, the application form it has been using since well before June 2021 defines Building C as

a “Residential Adult Community” and a letter sent to all unit owners by the Board of Directors in

or around February 2021 stated that it “has always been treated as an adult residence . . . .”

26. From at least 2015 until at least June 21, 2021, the statements described in

paragraph 25 were not consistent with Defendant IOP “C”’s lack of HOPA status.

27. Recent real estate listings for units at Building E have described that community as

a “senior” and/or “55+” community.

28. The statements described in paragraph 27 were not consistent with Defendant IOP

“E”’s lack of HOPA status.

5
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 6 of 9

CAUSES OF ACTION

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 28 above.

30. By their conduct described above, since at least 2015 and on an ongoing basis with

respect to Defendants IOP “B” and IOP “E,” and from at least 2015 until at least June 21, 2021,

with respect to Defendant IOP “C,” Defendants have made, printed, or published, or caused to be

made, printed, or published a notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental

of a dwelling that indicates a preference, a limitation, or discrimination based on familial status,

or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 3604(c).

31. By their conduct described above, in at least 2020, Defendants IOP “B” and IOP

“E” have refused to negotiate for the sale or rental of a dwelling, or otherwise made unavailable

or denied dwellings, because of familial status, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

32. By their conduct described above, since at least 2015 with respect to Defendants

IOP “B” and IOP “E,” and from at least 2015 until at least June 21, 2021, with respect to Defendant

IOP “C,” Defendants have:

a. Engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the rights

granted by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a); and

b. Denied rights granted by the Fair Housing Act to a group of persons, which

denial raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

3614(a).

6
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 7 of 9

33. Persons who may have been the victims of Defendants’ discriminatory housing

practices are aggrieved persons under 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i) and may have suffered injuries because

of the conduct described above.

34. The conduct of Defendants described above was intentional, willful, and taken in

disregard of the rights of others.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an order that:

1. Declares that Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, as described above, violates the

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.;

2. Enjoins Defendants IOP “B” and IOP “E,” and their agents, employees, successors,

and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, and enjoins Defendant

IOP “C” and its agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or

participation with it unless IOP “C” is HOPA, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §

3607(b), at the applicable time, from:

a. Discriminating on the basis of familial status, in any aspect of the rental or

sale of a dwelling;

b. Failing or refusing to notify the public that dwellings owned and operated

by Defendants are available to all persons on a nondiscriminatory basis; and

c. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to

restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of Defendants’ unlawful

practices to the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory

conduct;

7
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 8 of 9

3. Orders Defendants IOP “B” and IOP “E,” and orders Defendant IOP “C” unless

IOP “C” is HOPA, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b), at the applicable time,

to take such actions as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct

in the future and to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the effects of their unlawful conduct,

including implementing policies and procedures to ensure that no persons are discriminated against

because of familial status;

4. Awards monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B) to all persons harmed

by Defendants’ discriminatory practices; and

5. Assesses a civil penalty against each Defendant in an amount authorized by 42

U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C) to vindicate the public interest.

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may

require.

Dated: November 30, 2023

8
Case 0:23-cv-62277-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 9 of 9

Respectfully submitted,

MERRICK B. GARLAND
Attorney General

MARKENZY LAPOINTE KRISTEN CLARKE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

CARRIE PAGNUCCO
Chief

/s/ Chantel Doakes Shelton /s/ Katie Legomsky

CHANTEL DOAKES SHELTON MICHAEL S. MAURER
Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief
Florida Bar No: 0118626 KATIE LEGOMSKY
United States Attorney’s Office Trial Attorney
500 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 700 Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Civil Rights Division
Phone: (954) 660-5770 (office) U.S. Department of Justice
Phone: (786) 564-9123 (cell) 150 M Street, NE
Email: [email protected] Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 598-6587
/s/ Veronica Harrell-James Fax: (202) 514-1116
VERONICA HARRELL-JAMES Email: [email protected]
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 644791
United States Attorney’s Office
101 US-1 South, 3rd Floor
Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
Phone: (772) 293-0982
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America