IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No.

)

KEVIN D. COGAN; EDWYNN

)

BURCKLE; GEORGE E. CLARK;

)

DORIS COGAN; BAYUS, INC.

)

d/b/a BAYUS-EVOLA ARCHITECTS; )

JAMES A. HALL and JAMES A. HALL )

d/b/a JAMES A. HALL BUILDER

)

d/b/a HALL CONTRACTING d/b/a HALL )

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;

)

MINDEL, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES,

)

INC.; and A. STANLEY WILLETT

)

d/b/a WILLETT ENGINEERING

)

COMPANY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT

The United States of America alleges:

1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Title

VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988

(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 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 a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the United States’ allegations occurred in the Western District of Kentucky,
1

the subject property is located in this District, and the defendants either reside or do business in this District.
SUBJECT PROPERTY 4. Park Place Apartments (“PPA”) is a multifamily apartment complex located at 7500 Cranfill Way, Louisville, KY 40214. PPA contains 46 six-unit, non-elevator apartment buildings. PPA has a total of 276 apartment units, 138 of which are located on the ground floor. PPA contains public and common use areas that include a leasing office, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, mailboxes, and parking spaces.
DEFENDANTS 5. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, and George E. Clark operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed name of New Cut Partnership and whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, and George E. Clark d/b/a New Cut Partnership, were owners of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA. 6. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall and George E. Clark operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed name of Park Place Apartments Partnership and whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and George E. Clark d/b/a Park Place Apartments Partnership were owners of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA. 7. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and Doris Cogan operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed names of Park Place Apartments Partnership and Park Place Apartments IV Partnership and
2

whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and Doris Cogan d/b/a Park Place Apartments Partnership and d/b/a Park Place Apartments IV Partnership are the owners and/or operators of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA.
8. Defendant A. Bayus, Inc. is an active, for-profit Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business at 2908 Eastpoint Parkway, Louisville, KY 40223. Bayus-Evola Architects is an assumed name of A. Bayus, Inc., and it is an active Kentucky Assumed Name Corporation with its principal place of business at 2908 Eastpoint Parkway, Louisville, KY 40223. A. Bayus, Inc. d/b/a Bayus-Evola Architects was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
9. Defendant James A. Hall d/b/a James A. Hall Builder d/b/a Hall Contracting and d/b/a Hall Construction Company is or was a builder/developer with his principal place of business at 1700 Kensington Place, Louisville, KY 40205. James A. Hall d/b/a James A. Hall Builder d/b/a Hall Contracting and d/b/a Hall Construction Company was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
10. Defendant A. Stanley Willett d/b/a Willett Engineering Company is an engineer who is or was registered with the state of Kentucky with his principal place of business at 4134 South Fifth Street, Louisville, KY 40214. He was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
11. Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. is an active, for-profit Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business at 5151 Jefferson Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40219. Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
3

FAIR HOUSING ACT ALLEGATIONS 12. PPA was designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991. 13. PPA contains “dwellings” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b). 14. PPA contains “covered multifamily dwellings” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(7). 15. The covered multifamily dwellings at PPA are subject to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). 16. The defendants failed to design and construct the covered multifamily dwellings at PPA in a manner that complies with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(3)(C), including the following requirements:
a. the public use and common use portions of the dwellings therein are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
b. all doors within the ground-floor units are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs; and
c. all premises within the ground-floor units contain the following features of adaptive design: (i) an accessible route into and through the dwelling; (ii) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; and (iii) usable bathrooms and kitchens such that an individual using a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.
4

The inaccessible features at PPA include routes from the public access and parking areas to covered multifamily dwelling entrances and to places of public accommodation with excessive abrupt level changes, excessive cross slopes, and steep running slopes; doors to bathrooms, bedrooms, and walk-in-closets in covered dwelling units that are not sufficiently wide for passage by a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid; kitchens and bathrooms that are not designed and constructed so that an individual using a wheelchair can maneuver about them; thermostat controls in covered dwelling units that are mounted above the maximum reach of a wheelchair user; and door hardware on entrances to covered units that are round knobs, which require a tight grasping and twisting of the wrist to operate.
17. The defendants’ conduct described above violates 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C).
18. The defendants’ conduct constitutes: a. a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by
the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619; or b. a denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, which raises an issue of general public importance. 19. The defendants’ conduct described above was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of others. 20. Persons who may have been the victims of the defendants’ discriminatory housing practices are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i), and may have suffered injuries as a result of the conduct described above.
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enters an order that: a. Declares that the defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violates the Fair Housing
Act; b. Enjoins the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors, and all other
persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from: i. Failing or refusing to retrofit the dwelling units and public and common
use areas at PPA and at other covered multifamily dwellings designed and constructed by the defendants so as to bring them into compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f); ii. Failing or refusing to conduct a compliance survey at all covered multifamily dwellings designed and constructed by the defendants to determine whether the retrofits ordered in paragraph (b)(i), above, were made properly; iii. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of the defendants’ unlawful practices to the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct; and iv. Designing and constructing any covered multifamily dwellings in the future that do not comply with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f); c. Enjoins the defendants from engaging in conduct that denies access to the public and common use areas and the covered multifamily dwellings or that prevents any required retrofits from being performed in a prompt and efficient manner; and
6

d. Awards monetary damages to all persons harmed by the defendants’

discriminatory practices, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B).

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

Dated: August 10 , 2010

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General

DAVID J. HALE United States Attorney Western District of Kentucky

____________________________________ THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

_____________________________ BEN SCHECTER Assistant United States Attorney Office of the United States Attorney Western District of Kentucky 510 West Broadway, 10th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Tel.: 502-582-5911 Fax: 502-625-7110
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

____________________________________ STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
____________________________________ MICHAEL S. MAURER Deputy Chief RYAN G. LEE Trial Attorney Ryan.Lee@usdoj.gov Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-3109 Fax: (202) 514-1116

7

 </s> Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 237

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN D. COGAN; EDWYNN BURCKLE; GEORGE E. CLARK; DORIS COGAN; A. BAYUS, INC. d/b/a BAYUS-EVOLA ARCHITECTS; SCOTT HALL, EXECUTOR FOR ESTATE OF JAMES A. HALL d/b/a JAMES A. HALL BUILDER d/b/a HALL CONTRACTING d/b/a HALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; MINDEL, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and A. STANLEY WILLETT d/b/a WILLETT ENGINEERING COMPANY;
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:10CV533-S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

1. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, Scott Hall, Executor for Estate of James A. Hall, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan, A. Bayus, Inc. d/b/a Bayus-Evola Architects, Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc., and A. Stanley Willett (“Defendants”), agree to the terms of this Consent Order, resolving this action filed by Plaintiff United States.

2. This action is brought by the United States to enforce provisions of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 - 3619. Specifically, the United States’ Complaint alleges that Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities and have denied rights to a group of persons because of disability by failing to design and construct Park Place Apartments (“PPA”), located in Louisville, KY, with the features of accessible and adaptive design and construction required by subsections 804(f)(1), 804(f)(2) and 804(f)(3)(C) of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C). For purposes of this Consent Order, the United States and Defendants agree that PPA is subject to

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 238
the accessible design and construction requirements of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C).
B. Defendants
3. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, and George E. Clark operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed name of New Cut Partnership and whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, and George E. Clark d/b/a New Cut Partnership, were owners of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA.
4. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall and George E. Clark operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed name of Park Place Apartments Partnership and whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and George E. Clark d/b/a Park Place Apartments Partnership were owners of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA.
5. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and Doris Cogan operated a general partnership organized and existing in the state of Kentucky under the assumed names of Park Place Apartments Partnership and Park Place Apartments IV Partnership and whose address is or was 136 St. Matthews Avenue, Louisville, KY 40207. Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, James A. Hall, and Doris Cogan d/b/a Park Place Apartments Partnership and d/b/a Park Place Apartments IV Partnership are or were owners and/or operators of PPA, and they were involved in the design and construction of PPA.
6. Defendant A. Bayus, Inc. is an active, for-profit Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business at 13050 Magisterial Drive, Suite 102, Louisville, KY 40223. Bayus-Evola Architects is an assumed name of A. Bayus, Inc., and it is an active Kentucky Assumed Name Corporation with its principal place of business at 2908 Eastpoint Parkway, Louisville, KY 40223. The United States alleges that A. Bayus, Inc. d/b/a Bayus-Evola Architects was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
7. Defendant James A. Hall d/b/a James A. Hall Builder d/b/a Hall Contracting and d/b/a Hall Construction Company is or was a builder/developer with his principal place of business at 1700 Kensington Place, Louisville, KY 40205. James A. Hall d/b/a James A. Hall Builder d/b/a Hall Contracting and d/b/a Hall Construction Company was involved in the design and construction of PPA. By order of the Court on October 20, 2011, Scott Hall, Executor of the Estate of James A. Hall, was substituted for the late James A. Hall, as a defendant in this action.
8. Defendant A. Stanley Willett d/b/a Willett Engineering Company is an engineer who is or was registered with the state of Kentucky with his principal place of business at 4134 South Fifth Street, Louisville, KY 40214. He was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
- 2 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 239
9. Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. is an active, for-profit Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business at 5151 Jefferson Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40219. Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. was involved in the design and construction of PPA.
C. Relevant Requirements of the Fair Housing Act
10. The FHA provides that, for non-elevator residential buildings with four or more dwelling units, all ground-floor units that are designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, are “covered multifamily dwellings” and must include certain basic features of accessible and adaptive design to make such units accessible to or adaptable for use by a person who has or develops a disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(3)(C) and (f)(7)(B).
11. The accessible and adaptive design provisions of the FHA require that for covered multifamily dwellings: (i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by persons with a disability; (ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with a disability using wheelchairs; (iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling; (II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; (III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and (IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual using a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C). These features are referred to herein as the “Accessible Design Requirements.”
12. For the purposes of this Consent Order, the parties agree that PPA was designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, and therefore all of the ground-floor units in non-elevator buildings at PPA are “covered multifamily dwellings” within the meaning of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(7)(A) and (B). As such, those units and the public and common use areas including the accessible pedestrian routes at PPA must comply with the Accessible Design Requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C).
D. Park Place Apartments (“PPA”)
13. PPA is an apartment and rental townhome property that was constructed after March 13, 1991, and comprises 46 two-story, 6-unit apartment non-elevator buildings, and 6 non-elevator townhome buildings. It contains 138 “covered multifamily dwellings.” The ground-floor apartments and the public and common use areas of Park Place Apartments, which include a leasing office, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, mailboxes, and parking spaces, are subject to the Accessible Design Requirements of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C).
14. The United States has inspected PPA and has specifically identified alleged failures to meet the Accessible Design Requirements at this property. The United States alleges that, among other things, (a) there are routes from the public parking areas to numerous building
- 3 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 240
entrances with abrupt level changes in excess of 1/4" (such as steps and barrier curbs), running slopes greater than 5.0% and cross slopes greater than 2.0%; many curb ramps on these routes have running slopes in excess of 8.33% and cross slopes in excess of 2.0%; (b) there are buildings without accessible resident or visitor parking on an accessible route to the building entrance; (c) public and common use areas such as dumpsters and mail kiosks lack accessible features for persons who use wheelchairs, and such public and common use areas are on a route with excessive slopes and abrupt level changes in excess of 1/4"; (d) the maneuvering surface at the primary entry door to certain ground floor units slopes away from the door in excess of 1.0%, and there are abrupt level changes in excess of 1/4" at the exterior side of the threshold; (e) the head height on routes is reduced to less than 80" by the unprotected underside of porch lights at building entrance areas; (f) doors to many bathrooms, bedrooms, and walk-in-closets are not sufficiently wide for passage by a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid; (g) routes within the dwellings are not sufficiently wide for passage by a person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid; (h) some kitchens and bathrooms are not designed so that an individual using a wheelchair can maneuver about them; and (i) thermostat controls are mounted above the maximum reach of a wheelchair user.
E. Consent of the Parties to Entry of this Order
15. Defendants Kevin Cogan, Doris Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, George Clark, Scott Hall, Executor of Estate of James Hall (hereafter “Owner/Developer Defendants”) agree to bring PPA into compliance with the FHA as set forth herein.
16. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). The parties further agree that this controversy should be resolved without further proceedings and without an evidentiary hearing or a trial.
17. As indicated by the signatures appearing below, the parties agree to the entry of this Consent Order.
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
II. GENERAL INJUNCTION
18. Defendants and each of their officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from discriminating on the basis of disability as prohibited by the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1) - (3).
III. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS/RETROFITS
A. Access to PPA
19. Owner/Developer Defendants agree to allow access to the common and public use
- 4 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 241
areas of PPA and, to the extent possible, access to PPA unit interiors, for the purpose of planning, evaluating, and performing any modification required under this Order, and for the purpose of interviewing or meeting with residents or tenants at PPA to aid in the implementation or completion of this Order.
B. Retrofits to Accessible Pedestrian Routes
20. As soon as reasonably possible, but by no later than July 15, 2012, Owner/Developer Defendants will complete the retrofits to make the Accessible Pedestrian Routes identified in Appendix A compliant with the FHA and the FHA Guidelines in accordance with the Route Inspection Protocol, separately agreed to by the United States and the Owner/Developer Defendants and described in Section VI, infra.
C. Retrofits to Public and Common Use Areas
21. As soon as reasonably possible, but by no later than 12 months from the entry of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants will complete the retrofits to the public and common use areas of PPA listed in Appendix B to bring the public and common use areas of PPA into compliance with the FHA and FHA Guidelines, and where applicable, with the Route Inspection Protocol.
D. Retrofits to Ground-Floor Dwelling Unit Interiors
22. As soon as reasonably possible, but by no later than 12 months from the entry of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants will complete all retrofits as described in Appendix C to the interiors of 69 covered multifamily dwellings at PPA to bring these unit interiors into compliance with the FHA and the FHA Guidelines in accordance with the Interior Inspection Protocol separately agreed to by the United States and the Owner/Developer Defendants and described in Section VI, infra. As soon as reasonably possible, but by no later than 24 months from the entry of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants will complete all retrofits as described in Appendix C to the interiors of all covered multifamily dwellings at PPA to bring these unit interiors into compliance with the FHA and the FHA Guidelines in accordance with the Interior Inspection Protocol.
23. Within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this Order, and within ten (10) days of the first anniversary of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants shall provide a notice that is substantially equivalent to Appendix E to PPA residents in ground-floor apartment units. The notice shall inform PPA residents that (1) the unit does not meet the Accessible Design Requirements of the FHA; (2) the unit must be retrofitted within twenty four (24) months; (3) the resident can schedule the retrofits; (4) the retrofits will be performed at no cost to the resident; and (5) temporary relocation expenses, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the resident.
24. PPA residents shall request the retrofits in writing, and requests shall be granted by Owner/Developer Defendants on a first come, first served basis. Owner/Developer
- 5 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 242
Defendants shall complete the retrofits within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the retrofits were requested by a resident, with such deadline being subject to paragraph 51 of this Consent Order.
IV. INCONVENIENCE AND OVERNIGHT STAYS FOR RETROFITTING UNIT INTERIORS
25. Owner/Developer Defendants shall endeavor to minimize inconvenience to residents in scheduling and performing retrofits required by this Order to unit interiors at PPA.
26. Owner/Developer Defendants will offer any resident of a unit scheduled to undergo a retrofit who will be dislocated from the unit for more than twenty-four (24) hours consecutively a similarly sized furnished unit at PPA at no cost. In the event that a similarly sized furnished unit at PPA is not available, Owner/Developer Defendants will pay the resident the applicable government per diem rate for food and lodging for the local area (as available at www.gsa.gov – click on “per diem rates” under travel) for each day of undue inconvenience or hardship for the resident(s). Such payment shall be made prior to the commencement of any retrofit work on the resident’s unit, so that the resident can use the money to obtain alternative living accommodations and food while dislocated.
V. NOTICE OF RETROFITS TO THE ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN ROUTES AND TO THE PUBLIC AND COMMON USE AREAS
27. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants shall provide written notice to all residents/tenants at PPA stating that the retrofits required by this Order will be performed to the accessible pedestrian routes and to the public and common use areas of PPA. Such notice shall conform to Appendix D. Owner/Developer Defendants shall certify to the United States in writing that the notices have been distributed and shall describe the manner in which they were distributed within ten (10) days after such distribution.
VI. NEUTRAL INSPECTOR
28. Owner/Developer Defendants shall enter into a contract with a neutral inspector approved by the United States (“Inspector”) to conduct on-site inspections of the retrofits that have been performed under this Order to determine if they have been completed in accord with the specifications in this Order’s Appendices A, B, and C, the Interior Retrofit Protocol and the Route Inspection Protocol that describe the retrofits for the properties. The Inspector shall have expertise in the design and construction requirements of the FHA Guidelines.
29. An inspection of PPA shall take place within thirty (30) days of the completion of all of the retrofits to the units, the accessible pedestrian routes, and the public and common use areas at PPA, or as soon thereafter as practicable. Owner/Developer Defendants shall give the United States at least three (3) weeks’ notice of the inspection and shall give the United States an opportunity to have its representative(s) present for the inspection.
- 6 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 243
30. The inspections of the Accessible Pedestrian Routes, Public and Common Use Areas and dwelling unit interiors will be conducted by the Inspector in accordance with this Order and the relevant Appendices. The inspections of the Accessible Pedestrian Routes will also be conducted by the Inspector in accordance with the written Route Inspection Protocol separately agreed to by Owner/Developer Defendants and the United States which will be provided to the Inspector. The inspections of the dwelling units will also be conducted by the Inspector in accordance with the written Interior Inspection Protocol separately agreed to by Owner/Developer Defendants and the United States which will be provided to the Inspector.
31. The Inspector shall set out the results of the inspection of PPA, including deficits if any, in writing and shall send that report to counsel for Owner/Developer Defendants and for the United States.1 The Inspector shall take digital photographs of any deficiencies identified at PPA. If the inspection indicates that not all of the required retrofits have been made as specified in the Appendices A, B, and C, Interior Inspection Protocol or the Route Inspection Protocol, Owner/Developer Defendants will correct any deficiencies within sixty (60) days and shall pay for another inspection by the same Inspector to certify that the deficiencies have been corrected. This process shall continue until the Inspector certifies that all of the necessary retrofits have been made. Owner/Developer Defendants shall pay all of the Inspector’s reasonable costs associated with these inspections, and such payments shall be made without regard to the Inspector’s findings. Upon reasonable notice to Owner/Developer Defendants, representatives of the United States shall be permitted to inspect the retrofits made by Owner/Developer Defendants in accordance with this Consent Order or the third-party inspection reports provided for in this Order, to ensure compliance; provided, however, that the United States shall endeavor to minimize any inconvenience caused by such inspections.
VII. TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN PROPERTIES
32. The sale, foreclosure, or any other transfer of ownership, in whole or in part, whether voluntary or involuntary, of PPA shall not affect Owner/Developer Defendants’ continuing obligation to retrofit PPA as specified in this Order. Should an Owner/Developer Defendant decide to sell or transfer ownership of PPA, in whole or in part, or any portion thereof, prior to the completion of the retrofits specified in Appendices A , B, and C of this Order, the Owner/Developer Defendant will at least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the sale or transfer: (a) provide to each prospective buyer written notice that PPA is subject to this Order, including specifically the Owner/Developer Defendant’s obligations to complete required
1 For purposes of this Order, counsel for the United States is Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Building – G St., Washington, D.C. 20530, Attn: DJ# 175-31-133, or as otherwise directed by the United States. All reports mentioned in this Order shall be sent to that address via overnight courier.
- 7 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 244
retrofit work and to allow inspections, along with a copy of this Order; and (b) provide to the United States, by facsimile and first-class mail, written notice of the intent to sell or transfer ownership, along with a copy of the notice sent to each buyer, and each buyer’s name, address and telephone number.
VIII. NO RAISING OF RENTS OR FEES
33. Owner/Developer Defendants, their agents and affiliated companies, may not raise the rent or fees of any dwelling unit, or demand any deposit or other fee for a dwelling unit at PPA solely because of contemplated or completed retrofits required by this Order.
IX. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN FUTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
34. For the duration of this Order, Owner/Developer Defendants shall maintain, and provide to the United States, upon request, the following information and statements regarding any other covered multifamily dwellings intended to be purchased, developed, built, designed, and/or engineered in whole or in part, by any of them or by any entities in which they have a position of control as an officer, director, member, or manager, or have a ten-percent (10%) or larger ownership share, provided, however, that such information and statements need to be maintained and/or provided only on projects in which a defendant is actually involved, not on those projects in which a defendant bids or expresses an interest, but does not become finally involved:
a. the name and address of the property; b. a description of the property and the individual units; c. the name, address, and telephone number of the civil engineer(s) involved with
the project; d. a statement from the civil engineer(s) involved with the project acknowledging
and describing his/her knowledge of and training in the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, and in the field of accessible site design and certifying that he/she has reviewed the engineering documents for the project and that the design specifications therein fully comply with the requirements of the FHA and the FHA Guidelines; e. the name, address and telephone number of the architect(s) involved with the property; f. a statement from all architect(s) who are employed or retained by any defendant and are involved with the project, acknowledging and describing his/her knowledge of and training in the requirements of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3406(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C), the requirements of the FHA Guidelines, and in the field of accessible site design and certifying that he/she has reviewed the architectural plans for the property and that the design specifications therein fully comply with the requirements of the FHA and the FHA Guidelines; g. if the engineering documents or architectural plans are revised, and the revisions could have any impact on the accessibility of the dwellings or complex, each of
- 8 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 245
the defendants shall obtain, maintain, and provide to the United States upon request, a statement from the site engineer(s) or architect(s), who are employed or retained by any defendant and are involved with the project, as applicable, that all specifications in the revised engineering documents or architectural plans, as pertinent, comply with the requirements of the FHA and the FHA Guidelines.
35. For the duration of this Order, Defendants A. Bayus, Inc., Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc., and A. Stanley Willett2 (hereafter “Design Defendants”) will maintain, and provide to the United States, the following information and statements for any other covered multifamily dwellings where designs are released or used for construction, filed with governmental agencies, or constructed, in whole or in part, by them or by any entities in which they have a position of control as an officer, director, member, or manager, or have a ten-percent (10%) or larger ownership share, provided, however, that such information and statements need to maintained and/or provided only on properties in which he/she is actually involved, not on those properties in which a Design Defendant bids or expresses an interest, but does not become finally involved:
a. the name and address of the property; b. a description of the property and the individual units; and c. a statement certifying that he/she has reviewed the plans prepared for the property
and that the design specifications therein fully comply with the requirements of the FHA and the FHA Guidelines, where applicable; and d. if the plans are revised, and the revisions could have any impact on the accessibility of the dwellings or property, he/she will obtain, maintain, and provide to the United States upon request, a statement that all specifications in the revised plans, as pertinent, comply with the Accessible Design Requirements of the FHA and the FHA Guidelines, where applicable.
X. PAYMENTS TO AGGRIEVED PERSONS
36. Owner/Developer Defendants will pay the sum of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($275,000) to the following aggrieved persons identified by the United States. Owner/Developer Defendants will pay the sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS
2 Defendant A. Stanley Willett has taken affirmative steps to terminate his engineering license and has agreed to permanently cease from performing any work in the design, construction, or engineering of any covered multifamily dwellings. So long as Defendant Willett remains unlicensed and abides by his agreement to perform no such work, he will be relieved from performing any obligations under paragraphs 35, 38-41, and 44. In the event Defendant Willett obtains an engineering license or otherwise performs any work in the design, construction, or engineering of any covered multifamily dwellings, he will immediately notify the United States, and will be required perform immediately all obligations under this Order, including the obligations in paragraphs 35, 38-41, and 44.
- 9 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 246

($1,000) to each aggrieved person identified below within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order by sending counsel for the United States individual checks, payable to the order of each identified victim. Owner/Developer Defendants will pay the remaining balance owed to aggrieved persons identified below by January 3, 2012, by sending counsel for the United States individual checks, payable to the order of the identified victims, so that the victims receive payment in the total amounts identified below.

1. Lisa Whitus:

$41,000.00

2. Mary Franklin:

$26,000.00

3. Joseph Asvestas:

$26,000.00

4. Elaine McMahan:

$21,000.00

5. Kenneth McMahan:

$21,000.00

6. Kenneth Crawford:

$21,000.00

7. Porter Slaughter:

$16,000.00

8. Shirley Horn:

$16,000.00

9. April Hayden:

$16,000.00

10. Debra Lee:

$16,000.00

11. Joyce Jackson:

$6,000.00

12. Charles Lee:

$6,000.00

13. Sue Sweeney:

$6,000.00

14. James Woodford:

$6,000.00

15. Senid Omerovic:

$6,000.00

16. Jackie Brown:

$4,000.00

17. Sabina Omerovic:

$4,000.00

18. George Asvestas:

$4,000.00

19. Estate of Marvin Lee:

$2,000.00

- 10 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 247

20. Estate of Frederic Sanders:

$2,000.00

21. Fred Malafronte:

$1,000.00

22. Leslie Saksefsky:

$1,000.00

23. Estate of Norbert Saksefsky:

$1,000.00

24. Shirley Collins:

$1,000.00

25. Andrew Webb:

$1,000.00

26. Doris Woodford:

$1,000.00

27. Ronald Jackson:

$1,000.00

28. Gerald Collins:

$1,000.00

29. Kenneth Webster:

$1,000.00

37. The United States will retain in its possession the check for each identified aggrieved person until that person has executed a written release, in the form of Appendix H, of all claims, legal or equitable, that he or she might have against any and all Defendants relating to the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

XI. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

38. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, each defendant shall provide a copy of this Order to all their current agents and employees involved in the design and/or construction of PPA and secure the signed statement from each agent or employee acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Order, and has had an opportunity to have questions about the Order answered. This statement shall be substantially similar to the form of Appendix F.

39. During the term of this Consent Order, within thirty (30) days after the date he or she commences an agency or employment relationship with a defendant, each new agent or employee involved in the design and/or construction of PPA or other covered multifamily dwelling property will be given a copy of this Order and be required to sign the statement acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Order, and has had an opportunity to have questions about the Order answered. This statement shall be substantially similar to the form of Appendix F.

40. Defendants shall also ensure that they and their employees and agents who have primary management authority over the design and/or construction of covered multifamily

- 11 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 248
dwellings have a copy of, are familiar with, and personally review, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 56 Fed. Reg. 9472 (1991) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Act Design Manual, A Manual to Assist Builders in Meeting the Accessibility Requirements of the Fair Housing Act, (August 1996, Rev. April 1998). Defendants and all employees and agents whose duties, in whole or in part, involve the management, sale and/or rental of multifamily dwellings at issue in this case shall be informed of those portions of the FHA that relate to accessibility requirements, reasonable accommodations, and reasonable modifications.
41. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Consent Order, Defendants and all employees and agents whose duties, in whole or in part, involve or will involve primary management authority over the development, design and/or construction of multifamily dwellings shall undergo training on the design and construction requirements of the FHA, unless they have already had similar training within the last (4) four years.3 The training shall be conducted by a qualified individual who has been previously approved by the Department of Justice, and any expenses associated with this training shall be borne by Defendants. Defendants shall provide to the United States, within thirty (30) days after the training, the name(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the trainer(s); copies of the training outlines and any materials distributed by the trainers; and certifications executed by all Defendants and covered employees and agents confirming their attendance, in a form substantially equivalent to Appendix G.
XII. NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY
42. Within ten (10) days of entry of this Consent Order, Owner/Developer Defendants shall post and prominently display in the sales or rental offices of PPA a poster no smaller than 10 by 14 inches indicating that all dwellings are available for rental on a nondiscriminatory basis. A poster that comports with 24 C.F.R. Part 110 will satisfy this requirement.
43. All advertising in newspapers and all pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature regarding PPA or any new complexes that any defendant may develop or construct, shall contain, in a conspicuous location, a statement that the dwelling units include features for persons with disabilities required by the federal Fair Housing Act .
XIII. NOTIFICATION AND DOCUMENT RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
44. In addition to all other reporting required herein, within one hundred eighty (180)
3 The educational program provided to employees not engaged in design, construction or maintenance, such as sales and rental employees, may focus on the portions of the law that relate generally to accessibility requirements as opposed to technical design and construction requirements.
- 12 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 249
days after the date of entry of this Consent Order, Defendants will submit to the United States an initial report containing the requirement reported by paragraphs 34-35, and containing the signed statements of Defendants and their employees and agents who have completed the training program specified in paragraph 41 of this Consent Order. Thereafter during the term of this Order, Defendants will, on the anniversary of the entry of this Order, submit to the United States a compliance report detailing their compliance with this Order, including details on the retrofitting and inspections of the retrofits at PPA, the reporting required by paragraphs 34-35 on the future design and construction, and containing the signed statements of new employees and agents that, in accordance with paragraph 39 of this Consent Order, they have received and read the Order, and had an opportunity to have questions about the Order answered, except that the last compliance report will be due sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary.
45. During the term of this Consent Order, Owner/Developer Defendants shall advise the United States in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any written administrative or legal fair housing complaint against PPA, or against any employee or agent of Owner/Developer Defendants working at or for PPA, regarding discrimination on the basis of disability in housing. Upon reasonable notice, Owner/Developer Defendants shall also provide the United States all information it may request concerning any such complaint. Owner/Developer Defendants shall also advise counsel for the United States, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of the resolution of any complaint.
46. During the term of this Consent Order, Defendants are required to preserve all records related to this Consent Order, related to PPA, and to any other covered multifamily dwellings designed, constructed, owned, operated, or acquired by them during the duration of the Consent Order. Upon reasonable notice to Defendants, representatives of the United States shall be permitted to inspect and copy any records of Defendants or inspect PPA and any properties or dwelling units under the control of Defendants bearing on compliance with this Consent Order at any and all reasonable times, provided, however, that the United States shall endeavor to minimize any inconvenience to Defendants from such inspections.
XIV. DURATION OF CONSENT ORDER AND TERMINATION OF LEGAL ACTION
47. This Consent Order shall remain in effect for three (3) years after the date of its entry. By consenting to entry of this Order, the parties agree that in the event that a defendant engages in any future conduct occurring after entry of this Order that leads to a determination of a violation of the FHA, such conduct shall constitute a “subsequent violation” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C)(ii).
48. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Order to enforce the terms of the Order, at which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The United States may move the Court to extend the duration of the Order in the interests of justice.
49. The United States and Defendants shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Order prior to
- 13 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 250
bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event of a failure by a defendant to perform, in a timely manner, any act required by this Order or otherwise for their failure to act in conformance with any provision thereof, the United States may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including, but not limited to, an order requiring performance of such act or deeming such act to have been performed, and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees which may have been occasioned by the violation or by the failure to perform.
XV. APPLICATION OF CONSENT ORDER 50 The parties agree that this Consent Order applies only to PPA and, as specified, to Defendants’ future design and construction (see Section IX). The parties agree that this Consent Order does not release Defendants from any claims by the United States concerning any other covered multifamily dwellings not identified and addressed herein, including any previously designed and constructed dwellings.
XVI. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE 51. Any time limits for performance imposed by this Consent Order may be extended by the mutual written agreement of the United States and the relevant defendant or defendants.
XVII. COSTS OF LITIGATION 52. Each party to this litigation will bear its own costs and attorney’s fees associated with this litigation.
SO ORDERED this ___________ day of ________________________, 2011.
December 7, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 14 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 251

The undersigned apply for and consent to the entry of this Consent Order:
For the United States:
THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
DAVID J. HALE United States Attorney Western District of Kentucky

s/ Ryan G. Lee

_

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM, Chief

MICHAEL S. MAURER, Deputy Chief

RYAN G. LEE, Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

s/ Ben Schecter BEN SCHECTER Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Kentucky

- 15 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 252

For Defendants Kevin D. Cogan, Edwynn Burckle, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan:

s/ Steven M. Crawford STEVEN M. CRAWFORD Frost Brown Todd LLC 400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor Louisville, Kentucky 40202
For Defendant Scott Hall, Executor for Estate of James A. Hall:

s/ Erwin Roberts ERWIN ROBERTS 600 W Main St Louisville, KY 40202
For Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.:

s/ Jefferson C. Orr JEFFERSON C. ORR Smith, Cashion, & Orr, PLC 231 Third Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201
For Defendant A. Stanley Willett:

s/ Brian Hodge BRIAN HODGE 239 South Fifth Street, Suite 414 Louisville, KY 40202

___________________

For Defendant A. Bayus, Inc.:

s/ Robert M. Brooks

________

ROBERT M. BROOKS

Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP

400 West Market Street, Suite 2300

Louisville, KY 40202

- 16 -

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 253 APPENDIX A
ACCESSIBILITY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN ROUTES AND TO THE PUBLIC AND COMMON USE AREAS AT PARK PLACE APARTMENTS
(Accessible Route Plan on following page)

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 254

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 255
APPENDIX B
ACCESSIBILITY MODIFICATIONS TO PUBLIC AND COMMON USE AREAS AT PARK PLACE APARTMENTS
I. As set forth in the Consent Order and this Appendix, Owner/Developer Defendants will retrofit the public and common use areas at Park Place Apartments (“PPA”) in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, the Accessible Design Requirements of the FHA, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, ANSI A117.1-1986, the Fair Housing Design Manual, and the Route Inspection Protocol.
II. Defendants will retrofit the landing at the primary entrance at units listed below so that the primary entrance of the units will not be more than ½" below the finished floor inside the unit. [M #169; FHAG Req. 4(6), FHDM pp. 4.11-4.13]
400 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 410 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 420 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 430 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 450 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2 460 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 470 Fallon Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3
7300 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7310 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7320 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7331 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7401 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7410 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7411 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7421 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7431 Cranfill Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3
7410 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7411 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7420 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7421 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7430 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7431 Candace Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3
7330 Cogan Blvd., Apts. 1, 2, 3 7400 Cogan Blvd., Apts. 1, 2, 3
7500 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7510 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 256
7511 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2 7520 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7531 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7540 Connor Way, Apts. 1, 2, 3 7541 Connor Way, Apts. 2, 3
III. Owner/Developer Defendants will retrofit the locations of grills on the accessible routes so that there is one accessible grill in each of the following four general areas: Zachary Circle, Candace Way, Cogan Boulevard, and Cranfill Way [M #171; FHAG Req. 2].
IV. Owner/Developer Defendants will retrofit the passageways on the routes to the groundlevel units at the following buildings so that the wall mounted porch lights protrude no more than 4" into the circulation route with the bottom of the porch light 80" or higher in compliance with ANSI 1986, Section 4.4 [M ##173, 174; FHAG Req. 2, Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2].
400 Fallon Way 410 Fallon Way 420 Fallon Way 430 Fallon Way 440 Fallon Way 450 Fallon Way 460 Fallon Way 470 Fallon Way
7300 Cranfill Way 7310 Cranfill Way 7320 Cranfill Way 7321 Cranfill Way 7331 Cranfill Way 7400 Cranfill Way 7401 Cranfill Way 7410 Cranfill Way 7411 Cranfill Way 7421 Cranfill Way 7431 Cranfill Way 7441 Cranfill Way
7410 Candace Way 7411 Candace Way 7420 Candace Way 7421 Candace Way 7430 Candace Way 7431 Candace Way
7330 Cogan Blvd.

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 257
7400 Cogan Blvd.
7500 Connor Way 7510 Connor Way 7511 Connor Way 7520 Connor Way 7521 Connor Way 7530 Connor Way 7531 Connor Way 7540 Connor Way 7541 Connor Way
8702 Zachary Circle 8703 Zachary Circle 8704 Zachary Circle 8705 Zachary Circle 8706 Zachary Circle 8707 Zachary Circle 8708 Zachary Circle 8709 Zachary Circle 8711 Zachary Circle
V. Owner/Developer Defendants will seek immediate approval from the U.S. Postal Service in writing to reassign mailboxes so that the key slots for all mailboxes serving groundlevel units are within reach range of 48" above the ground for a forward approach or 54" above the ground for a parallel approach in compliance with ANSI 1986, Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6. Defendants will provide the U.S. postal service with a copy of the Consent Order when seeking this approval, and Owner/Developer Defendants will copy the United States on all correspondence. [M ##162, 163; FHAG Req. 2, Section 4.25.3]
VI. Owner/Developer Defendants will make retrofits at the dumpster/trash compactor on Cogan Blvd. by providing permanent trash receptacles that are accessible along with permanent mounted HC sign. [M ## 166, 167; FHAG Req. 2, Sections 4.25.3]
VII. Owner/Developer Defendants will make the following retrofits to the exterior of the Clubhouse:
A. Retrofit the threshold at the primary entrance so that the threshold is no taller than ½” in compliance with FHAG Req., 2 and ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.8. [M #129]
B. Retrofit the flap on the rental brochure dispenser so that it is within 54" of the landing for a side reach in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.25.3. [M #358]
C. Retrofit the gate hardware on the gate on the accessible route to the pool area so that it is within 48" of the floor in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986,

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 258
Section 4.13.9. [M #362]
D. Retrofit gate hardware on the gate on the accessible route to the pool area so that it is operable with one hand without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986 4.13.9. [M #364].
VIII. Owner/Developer Defendants will retrofit the door at the Senior Manager’s Office by posting a permanent sign on the door stating that the door is for employee-use only. [M ##138, 139]
IX. Owner/Developer Defendants will make the following retrofits to the Clubhouse Men’s Bathroom:
A. Retrofit so that there is a sign identifying the men’s bathroom mounted on the wall adjacent to the latch and centered 60" above the floor. [M #141]
B. Retrofit so that the front end of the side grab bar is at least 54" from the rear wall in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.4. [M #142]
C. Retrofit so that the sidewall grab bar is at least 42" long in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.4. [M #143]
D. Retrofit so that the toilet paper dispenser is within 36" of the rear wall in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.6. [M #144]
E. Retrofit so that the toilet flush control is on the open side of the toilet in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.5. [M #145]
F. Retrofit so that the rear grab bar is at least 36" long in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.4. [M #146]
G. Retrofit so that locking mechanism is operable with one hand without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.9. [M #148]
X. Owner/Developer Defendants will make the following retrofits to the Clubhouse Women’s Bathroom:
A. Retrofit so that there is a sign identifying the women’s bathroom mounted on the wall adjacent to the latch and centered 60" above the floor. [M #150]
B. Retrofit so that the front end of the side grab bar is at least 54" from the rear wall in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.4. [M #151]
C. Retrofit so that the sidewall grab bar is at least 42" long in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.4. [M #152]

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 259
D. Retrofit so that the toilet paper dispenser is within 36" of the rear wall in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.16.6. [M #153]
E. Retrofit so that locking mechanism is operable with one hand without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.9. [M #154]
XI. Defendants will make the following retrofits to the Pool Area adjacent to the Clubhouse:
A. Retrofit the threshold at the Clubhouse corridor to the pool area so that the threshold is no taller than ½” in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.8 [M #156]
B. Retrofit the maneuvering space outside the Clubhouse corridor door to the pool area so that the maneuvering space at the door does not slope more than 2% in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.6. [M #157]
C. Retrofit the maneuvering space at the push side of the pool gate so that the maneuvering space slopes not more than 2% in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.13.6. [M #158]
D. Retrofit the drinking fountain serving the pool area so that it is accessible in compliance with FHAG, Req. 2, ANSI 1986, Section 4.15. [M #159]

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 260
APPENDIX C
ACCESSIBILITY MODIFICATIONS TO DWELLING UNIT INTERIORS AT PARK PLACE APARTMENTS
I. As set forth in the Consent Order and in this Appendix, Owner/Developer Defendants will retrofit the interiors of the units at Park Place Apartments (PPA) in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, the Accessible Design Requirements of the FHA, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, the Fair Housing Act Design Manual, and, where specified, with the Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol, that are listed below. These units comprise six types: (1) Apartment #2 at 410 Fallon Way, 850 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit; (2) Apartment #2 at 8711 Zachary Circle, 886 sq. ft. 2 Bathroom, 2 Bathroom unit; (3) Apartment #1 at 8706 Zachary Circle, 962 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit; (4) Apartment #1 at 8708 Zachary Circle, 962 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit with code features; (5) Apartment #1 at 410 Fallon Way, 1,000 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit; and (6) Apartment #3 at 7511 Connor Way, 1,000 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit with code features.
II. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #2 at 410 Fallon Way:
A. Retrofit the following doors by widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width: (1) Door to the Hall Bath. (2) Door to the Master Bedroom. (3) Door to Bedroom #2. [Matrix (“M”) ##7, 14, and 16; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]
B. Retrofit the Hall Bath by reversing the swing of the door so that it swings into the hallway. [M #8; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.39, 7.43]
C. Retrofit the Hall Bath by installing removable cabinet under lavatory with a finished floor under the lavatory and insulated pipes or alternatively by installing a hanging sink with insulated pipes. [M #9, FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.47-7.52]
D. Retrofit the thermostats so that they are mounted no more than 48" above the floor. [M #2; FHAG, Req. #5; FHDM pp. 5.6, 5.7]
E. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Locations of Wall Outlets, Locations of Light Switches, and Locations of Toilets.
III. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #2 at 8711 Zachary Circle:

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 261
A. Retrofit the following doors by widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width: (1) Door to the Hall Bath. (2) Door to the Master Bedroom. (3) Door to Bedroom #2. [M ##35, 42, and 47; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]
B. Retrofit the kitchen so that there is at least 30" x 48" of clear floor space at the kitchen sink. [M #31; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (1), FHDM pp. 7.4, 7.5, 7.12]
C. Retrofit the Kitchen so that there is 30" by 48" clear floor space that is parallel and centered on the range by moving the range forward to be flush with the adjacent wing-wall, and providing counter backing between the back of the range and the wall. [M #32, FHAG, Req. #7, guide (1), FHDM pp. 7.4, 7.5]
D. Retrofit the Hall Bath by reversing the swing of the door so that it swings into the hallway. [M #36; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2); FHDM pp. 7.39, 7.43].
E. Retrofit the Hall Bath by installing removable cabinet under lavatory with a finished floor under the lavatory and insulated pipes or alternatively by installing a hanging sink with insulated pipes. [M ##37, 38; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.47-7.52].
F. Retrofit electrical receptacle and light switch in Hall Bath mounted over the lavatory so that it is parallel to the clear floor space and between the ends of the clear floor space. [M #40; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.7, 5.8]
G. Retrofit the thermostats so that they are mounted no more than 48" above the floor. [M #28; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.6, 5.7]
H. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Abrupt Level Changes at Interior Side of Entry Door Thresholds, Locations of Wall Outlets, and Location of Toilets.
IV. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #1 at 8706 Zachary Circle:
A. Retrofit the following doors by widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width: (1) Door to the Hall Bath. (2) Door to the Master Bedroom. (3) Door to Bedroom #2. [M ##62, 69, and 71; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 262
B. Retrofit the kitchen so that there is at least 30" x 48" of clear floor space at the kitchen sink. [M #59; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (1), FHDM pp. 7.4, 7.5, 7.12]
C. Retrofit the Kitchen so that there is 30" by 48" clear floor space that is parallel and centered on the range by moving the range forward to be flush with the adjacent wing-wall, and providing counter backing between the back of the range and the wall. [M #60; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (1), FHDM pp. 7.4, 7.5]
D. Retrofit the Hall Bath by reversing the swing of the door so that it swings into the hallway. [M #63; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2); FHDM pp. 7.39, 7.43].
E. Retrofit the Hall Bath by installing removable cabinet under lavatory with a finished floor under the lavatory and insulated pipes or alternatively by installing a hanging sink with insulated pipes. [M ##64, 65; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.47-7.52]
F. Retrofit electrical receptacle and light switch in Hall Bath mounted over the lavatory so that it is parallel to the clear floor space and between the ends of the clear floor space. [M #67; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.7, 5.8]
G. Retrofit the thermostats so that they are mounted no more than 48" above the floor. [M #56; FHAG, Req. #5; FHDM pp. 5.6, 5.7].
H. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Abrupt Level Changes at Interior Side of Entry Door Thresholds, Locations of Wall Outlets, and Locations of Toilets.
V. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #1 at 8708 Zachary Circle:
A. Retrofit the following doors by widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width: (1) Door to the Hall Bath. (2) Door to Bedroom #2. [M ##89, 92; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]
B. Retrofit the Kitchen so that there is 30" by 48" clear floor space that is parallel and centered on the range by moving the range forward to be flush with the adjacent wing-wall, and providing counter backing between the back of the range and the wall. [M #87; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (1), FHDM pp. 7.4, 7.5].
C. Retrofit electrical receptacle in Hall Bath mounted over the lavatory so that it is parallel to the clear floor space and between the ends of the clear floor space. [M #90; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.7, 5.8]

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 263
D. Retrofit the thermostats so that they are mounted no more than 48" above the floor. [M #83; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.6, 5.7]
E. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Abrupt Level Changes at Interior Side of Entry Door Thresholds.
VI. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #1 at 410 Fallon Way:
A. Retrofit the following doors by widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width: (1) Door to the Hall Bath. (2) Door to the Master Bedroom. (3) Door to Bedroom #2. [M ##100, 108, and 110; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]
B. Retrofit the Hall Bath by reversing the swing of the door so that it swings into the hallway. [M #101; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.39, 7.43]
C. Retrofit the Hall Bath by installing removable cabinet under lavatory with a finished floor under the lavatory and insulated pipes or alternatively by installing a hanging sink with insulated pipes. [M ##102, 103; FHAG, Req. #7, guide (2), FHDM pp. 7.47-7.52]
D. Retrofit electrical receptacle and light switch in Hall Bath mounted over the lavatory so that it is parallel to the clear floor space and between the ends of the clear floor space. [M #106; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.7, 5.8]
E. Retrofit the thermostats so that they are mounted no more than 48" above the floor. [M #97; FHAG, Req. #5; FHDM pp. 5.6, 5.7]
F. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Abrupt Level Changes at Interior Side of Entry Door Thresholds, Locations of Wall Outlets, and Locations of Toilets.
VII. Owner/Developer Defendants shall make the following retrofits to the 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom unit types that are of the same type as the unit surveyed at Apartment #3 at 7511 Connor Way:
A. Retrofit the door to the Hall Bath widening the doors so that they have a 32" nominal clear opening width. [M #123; FHAG, Req. #3, guide (2), FHDM, pp. 3.3-3.6]
B. Retrofit electrical receptacle and light switch in Hall Bath mounted over the lavatory so that it is parallel to the clear floor space and between the ends of the

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 28 of 34 PageID #: 264
clear floor space. [M #124; FHAG, Req. #5, FHDM pp. 5.7, 5.8] C. See Interior Retrofit Inspection Protocol for retrofits to Abrupt Level Changes at
Interior Side of Entry Door Thresholds.

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 29 of 34 PageID #: 265
APPENDIX D
NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN ROUTES AND TO THE PUBLIC AND COMMON USE AREAS AT PARK PLACE APARTMENTS
The federal Fair Housing Act requires that the accessible pedestrian routes and the public and common use areas at complexes such as Park Place Apartments have certain features of physical accessibility for persons with disabilities.
As a result of recent events, it has been brought to our attention that certain features of the accessible pedestrian routes and of the public and common areas of Park Place Apartments can be modified to provide greater accessibility for persons with disabilities, consistent with the accessibility requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. We welcome persons with disabilities as residents and guests at Park Place Apartments. We are writing this notice to let you know that beginning on ____________, 2012, contractors will be coming onto the property to begin the process of modifying certain aspects of the accessible pedestrian routes and of the public and common use areas. We expect the process to last approximately ______ weeks.
Generally, the workers will modify or “retrofit” certain sidewalks, install curb cuts and ramps or modify existing ones, and eliminate some of the steps along certain pathways to certain ground-floor units (including the step into some units). They will also be making some modifications to the mailboxes, swimming pool, the clubhouse, as well as to other areas, to make them more accessible to persons with disabilities. We apologize for any inconveniences you may incur as a result of this work.
If you have any questions regarding these modifications, please contact us at _____________

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 30 of 34 PageID #: 266
APPENDIX E
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS
Dear Resident:
This is to advise you that, as a result of a settlement in a case brought by the United States against the owners of this apartment complex, we have agreed to modify the ground-floor units at Park Place Apartments to provide greater accessibility for people with disabilities. Your unit is one of those that does not meet the accessible and adaptive design requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
Although your apartment unit will be retrofitted automatically within twenty-four (24) months, we want you to know that you may request to have your apartment modified now at no cost to you. The actual work will take no longer than ___ days and we will provide you with comparable alternative living arrangements during that time. In scheduling when the repairs will take place, we will take into account your preferences and your convenience.
You should be aware that this work must be completed within twenty-four (24) months regardless of your intention to stay in your apartment for a longer duration. Please let us know if you are interested in having the work done now and we will provide you with additional information.
The Management

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 31 of 34 PageID #: 267

APPENDIX F

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CONSENT ORDER

On

, I received copies of and have read the Consent Order entered

by the federal district court in United States v. Cogan, et al., 10cv533 (W.D. Ky.). I have had all

of my questions concerning the Consent Order and concerning the Fair Housing Act answered to

my satisfaction.

___________________________________ (Signature)

___________________________________ (Print name)

___________________________________ (Position)

___________________________________ (Date)

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 32 of 34 PageID #: 268

APPENDIX G

CERTIFICATION OF FAIR HOUSING TRAINING

On

, I attended training on the federal Fair Housing Act, including

its requirements concerning physical accessibility for people with disabilities. I have had all of

my questions concerning the Fair Housing Act answered to my satisfaction.

__________________________________ (Signature)

__________________________________ (Print name)
__________________________________ (Position)
__________________________________ (Date)

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 33 of 34 PageID #: 269

APPENDIX H

RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS

In consideration of and contingent upon the payment of the sum of

dollars ($

), pursuant to the Consent Order entered in United States v. Cogan, et

al., Case No. 10cv533, United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, I hereby

release and forever discharge the Defendants named in this action from any and all liability for

any claims, legal or equitable, I may have against them arising out of the issues alleged in this

action as of the date of the entry of that Consent Order. I fully acknowledge and agree that this

release of the Defendants shall be binding on my heirs, representatives, executors, successors,

administrators, and assigns. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand this release

and have executed it voluntarily and with full knowledge of its legal consequences.

_____________________________ (Signature)

NAME:

___________________________

ADDRESS: ___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

DATE:

___________________________

Case 3:10-cv-00533-CRS-DW Document 56 Filed 12/08/11 Page 34 of 34 PageID #: 270

 </s> Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 1 of 7
CASREF,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:10−cv−00533−CRS−DW

United States of America v. Cogan et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/10/2010 Date Terminated: 12/15/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Benjamin Seth Schecter U.S. Attorney Office − Louisville 717 W. Broadway Louisville, KY 40202 502−582−6061 Fax: 502−625−7110 Email: ben.schecter@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Nobile U.S. Department of Justice − Housing & Civil Enforcement 950 Pennsyolvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−7717 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: emily.smith.nobile@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan G. Lee U.S. Department of Justice − Housing & Civil Enforcement 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW Washington, DC 20003 202−305−3109 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: Ryan.Lee@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Kevin D. Cogan

represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey Frost Brown Todd LLC − Louisville 400 W. Market Street, 32nd Floor Louisville, KY 40202−3363 502−589−5400 Fax: 502−581−1087 Email: nstaffiericoffey@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford Frost Brown Todd LLC − Louisville 400 W. Market Street, 32nd Floor Louisville, KY 40202−3363 502−589−5400 Fax: 502−581−1087 Email: scrawford@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 2 of 7

Defendant Edwynn Burckle
Defendant George E. Clark
Defendant Doris Cogan
Defendant Bayus, Inc.
Defendant James A. Hall TERMINATED: 10/20/2011 doing business as James A. Hall Builder TERMINATED: 10/20/2011 doing business as Hall Contracting TERMINATED: 10/20/2011 doing business as Hall Construction Company TERMINATED: 10/20/2011 Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.

represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Brooks Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP − Louisville 400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300 Louisville, KY 40202 502−589−5980 Fax: 502−561−9400 Email: rbrooks@bsg−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erwin Roberts 600 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 502−882−4972 Fax: 502−574−4215 Email: erobertslaw@att.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vic L. McConnell Smith, Cashion & Orr, PLC 231 Third Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 615−742−8565 Fax: 615−742−8556 Email: vmcconnell@smithcashion.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 3 of 7

Jefferson C. Orr Smith, Cashion & Orr, PLC 231 Third Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 615−742−8555 Fax: 615−742−8565 Email: jorr@smithcashion.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
A. Stanley Willett doing business as Willett Engineering Company

represented by Brian W. Hodge Brian W. Hodge, PSC 239 S. Fifth Street Suite 414 Louisville, KY 40202 502−582−3711 Fax: 502−587−6741 Email: bwh414@bellsouth.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Scott Hall Executor for the Estate of James A. Hall

Cross Claimant A. Stanley Willett

represented by Brian W. Hodge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Bayus, Inc. Cross Defendant Edwynn Burckle
Cross Defendant George E. Clark
Cross Defendant Doris Cogan

represented by Robert M. Brooks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 4 of 7

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Kevin D. Cogan

represented by Nicole M. Staffieri Coffey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Crawford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant
James A. Hall TERMINATED: 10/20/2011

represented by Erwin Roberts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.

represented by Vic L. McConnell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jefferson C. Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/10/2010
08/10/2010 08/11/2010 08/16/2010 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 08/26/2010 09/03/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by United States of America against Kevin D. Cogan; Edwynn Burckle; George E. Clark; Doris Cogan; Bayus, Inc.; James A. Hall; Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.; and A. Stanley Willett. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet) (RLK) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
2 Case Assignment (Random Selection): Case Assigned to Judge Charles R. Simpson, III. Magistrate designation: Dave Whalin. (RLK) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE to Counsel regarding the tendering of Summonses. (RLK) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Vic L. McConnell on behalf of Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. (McConnell, Vic) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Kevin D. Cogan waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/11/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Edwynn Burckle waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/11/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Doris Cogan waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/11/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/11/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. A. Stanley Willett waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/11/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 09/03/2010)

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 5 of 7

09/10/2010 09/17/2010 09/24/2010
10/01/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010 10/11/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/13/2010 10/14/2010 11/15/2010 01/07/2011
01/12/2011 03/10/2011

10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. James A. Hall waiver sent on 8/19/2010, answer due 10/18/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Bayus, Inc. waiver sent on 8/12/2010, answer due 10/12/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
12 MOTION for Jefferson C. Orr to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 65, receipt number 0644−1121496.by Defendant Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. Responses due by 10/18/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Certificate fo Good Standing for Jefferson Orr, # 2 Affidavit (Exhibit B) − of Jefferson Orr, # 3 Proposed Order granting Jefferson Orr to Practice Pro Hac Vice) (McConnell, Vic) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
13 ORDER signed by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 9/30/2010, re 12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Jefferson C. Orr is admitted pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Mindel Scott Associates, Inc. cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
14 NOTICE of Filing Summons by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
15 Summons Issued for pickup as to George E. Clark. (RLK) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Bayus, Inc.. (Brooks, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
17 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.. (McConnell, Vic) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
18 ANSWER to 1 Complaint and, CROSSCLAIM against Bayus, Inc., Edwynn Burckle, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan, Kevin D. Cogan, James A. Hall, Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc. by A. Stanley Willett. (Hodge, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
19 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Doris Cogan. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Kevin D. Cogan. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Edwynn Burckle. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
22 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by James A. Hall. (Roberts, Erwin) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
23 ANSWER to 18 CROSSCLAIM of A. Stanley Willett d/b/a Willett Engineering Co. by Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.. (McConnell, Vic) Modified on 10/14/2010: clarify filing (RLK). (Entered: 10/13/2010)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America. George E. Clark served on 10/7/2010, answer due 10/28/2010. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
25 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by George E. Clark. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
26 ORDER (EBOC) by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 1/7/2011. Matter referred to Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin for the purposes as set forth. Scheduling Conference is set for 2/9/2011 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. Parties to meet at least twenty−one (21) days before the Scheduling Conference. Within fourteen (14) days after the meeting, one party shall file a written report of the planning meeting. Disclosures due within fourteen (14) days after the planning meeting. Conference Statement due seven (7) days prior to the Scheduling Conference. Magistrate Judge is further authorized to conduct a Settlement Conference.cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
27 ORDER (EBOC) by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 1/11/2011. Scheduling Conference previously set for 2/9/2011 is moved to 3/24/2011 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin.cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
28 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Plaintiff United States of America, and Defendants Bayus, Inc., Edwynn Burckle, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan, Kevin D.

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 6 of 7

03/23/2011 04/25/2011 05/11/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011 05/19/2011 05/25/2011
06/06/2011
06/27/2011 07/05/2011

Cogan, James A. Hall, Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc., and A. Stanley Willett. (Lee, Ryan) Modified on 3/11/2011: added party filers (RLK). (Entered: 03/10/2011)
29 ORDER RESCHEDULING RULE 16 (EBOC) by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 3/23/2011. Rule 16 Hearing set for 3/24/2011 is continued to 5/23/2011 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
30 RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by A. Stanley Willett. (Hodge, Brian) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
31 RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Edwynn Burckle, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan, Kevin D. Cogan. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
32 RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by James A. Hall. (Roberts, Erwin) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
33 Plaintiff United States' CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 29 Order, 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, 27 Order by United States of America. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
34 RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.. (Orr, Jefferson) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
35 CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, 27 Order by James A. Hall. (Roberts, Erwin) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
36 RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Bayus, Inc.. (Brooks, Robert) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
37 CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, by Bayus, Inc.. (Brooks, Robert) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
38 CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, 27 Order by Mindel, Scott & Associates, Inc.. (Orr, Jefferson) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
39 CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, 27 Order by A. Stanley Willett. (Hodge, Brian) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
40 CONFERENCE STATEMENT re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,, by Edwynn Burckle, George E. Clark, Doris Cogan, Kevin D. Cogan. (Crawford, Steven) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan G. Lee on behalf of United States of America (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
42 MEMORANDUM OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 5/24/2011. Scheduling Conference was held on 5/23/2011. Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure due by 4/25/2011. Expert Witness (Plaintiff) due by 9/23/2011. Expert Witness (Defendant) due by 1/25/2012. Motions for Joinder of Parties or Amended Pleadings due by 9/23/2011. Discovery due by 2/29/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 4/24/2012. Telephonic Status Conference is set for 7/27/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. Dates 8/1 − 8/5/2011, 8/11 & 8/12/2011, and 9/1, 9/2 & 9/9/2011 are available for a Settlement Conference. Parties to advise Chambers within ten (10) days as to the best date. cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
43 ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 6/6/2011. Settlement Conference is set for 9/9/2011 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. Parties to submit a CONFIDENTIAL Settlement Statement to the Magistrate Judge, by mail, at least seven (7) days prior to the Conference. Parties to comply with the remainder of Order as set forth.cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
44 NOTICE OF DEATH OF JAMES A. HALL by James A. Hall (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (Roberts, Erwin) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
45 ORDER RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 7/5/2011. Settlement Conference previously set for 9/9/2011 is RESCHEDULED for 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM, and continuing on 9/27/2011, if

Case: 3:10-cv-533 As of: 02/17/2016 10:46 PM EST 7 of 7

07/27/2011 07/27/2011
09/20/2011
10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/04/2011
10/11/2011 10/20/2011 11/01/2011
11/01/2011 11/03/2011 11/16/2011 12/06/2011 12/08/2011 12/15/2014

necessary, before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin.cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/27/2011. (SJS) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
46 ORDER ON TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE (EBOC) by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 7/27/11. Counsel participating for the pltf − Ryan Lee and Emily Nobile; for the dft − Steven Crawford, Robert Brooks, Erwin Roberts, Jefferson Orr, and Joe Moloney on behalf of Brian Hodge. Parties are continuing to discuss settlement proposals. Settlement conference previously scheduled for 9/26/11 and 9/27/11 shall remain on the Ct's docket. cc:counsel (SJS) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
47 MOTION to Substitute Party by Plaintiff United States of America Responses due by 10/14/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − June 28, 2011 Order of Jefferson County Court appointing Scott A. Hall Executor of Estate of James A. Hall, # 2 Proposed Order) (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin: Settlement Conference held on 9/26/2011. (SJS) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin: Settlement Conference held on 9/27/2011. (SJS) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
48 REPORT ON SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 10/3/11. A Settlement Conference was conducted on 9/26/11 and 9/27/11. Settlement negotiations were cccconducted but the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Parties will continue negotiations and the settlement conference shall resume on 11/28/2011 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. Counsel shall comply with remainder of order as set forth.cc:counsel (SJS) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
49 RESPONSE to Motion re 47 MOTION to Substitute Party filed by James A. Hall. Replies due by 10/28/2011. (Roberts, Erwin) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
50 ORDER granting 47 Motion to Substitute Party. Scott Hall is SUBSTITUTED as the the defendant in this action.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 10/19/11. cc:counsel (JBM) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
51 REPORT OF SETTLEMENT signed by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 11/1/2011. Parties have reported an agreement as to the resolution of all matters in this case. Counsel to file a consent degree within sixty (60) days. Settlement Conference set for 11/28/2011 is REMANDED.cc: Counsel (RLK) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
52 REPORT OF SETTLEMENT by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on 11/1/11; The settlement conference set for 11/28/11 is REMANDED from the docket. cc:counsel (JBM) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
53 ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/2/2011 Dismissing Case as settled, with leave to reinstate within sixty (60) days if settlement is not consummated. cc: Counsel (CDF) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
54 ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/14/2011; order dismissing case as settled 53 is REMANDED; clerk directed to reopen matter; case to remain on court's active docket pending resolution of all issues.cc:counsel (TLB) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
55 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation UNOPPOSED Motion for Entry of Consent Order (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Consent Order) by United States of America. (Lee, Ryan) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
56 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 12/7/2011; parties to comply as set forth in order.cc:counsel (TLB) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
57 ORDER & JUDGMENT by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 12/12/2014 Dismissing Case with prejudice. cc:counsel (JBM) (Entered: 12/15/2014)


[CONTENT] August 10, 2010 | the United States Department of Justice | the United States | District Court | the Western District | Kentucky | first | March 13, 1991 | the Fair Housing Act | 42 | 3601-3619 |||  |||  |||  ||| December 8, 2011 | Court | three-year ||| 275,000 ||| December 15, 2014 | Court | Charles R. Simpson | the Consent Decree ||| The United States |||  [SUMMARY] On August 10, 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against owners, designers, builders and managers of an apartment complex, claiming the multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 were not accessible to persons with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601-3619. The plaintiff sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.

Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that, among other things, the public use portions of the dwellings were unusable to persons with disabilities; that doors on ground floor units are not wide enought to allow passage by persons using wheelchairs, that the interior of the dwellings do not contain required features of adaptive design, such as accessible routes, light switches, electrical outlets, or useable batrooms and kitchens. Further, Plaintiff claimed that exterior areas including parking lots have excessive abrupt level changes, excessive running slopes, and cross slopes that make maneuvering  wheelchairs and other mobility aids dangerous. 

On December 8, 2011, the Court approved a three-year Consent Decree agreed to by the parties.  Besides a general injunction against discrimination on the basis of disability, the decree required, among other things, specific retrofits to be made and reviewed by a neutral inspector, recordkeeping and release of information concering any new construction, training of employees as to the requirements of the decree, and a total payment of $275,000 to identified aggrieved persons.

On December 15, 2014, the Court (Judge Charles R. Simpson, III) entered an order upon the expiration of the Consent Decree. The United States did not move to extend the decree. The case was dismissed with prejudice. 