Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SOUTHERN orSTRrCT OF MISSI
F I LED

JUN 192009

J. T. NOBLIN, CLERK

8Y

OEPUTV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

v.

)

) COMPLAINT and

INDIGO INVESTMENTS, LLC, EDWARD

) JURY DEMAND

L. HAMILTON, and BARBARA A. HAMILTON, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

The United States of America ("United States") alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of

1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et

seq. (the "Fair Housing Act"). This action is brought on behalf of Maggie Johnson and

Jermille Johnson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(0), and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 42

U.S.C. §§ 3612(0) and 3614(a).

3. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the United States' claims occurred in this judicial district.

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 9
PARTIES AND PROPERTY 4. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Indigo Investments, LLC ("Indigo") was
the owner of Homestead Mobile Home Village ("Homestead"), a ninety-eight lot mobile home park located at 19061 Highway 53 in Gultport, Mississippi. Indigo leased lots at Homestead to the u.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Federal Emergency Management Assistance ("FEMA") for use by persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
5. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Edward 1. Hamilton and Barbara A.
Hamilton ("the Hamiltons") acted as agents for Indigo, serving as on-site property managers at Homestead. The Hamiltons were responsible for day-to-day operations at Homestead. The Hamiltons worked out of, and lived in, an office trailer located on Lot I at Homestead. 6. The spaces available for rent that are owned and/or managed by the defendants are dwellings within the meaning ofthe Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Maggie Johnson and Jermille Johnson ("the Johnsons") are black. At all times relevant to
this action, they resided with their five minor children, all of whom are black. 8. In August 2005, the Johnsons and their children were displaced from their home by
Hurricane Katrina. 9. On or around November 16, 2005, Maggie Johnson signed a lease with FEMA for a
mobile home located at Lot 87 at Homestead. Approximately two days later, the Johnsons and their children moved into Homestead.
Page 2 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 9
10. At all times relevant to this action, the Hamiltons were responsible for enforcing Homestead's park rules for all residents of Homestead. At their discretion, the Hamiltons issued written notices to residents for violation(s) of Homestead's park rules. The written notices contained the language, "[a]fter received three written warnings, next is eviction."
II. Approximately one week after the Johnsons moved into Homestead, sometime in late November 2005, Barbara Hamilton came to their mobile home and accused one of the Johnsons' sons of putting trash in the wrong dumpster. Barbara Hamilton told Maggie Johnson that she could evict them for putting trash in the wrong dumpster.
12. Twice on March 3, 2006, when Maggie Johnson drove past the office trailer, Barbara Hamilton approached Mrs. Johnson's car, accusing her of speeding. Mrs. Johnson was not speeding.
13. On March 4,2006, the Johnsons invited family members to their home for a barbeque. All the guests were black. When one of the guests pulled her car into Homestead, a group of white people approached her car from the office trailer, pointed at her, and yelled racial slurs and other words indicating they wanted her to leave. When another guest pulled her car into Homestead, the Hamiltons stopped her near the office trailer, cursed at her, and accused her of speeding. This guest left Homestead and returned a short while later. When she returned, the Hamiltons again stopped her near the office trailer, directed racial slurs toward her, and Barbara Hamilton made a profane gesture toward her.
Page 3 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 4 of 9
14. On March 8, 2006, Edward Hamilton delivered a thirty day eviction notice to the Johnsons for failing to follow Homestead's park rules. Attached to the eviction notice were three written notices, all dated March 4, 2006, and all alleging that the Johnsons' guests had failed to follow Homestead's park rules.
IS. The defendants filed an eviction action against Maggie Johnson. On or around April 25, 2006, a hearing was held and the court dismissed the eviction action against Mrs. Johnson with prejudice.
16. During the time that the Johnsons lived at Homestead, at least three other households with a black resident received an eviction notice based on two or three written notices.
17. During the time that the Johnsons lived at Homestead, at least four white residents who had received at least three written notices did not receive eviction notices.
18. Beginning on or around March 8, 2006, and continuing until the Johnsons moved out of Homestead on or around May 26, 2006, Edward Hamilton harassed and intimidated the Johnsons by, among other things, frequently driving by and stopping in front of their mobile home in the evening, and staring at their mobile home in a way that made Jermille Johnson fear for his family's safety. Mr. Hamilton also, on one occasion, drove toward Mrs. Johnson in a deliberate manner while she was driving within Homestead, nearly hitting her vehicle.
19. The Johnsons moved out of Homestead on or around May 26, 2006, because the eviction notice, the eviction proceeding, and Mr. Hamilton's conduct, as discussed in paragraph 18, above, made them feel unsafe and at risk.
Page 4 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 5 of 9
20. During the time that the Johnsons lived at Homestead, Edward Hamilton made statements to other tenants that indicated he did not want blacks living at Homestead.
21. Sometime after March 8, 2006, the Johnsons sought help from the Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center ("GCFHC"), a private, non-profit fair housing organization, in relation to their tenancy at Homestead. Thereafter, GCFHC conducted an investigation to determine the defendants' compliance with the Fair Housing Act. As part of its investigation, GCFHC conducted one paired test to evaluate the defendants' compliance with the Fair Housing Act. Testers are persons who, without the intent to rent or buy a dwelling, seek information about the availability of dwellings to determine whether discriminatory housing practices are occurring. GCFHC's paired test revealed that a white prospective tenant was treated more favorably than a black prospective tenant, including the white tester being told that a rental unit was available, while the black tester was told no rental units were available. HUD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
22. On or about May 4, 2006, the Johnsons filed a timely Fair Housing Act complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), alleging that the Hamiltons had engaged in housing discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The Johnsons' complaint was amended three times: once in May 2006 and once in November 2008 to name additional respondents, and once in January 2008 to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
23. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §§ 3610(a) and (b), the Secretary ofHUD conducted and completed an investigation of the complaint, attempted conciliation without success, and
Page 5 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 6 of 9
prepared a final investigative report. Based upon the information gathered in the investigation, the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(I), determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that illegal discriminatory housing practices had occurred. Therefore, on April 30, 2009, the Secretary issued a Charge of Discrimination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 361O(g)(2)(A), charging certain respondents with engaging in discriminatory practices, based on race or color, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(b), and 3617. 24. On May 20, 2009, one of the respondents named in the HUD Charge of Discrimination elected to have the claims asserted in the HUD Charge resolved in a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a). 25. On May 21, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Election and Judicial Determination and terminated the administrative proceeding on the Johnsons' complaint. 26. Following this Notice of Election, the Secretary ofHUD authorized the Attorney General to commence a civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(0).
COUNT! 27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-
26, above. 28. By the actions set forth above, the defendants have discriminated against the Johnsons by:
a. Denying housing or making housing unavailable because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
b. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and
Page 6 of 9

~----------------------------
Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1

Filed 06/19/2009 Page 7 of 9

c. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 u.s.C. § 3617.
29. The Johnsons are "aggrieved persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i), and suffered injuries as a result ofthe defendants' discriminatory conduct.
30. The defendants' actions, as set forth above, were intentional, willful and taken in disregard of the rights of the Johnsons. COUNT II
31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 130, above.
32. The defendants' discrimination on the basis of race or color, as described above, constitutes: a. A pattern or practice of resistence to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.; or b. A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., which raises an issue of general public importance.
33. In addition to the Johnsons, there may be other victims of the defendants' discriminatory conduct who are "aggrieved persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. § 3602(i), and suffered injuries as a result of the defendants' discriminatory conduct.
34. The defendants' actions, as set forth above, were intentional, willful and taken in disregard of the rights of others.

Page 7 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 8 of 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that the Court enter an order that: 1. Declares that the defendants' conduct as alleged herein violates the Fair Housing Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.; 2. Enjoins the defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in
active concert or participation with any of them from discriminating on the basis of race or color, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.; 3. Awards monetary damages to the Johnsons and to each person injured by the defendants' discriminatory conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(0)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(I)(B); and 4. Assesses civil penalties against the defendants to vindicate the public interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C).
Page 8 of 9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 9 of 9

The United States prays for such additional relief as the interests ofjustice may require.
Dated: JI..M'U... \'ir, 2..00",/
Respectfully submitted,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General

STAN HARRIS Acting United States Attorney
fvtATci 1P0<- '?t7.A'&- ( ~)
MITZI DEASE PAIGE Assistant United States Attorney 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 500 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 (601) 973-2840 (Mississippi Bar No. 6014)

Acting Assistant Attorney General
Acting Chief
J.M;IC~H~AE~L~S:!:'.M~A~URE~R:~ .f:~ \~
Deputy Chief ERIN MEEHAN RICHMOND Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Northwestern Building, Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4713 (202)514-1116 (fax) Michael.Maurer@usdoj.gov Erin.Richmond@usdoj.gov

Page 9 of 9

 </s> Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 20
, .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. INDIGO INVESTMENTS, LLC, EDWARD L. HAMILTON, and BARBARA A. HAMILTON,
Defendants.

) ) ) CIVILACTIONNO.1:09cv376LG-RHW
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action was filed by the United States to enforce the provisions of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619. The United States alleges that Defendants Indigo Investments, LLC ("Indigo"), a limited liability company that owned Homestead Mobile Home Village in Gulfport, Mississippi, and Defendants Edward L. Hamilton and Barbara A. Hamilton (together, "the Harniltons," and collectively with Indigo, "the Defendants"), the former managers of Homestead Mobile Home Village, engaged in discrimination on the basis ofrace or color in violation of the Fair Housing Act. 2. Specifically, the United States alleges that the Defendants engaged in housing practices that discriminate on the basis of race or color, including:
a. Disparately enforcing Homestead Mobile Home Village's rules against African Americans and interracial households as compared to white households;

1

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 2 of 20

b. Accusing African Americans and interracial households of violating park

rules when they had not done so;

c. Enforcing non~existent rules against African Americans and interracial

households; d.

Disparately implementing Homestead Mobile Horne Village's eviction

policy against African Americans and interracial households as compared to white households;

and e. Engaging in threatening behavior toward African Americans and

interracial households.

3. The United States alleges that through this conduct the Defendants:

a. Discriminated by making unavailable or denying dwellings to persons

because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

b. Discriminated againsrpersons in the tenns, conditions, or privileges of

rental, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race or

color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and c. Coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with the exercise or

enjoyment of a right granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 3617; 4.

The United States alleges that the Defendants' conduct as described in paragraphs

2 and 3 above constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color, or a

denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act raising an issue of general
public importance, in violation of 42 u.s.c. § 3614.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 3 of 20
5. The Defendants, Indigo and the Hamiltons, deny that they engaged in discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 4, above.
6. The United States and the Defendants have agreed that, to avoid protracted and costly litigation of a contested claim, this controversy should be resolved without a trial. Therefore, the parties consent to the entry of this Consent Decree. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED:
II, GENERAL INJUNCTION 7, Indigo, its members, officers, agents, representatives, employees, successors and assigns are enjoined, with respect to the rental of dwellings, from:
a. Refusing to rent a dwelling, refusing or failing to provide or offer information about a dwelling, refusing to negotiate for the rental of a dwelling, or otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any person because of race or color;
b. Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in the provision of services or 'facilities in connection therewith, because of race or color; or
c. Coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of having aided and encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted by the Fair Housing Act.
8. The Hamiltons are enjoined from having any involvement in the rental real estate business, including owning, wholly or in part, operating, consulting, managing, staffing, participating in, working in (whether paid or unpaid), or otherwise having any involvement in ownership or management of rental dwellings.
3
L_~_

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 4 of 20

III. PROVISIONS REGARDING INDIGO'S CURRENT OR FUTURE INTERESTS IN RENTAL DWELLINGS
9. Indigo represents that it currently has no direct or indirect ownership,

management, or other financial interest, in whole or in part, in any rental dwellings. Indigo

further represents that it currently has no plans to acquire any such interest in rental dwellings,

In the event that Indigo acquires any such interest in rental dwellings, Indigo shall:

a. Implement a Nondiscrimination Policy regarding the rental of dwellings.

The text of the Nondiscrimination Policy shall be in the fann of Appendix B hereto, with the

name of the property in which Indigo has an interest inserted into the space that says: "insert

name of property," Indigo shall provide the United States with a copy of the completed

Nondiscrimination Policy within fifteen (15) days after the date on which Indigo acquires its

interest.] Indigo shall provide to the United States notification and documentation of any change

in any Nondiscrimination Policy no later than fifteen (15) days after such change.

b. Take the following steps to notify the public of the Nondiscrimination

Policy within thirty (30) days after the date on which Indigo acquires its interest:

i.

Post and prominently display in anytental and management offices

in locations that are easily visible to residents and prospective residents, and at all other

places on said properties in which announcements or vacancies are posted, a sign no

smaller than ten inches by fourteen inches (10" x 14") indicating that all dwellings are

available for rental on a nondiscriminatory basis. A poster that includes the content

I All documents or other communications required by this Consent Decree to be sent to counsel for the United States shall be sent by commercial (non~USPS) overnight delivery service addressed as follows, or as otherwise directed by the United States: Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 1800 G Street NW, Suite 7002, Washington, DC, 20006. Attn: DJ 175-41~216.
4

" " - - - ~~~- ~~-""

"

~~~-"-~"~"~~

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 5 of 20

required by 24 CFK § 110_25 and otherwise comports with 24 C_F_K Part 110 will

satisfy this requirement.

11.

Cause to be included the words "Equal Housing Opportunity"

andlor the fair housing logo in all advertising for rental dwellings, including in

newspapers, flyers, handouts, telephone directories and other written materials; On radio,

television, Internet, or other media advertisements or broadcasts; and on all billboards,

signs, pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature. The words and/or logo

shall be prominently placed and easily readable.

iii.

Cause to be included the following phrase in boldface type in all

applications and all lease agreements used for rental dwellings, using letters of equal or

greater size to those ofthe text in the body ofthe document: "We are an equal housing

opportunity provider. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, national

origin, religion, disability or familial status (having children under age 18),"

c, Distribute a copy of this policy and this Consent Decree to all of its

members, agents, representatives, employees, and/or anyone acting under Indigo's direction, to

all other parties or individuals with any interest in any rental dwelling in which Indigo has any

interest as described in paragraph 9 above, and to any parties or individuals who have any

responsibility for showing, renting, or managing any rental dwellings in which Indigo has any

interest as described in paragraph 9 above, including, but not limited to, tenant rule enforcement

and eviction decisions. Indigo shall distribute these copies within fifteen (15) days of providing

to the United States a copy of the Nondiscrimination Policy. Indigo shall also provide a copy of

this Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy to all such individuals or parties who are

newly hired or otherwise engaged, and to all individuals or parties that newly obtain any interest

5

- - - ------- -------------

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 6 of 20

in any rental dwelling in which Indigo has any interest as described in paragraph 9 above, and to all individuals or parties with any existing interest in any rental dwelling in which Indigo acquires any interest as described in paragraph 9 above, within ten (10) days after that person's employment, engagement, agency, or the new interest in the rental dwelling begins. Indigo shall secure a signed statement, in a fonn substantially conforming to Appendix C hereto, from each such individual or party aclmowledging that he, she, or it has received and read and understands this Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have questions about the Consent Decree and Nondiscrimination Policy answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy. Any questions shall be answered by Indigo or its counsel. Indigo shall review the Nondiscrimination Policy and this Consent Decree \\Tith each such individual or party on an annual basis thereafter.
IV. FAIR HOUSING TRAINING 10. Indigo represents that it currently has no direct or indirect ownership, management, or other fmancial interest, in whole or in part, in any rental dwellings. Indigo further represents that it currently has no plans to acquire any such interest in rental dwellings. In the event that Indigo acquires any such interest in rental dwellings, Indigo's members shall undergo in-person training on the Fair Housing Act, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis ofrace or color, no later than ninety (90) days after the date on which Indigo acquires its interest. In addition, any and all agents, employees, or other parties or individuals who have any responsibility for showing, renting, or managing any rental dwellings in which Indigo acquires any interest as described in paragraph 9 above, including, but not limited to, tenant rule enforcement and eviction decisions, shall also undergo in-person training on the Fair Housing Act, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race or color, no later than sixty

6
J- - ------- ---- ----------- - - - - - - - - - - --

------------ - -

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 7 of 20

(60) days after the date on which Indigo acquires its interest These trainings shall be conducted by an independent, qualified third party, approved by the United States, and any expenses associated with these trainings shall be borne by Indigo. Indigo shall obtain from the trainer a certification of attendance for each individual or party trained, in a fonn substantially equivalent to Appendix A hereto. Indigo shall also obtain copies of any instructional materials and handouts used in the trainings.

V. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
i 1. Indigo represents that it currently has no direct or indirect ownership,
management, or other financial interest, in whole or in part, in any rental dwellings. Indigo further represents that it currently has no plans to acquire any such interest in rental dwellings, In the event that Indigo acquires any such interest in rental dwellings, Indigo shall:
a. Within one-hundred and twenty (120) days after the date on which Indigo acquires its interest, and every six (6) months thereafter, submit to the United States a compliance report as provided by this paragraph. The compliance reports shall include:

L

A statement specifying the nature of Indigo's interest in each rental

dwelling in which Indigo acquires any interest as described in paragraph 9 above, and a

copy of the documents memorializing the acquisition of any new interest;

ii. property;

The number of individual rental dwelling units at each such

iii.

The names of any existing tenants at each such property;

iv.

The race of each tenant at each such property, based on the good

faith observation of Incligo or its employees or agents;

;
I
I
I
j
'-----------"- --

7
- - - ----~~----- ~--

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 8 of 20

v.

Copies of any advertisements, pamphlets, brochures, or other

promotional literature concerning the rental dwelling;

VI.

Photographs of each location in which fair housing signs are

posted, and copies of all 'promotional material, applications, and lease agreements

containing nondiscrimination language, referred to in paragraph 9(b) above;

vii.

The signed statements for each individual or party as referred to in

paragraph 9(c) above;

viii.

The training certifications for each individual or party, and copies

of any instructional materials and handouts used in fair housing trainings, as referred to in

paragraph 10 above; and

IX.

A written statement detailing all of Indigo' s efforts during the

reporting period to ensure compliance with its Nondiscrimination Policy and this Consent

Decree. b.

Notify COlll1se1 for the United States, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of

receipt of any housing discrimination complaint on the basis of race or color at any rental

dwelling in which Indigo acquires any interest as described in paragraph 9 above. Such

notification shall include the date of the complaint, a copy of any written complaint or a

description of the verbal complaint, and contact information (including mailing addresses and daytime and evening telephone numbers) for the complaining party. Within fifteen (15) days of the resolution of any such complaint, Indigo shall notify counsel for the United States, in writing,

of the details of the resolution. c. Notify counsel for the United States of its intent to acquire any interest as
described in paragraph 9 above in writing at least thirty (30) days before completion of the

8

~.--

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 9 of 20
transaction by which it acquires the interest. The notification will include the name and address of the rental dwelling in which Indigo will acquire a direct or indirect interest and the identity of the manager of the rental dwelling.
d. Preserve all records that are the source of, contain, or relate to any of the information pertinent to their obligations under this Consent Decree and any other documents related to the rental or management of units at any rental dwelling in which Indigo acquires any interest as described in paragraph 9 above. Such documents include, but are not limited to: applications; leases; tenant files; occupancy lists; rules, policies and procedures; written warnings or other violation notices; thirty-day notices and/or eviction notices; and unit availability logs. Upon reasonable notice to Indigo, representatives of the United States shall be permitted to inspect and copy any records preserved pursuant to this paragraph and inspect Indigo's offices at any and all reasonable times so as to determine compliance with this Consent Decree; provided, however, that the United States shall endeavor to minimize any inconvenience to Indigo from such inspections.
VI. COMPLIANCE TESTING
12. Indigo represents that it currently has no direct or indirect ownership, management, or other fmaneial interest, in whole or in part, in any rental dwellings. Indigo further represents that it currently has no plans to acquire any such interest in rental dwellings. In the event that Indigo acquires any such interest in rental dwellings, the United States may take steps to monitor Indigo's compliance with this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, conducting fair housing tests at rental dwellings in which Indigo has any direct or indirect ownership, management, or other financial interest.
9
,~"-

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 10 of 20
VII. COMPENSATION OF AGGRIEVED PERSONS 13. Defendant Indigo, on its behalf and that of the Hamiltons, shall pay a total sum of forty~five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) in monetary damages, in two installments, to compensate persons whom the United States has identified as aggrieved persons, A list of the twelve persons whom the United States identifies as aggrieved persons and the total amotult to be paid to each person is attached hereto as Appendix D, 14. Within ninety days (90) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, the Defendants shall send via overnight courier to counsel for the United States a cashier's check made payable to the "United States Treasury" for thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00). 15. By no later than December 29, 2011, the Defendants shall send via overnight courier to counsel for the United States a cashier's check made payable to the "United States Treasury" for fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). 16. Upon receipt by counsel for the United States of the check referenced in paragraph 14, above, from the Defendants, and the original signed release in the form of Appendix E attached hereto from each aggrieved person, counsel for the United States shall issue a check to each aggrieved person and deliver the original signed release to counsel for the Defendants. No aggrieved person shall be paid until he/she has executed and delivered,to counsel for the United States the release at Appendix E. 17. Upon receipt by counsel for the United States of the ch~ck referenced in paragraph 15, above, from the Defendants, counsel for the United States shall issue an additional check to each aggrieved person. 18. The compensation required to be paid pursuant to paragraphs 14 and 15, above, is alleged by the United States to be a debt for willful and malicious injury of aggrieved persons by the Defendants, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Defendants shall not seek to
10

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 11 of 20

discharge any part of this debt in bankruptcy. By these payments, the Defendants make no

admission of liability. VIII. CIVIL PENALTY
19. By no later than December 29, 2011, the Defendants shall pay five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to the United States as a civil penalty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C).

By this payment, the Defendants make no admission of liability under 42 U.S.C. §

3614(d)(1)(C). TIlls payment shall be delivered to coUnsel for the United States in the fann of a

cashier's check payable to the "United States Treasury." 20. The civil penalty required to be paid pursuant to paragraph 19 above is a debt for

a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of the United States, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss. By this payment, the Defendants make no admission of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C).

Defendants shall not seek to discharge any part ofthis debt in bankruptcy. IX. SCOPE AND DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE
21. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to all of the Defendants'

members, officers, agents, representatives, employees, successors and assigns. 22. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for three (3) years after the date of its

entry. 23.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Decree to

enforce its terms, after which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The United States

may move the Court to extend the duration ofthe Consent Decree in the interests ofjustice.

11
-----.~- ---~

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 12 of 20

X. REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 24. If the Defendants fail to make any payment within the time or in the amounts set

forth in paragraphs 14, 15, andlor 19, above, a judgment shall be entered immediately, without

further notice or hearing, against the Defendants in the aggregate amount of the following:
a. The outstanding balance owed under the terms of paragraphs 14, 15 and/or

19 of this Consent Decree; and b. Twenty-five thouSand dollars ($25,000) in total liquidated damages,

payable to the "United States Treasury" for purposes consistent with this Consent Decree 25. Ifjudgment is entered pursuant to paragraph 24, above, the judgment will accrue

post-judgment interest in the manner set forth in 28 U.S.c. § 1961, and the parties agree that the United States is entitled to enforce collection of that judgment by all legal means available,
including, but not limited to, filing liens against the Defendants' non~exempt real and personal

property, garnishing the Defendants' wages and bank accounts, and levying against the

Defendants' non-exempt real and personal property. These actions shall be in addition to any

other remedies the Court may impose pursuant to paragraph 26 ofthis Consent Decree, below.

26. The Parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences

regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Consent Decree prior to bringing such

matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event the United States contends that there has been a failure by any of the Defendants, whether willful or otherwise, to perfoon in a timely

manner any act required by this Consent Decree or otherwise to act in confonnance 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

I

deeming such act to have been performed, and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable

attorneys' fees which may have been occasioned by the violation or failure to perform.

I

12

I

_I

_ - _-_ ....

_ .. .........

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 13 of 20 XI. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE
27. Any time limits for perfonnance imposed by this Consent Decree may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. The other provisions oftrus Consent Decree may be modified by written agreement of the parties or by motion to the Court. If the modification is by written agreement of the parties, then such modification will be effective upon filing of the written agreement with the Court, and shall remain in effect for the duration of the Consent Decree or lilltil such time as the Court indicates through written order that it has not approved the modification.
13

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 14 of 20

XII. COSTS OF LITIGATION 28. Each party to this litigation will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees associated

with this litigation.

If" IT IS SO ORDERED, this

'[J{
day

of~~~~-:t=-~

By their signatures below, the parties consent to the entry of this Consent Decree:

For the United States:
Dated:~C\N,\ 1.
ERlCHOLDER Attorney General

,2011

By:_~~~~~~

MITZI D

AIGE (MS 6014)

Assistant U ed States Attorney

188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 500

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

(601) 973-2840 (Office)

601-965-4480 (Fax)

E-Mail: Mitzi.Paige@usdoj.gov

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General
S~ TEVENH. R~ OSENB~
Chief MICHAEL S. MAURER Deputy Chief CHRlSTOPHER J. FREGIATO JENNIFER L. MARANZANO Attorneys U.S. Departme:o.t of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Northwestern Building, Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4713 (202) 514-1116 (fax) MichaeLMaurer@usdoj.gov Clrristopher.Fregiato@usdoj.gov Jennifer.Maranzano@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff United States
of America
14

-------_. ... ----- ._-- - - - - - - - - _ ..

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 15 of 20

For Defendants Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L. Hamilton, an arbara A. Hamilton:

SA Dated:

loll-', 2011

Boyce H lem Associates 1720 23rd venue!Boyce Holleman Boulevard Gulfport, MS 39501 (228) 863-3142 (228) 863-9829 (fax) tim@boyceholleman.com jeff@boyceholleman.com Counsel for the Defendants
-
~'i./~ dward L. Hamilton

15
j

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 16 of 20
AppenrlixA CERTIFICATION OF FAIR HOUSING TRAINING ATTENDANCE I hereby certify that the undersigned individual attended fair housing training that I conducted on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 20 .
Trainer's Signature Trainer's Name Date Attendee's Signature Attendee's Name Attendee's Position Date

16

J

__ - - - _ . .

__ _.- - - - .

.. _ . _ - - - -

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 17 of 20
AppendixB
NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY
It is the policy ofIndigo Investments, LLC, to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, conunonly known as the Fair Housing Act, by ensuring that apartments are available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status (having children under 18), or sex. This policy means that, among other things, Indigo Investments, LLC, and all its agents and employees with the responsibility for renting, managing, or administering any dwellings at [insert name of property] must not discriminate in any aspect of the rental of dwellings against qualified applicants or tenants because ofrace or color. Such agents and employees may not:
A. Refuse to rent, refuse to negotiate for the rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex;
B. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex;
C. Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or pUblished any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation. or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex; or
D. Represent to persons because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex that any dwelling is not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
Any agent or employee who fails to comply with this Nondiscrimination Policy will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Any action taken by an agent or employee that results in unequal service to, treatment of, or behavior toward tenants or actual or potential applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex may constitute a violation of state and federal fair housing laws. Any tenant or applicant who believes that any of the above policies have been violated by any owner, agent, or employee may contact the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-440-8091 x 2493, or the U.S. Department ofJustice at 1-800-896-7743 xl or 202-514-4713.

17

_ . _..

...._ -

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 18 of 20

AppendixC
EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I aclmowledge that on

, 20_ _, I was provided

copies of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in United States v. Indigo Investments, LLC,

et ai., Civil Action No.1 :09-cv-376-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), and the Nondiscrimination Policy of

Indigo Investments, LLC. I have read and understand these documents and have had my

questions about these documents answered. I understand my legal responsibilities and shall

comply with those responsibilities.

Signature Print Name Job Title Home Address Home Address Continued Home Telephone Number Date

18
J- - - - - - ---- -------~-------- ------------------~

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 19 of 20

AppendixD LIST OF AGGRIEVED PERSONS AND MONETARY AMOUNTS

Identified Aggrieved Person

I

I i

I !

I

William Batey·

I

Brandon Boose

Charfonya Boose

Nicholas Cooper

Paula Gale

Mellisa Byrd Harrison

lermille Johnson

Maggie Johnson

Beverly Jefferson

Mitchell Jefferson

Rose Robinson

Victoria Tucker

Amount $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000,00 $2,000,00 $4,000,00 $2,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500,00 ' $4,500,00 $4,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00

19

_._ - _ _._.- ...__.....

...

..

- - -,,-"--"--

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW Document 124 Filed 01/18/11 Page 20 of 20

Appendix E

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS

In consideration for the parties' agreement to the tenns of the Consent Decree they

entered into in the case of United States v. Indigo Investments, LLC, et al., as approved by the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and in consideration for the

payment to me in, two installments, of the total amount of $,--o-~~--,-~

I,

, do hereby fully release and forever

discharge Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L. Hamilton, and Barbara A. Hamilton (hereinafter

"Defendants"), along with their insurers, attorneys, related companies, principals, predecessors,

successors, assigns, affiliates, partners, directors, officers, agents, employers, shareholders,

subsidiaries, employees, fonner employees, heirs, executors, and administrators and any persons

acting under their respective direction or control from any and all fair housing claims set forth, or

which could have been set forth, in the Complaint in this lawsuit that I may have had against any

of them for any of Defendants' actions or statements related to those claims through the date of

the entry of the Consent Decree.

Executed this ~ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 20__,

Signature Print Name Home Address Home Address Continued

20

 </s> Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

§

v.

§

§

INDIGO INVESTMENTS, LLC,

§

EDWARD L. HAMILTON, and

§

BARBARA A. HAMILTON

§

PLAINTIFF CAUSE NO. 1:09cv376-LG-RHW
DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L.

Hamilton, and Barbara A. Hamilton’s Motion for Summary Judgment [89] and

Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion to Strike New Evidence [100]. The

Government initiated this enforcement action under the Fair Housing Act. Defendants

argue (1) there is no prima facie evidence of discrimination, (2) they were uniformly

enforcing park rules, and (3) there is no evidence of pretext. The Government argues

Defendants submitted new evidence for the first time on rebuttal. The Court has

considered the parties’ submissions and the relevant legal authority. The motions are

denied.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Indigo owned a mobile home park in Gulfport, Mississippi, known as Homestead

Mobile Home Village. Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton were its property managers and resided

on site.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency leased

lots from Homestead. FEMA trailers were placed on these lots. People who the

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 17
hurricane had displaced from their homes leased the FEMA trailers. As part of their lease, they agreed to abide by Homestead’s rules for Homestead’s tenants. One of the rules provided that eviction could result after three written warnings of rules violations.
Two of these FEMA-placed tenants were Maggie1 and Jermille Johnson, an African American couple. On March 8, 2006, the Hamiltons simultaneously served three written warnings for alleged rules violations and an eviction notice. Eviction proceedings were commenced in State court but were dismissed because the court questioned its jurisdiction to evict FEMA tenants. Eventually, the Johnsons moved away, claiming they were constructively evicted on account of their race.
The Johnsons complained to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and to the Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center. It sent a Caucasian woman and an African American man to test Defendants by posing as potential renters or buyers. The Government also investigated and determined there was reasonable cause to believe the Johnsons were discriminated against on account of their race or color. One of the Defendants elected to have the case heard before a District Court.
As a result, the Government filed the instant enforcement action under the Fair Housing Act, claiming that the Johnsons, other African American tenants, and mixed race tenant households were discriminated against by Defendants on account of race or color. Specifically, the United States claims that Defendants enforced the rules
1Her last name appears alternatively in the record as “Barnes.” 2

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 17
more harshly against African Americans and mixed race families, falsely accused both of violating the rules, and enforced extraneous, unwritten rules against both. The Government also claims that some of these aggrieved persons were constructively evicted.
DISCUSSION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Abarca v. Metro. Transit. Auth., 404 F.3d 938, 940 (5th Cir. 2005). A “material fact” is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute about a material fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.
The party that bears the burden of proof at trial also bears the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery on file, together with any affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 325. Once
3

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 17
the movant carries its burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show that summary judgment should not be granted. Id. at 324-25. “[W]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported . . . an adverse party may not rest upon . . . mere allegations or denials . . . but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Title VIII, the FHA, makes it: unlawful-(a) To . . . refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, . . . familial status. . . . (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, . . . familial status. . . . . . . (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, . . . familial status . . . that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Additionally, the FHA makes it unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of . . . any right granted or protected by section . . . 3604 . . . of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The Act authorizes the Government to bring housing discrimination claims on behalf of individuals and groups. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3610(g)(2)(A), 3614(a). If an individual files a claim of housing discrimination with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and he “determines that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred . . . [he] shall . . . immediately issue a
4

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 17
charge on behalf of the aggrieved person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2)(A). Additionally, if the Secretary has “reason to believe that a basis may exist for the commencement of proceedings . . . under” the pattern and practice enforcement provision of the Act, he shall refer the matter to “the Attorney General, or to such authorities, as the case may be.” 42 U.S.C. § 3610(e)(2). This provision reads:
Pattern or practice cases. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this title, or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this title and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). In this case, the Government brings both types of claims. First, it asserts the Johnsons suffered intentional housing discrimination on account of their race or color. Secondly, the Government asserts Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional housing discrimination against African Americans and interracial households. Included in this pattern or practice is the alleged disparate treatment of the Johnsons. The Fifth Circuit applies the analyses developed in Title VII case law to cases under the FHA. Artisan/Am. Corp. v. City of Alvin, 588 F.3d 291, 295 (5th Cir. 2009). To prove disparate treatment under this case law, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case of discrimination. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 (1977). He may do so through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Wheeler v. BL Dev. Corp., 415 F.3d 399, 405 (5th Cir. 2005). If he does so with only circumstantial
5

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 17

evidence, the defendant must rebut the inference of discrimination. Teamsters, 431

U.S. at 358, 360. If the defendant does so, the burden is shifted back to the plaintiff

to rebut the defendant’s explanation. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,

804 (1973).

I.

PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

To prove its pattern or practice case, the Government must prove either (1) a

pattern or practice of discrimination or (2) that a group of persons was denied their

FHA rights and this raises an issue of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).

A. Prima facie case

Defendants first argue that the Government cannot prove a prima facie case

under the McDonnell Douglas test as to each of the individual aggrieved persons. The

Government responds that it is not required to do so and that there is a genuine issue

of material fact as to whether a discriminatory pattern or practice existed.

In Teamsters, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that “the McDonnell

Douglas pattern [i]s the only means of establishing a prima facie case of individual

discrimination.” Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 358. The Court held that in a pattern and

practice case, the Government’s “initial burden is to demonstrate that unlawful

discrimination has been a regular procedure or policy followed by” the defendant. Id.

at 360. The Government “is not required to offer evidence that each person for whom

it will ultimately seek relief was a victim of the . . . discriminatory policy. Its burden

is to establish a prima facie case that such a policy existed.” Id. This “supports an

6

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 17

inference that any particular . . . decision, during the period in which the

discriminatory policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy.” Id. at 362.

Defendants have failed to carry their initial summary judgment burden on the

prima facie case.

B.

REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE

In the alternative, Defendants argue that there is a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory explanation for its actions, which the Government cannot refute.

Once the prima facie case has been established, Defendants may rebut the

discriminatory inference by “demonstrating that the Government’s proof is either

inaccurate or insignificant,” or by providing “a nondiscriminatory explanation for the

apparently discriminatory result” of the pattern or practice. Id. at 360. If providing

a nondiscriminatory explanation, this is a burden of production only. Tex. Dep’t of

Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 (1981). “The defendant need not persuade

the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.” Id. at 254.

Defendants assert that they were uniformly enforcing the park’s rules. Thus,

they have satisfied their burden of rebutting the prima facie case.

C. PRETEXT

The burden now shifts back to the Government to refute Defendants’

explanation. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804. Particularly, the plaintiff must

show (1) the reason is a pretext for unlawful discrimination, or (2) the “reason, while

true, is only one of the reasons for its conduct, and another ‘motivating factor’ is the

7

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 17
plaintiff’s protected characteristic.” Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2007).
The Government argues there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether this explanation is a pretext for unlawful discrimination because some of the alleged violations were not in the actual rules, the rules were not uniformly enforced, and the Hamiltons used racial slurs and harassment when enforcing the rules.
First, there is evidence that some of the claimed rules that Defendants enforced against African-American and interracial family tenants were not actually part of the park’s rules. For example, park rule number three was, “ALL CHILDREN MUST STAY IN THEIR OWN YARDS AFTER 9pm.UNLESS [sic] WITH A [sic] ADULT.” (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3 at 1). Rule number ten stated, “NO CHILDREN MAY BE OUTSIDE OF THEIR YARDS WITHOUT ADULT SUPERVISION AFTER 9pm.SUNDAY [sic] [through] THURSDAY.AND [sic] 11 pm. [sic] FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.” Id. at 2. However, there is evidence that Mrs. Hamilton told tenant Linda Reyes2, the mother of an interracial family3, that her:
children could not play outside of their yard and that they . . . needed to be inside after dark. During this conversation Ms. Hamilton told Mr. [William] Batey [Reyes’s African-American boyfriend] that Homestead was better before ‘you people’ came here. . . . While at Homestead, Ms. Reyes and Mr. Batey both saw white children playing outside of their yards, before and after dark. (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 3). According to her son Diem Duong, “Barbara
2Her surname appears alternatively in the record as “Duong.” 3Reyes is Caucasian, and the father of her children is Asian.
8

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 17
Hamilton also told me several times that I needed to go inside after dark. I saw white children playing outside after dark.” (Duong Aff. at 1 (¶6)). There is evidence that Mr. Hamilton told African American tenant Mitchell Jefferson “that his children should not play in the area at the front of Homestead after dark. Mr. Jefferson frequently saw white children playing in the area at the front of Homestead after dark.” (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 15). His son Nicholas Cooper testified, “On multiple occasions, Edward Hamilton or Barbara Hamilton told me that I could not play outside after dark. Barbara Hamilton told me she could fine me or evict my parents if I did so. I saw white children playing after dark.” (Cooper Aff. at 1 (¶5)). Likewise, there is evidence that one of the Hamiltons told Rose Robinson, an African American tenant who resided with her minor granddaughters, “that children had to be inside after dark and children had to be supervised whenever they were outside. . . . While at Homestead, Ms. Robinson saw white children playing outside, unsupervised, before and after dark. Ms. Robinson did not see black children playing outside at Homestead.” (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 18). Likewise, there is evidence that Mrs. Hamilton scolded African American tenant Victoria Tucker for “not attending to her children, who were playing outside in Ms. Tucker’s front yard. Ms. Hamilton went on to say that the children ‘did not need to be outside in case something gets broke.’” Id. at 19. Thus there is evidence that Hamiltons’ restrictions on when, where, and if African American or biracial children could play outside was not justified by Homestead’s rules. All the rules stated was that children had to be accompanied by an adult, if outside their yard, after certain times. There was no written requirement
9

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 17
that children stay in their own yards, stay inside, stay away from the green area, or be accompanied by an adult before 9:00 p.m.
Another complaint of an extraneous rule concerns satellite dishes. The Homestead rules do not mention satellite dishes. Mrs. Hamilton testified that if the trailer itself was rented from Homestead, the tenant had to get approval from Chris Hebert, Homestead’s owner, before the tenant could attach a satellite to the trailer. Further:
Q. Okay. You did not talk to [FEMA tenants] about satellite dishes that were attached to the trailer, is that what you said?
A. Yeah. I had nothing to do with their trailer. (Mrs. Hamilton Dep., Vol. II, at 368). Nevertheless, Robinson (who resided in a FEMA trailer) stated that she received a written notice telling her that she had to remove her satellite dish and Mr. Hamilton had also told her this. She was told that she “needed to remove her satellite dish or she would be evicted.” (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 18).
Other evidence of a non-existent rule concerned the type of music that a tenant could play. Regarding music, the rules stated “NO LOUD MUSIC COMING FROM THE FOLLOWING HOMES,CARS, [sic] TRUCKS ,YOUR [sic] COMPANIES [sic] VEHICLES.” (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3 at 1). There was no restriction on the type of music that could be played. There is evidence, however, that Mrs. Hamilton told Batey that he could only have a barbecue:
as long as he did not play “bee bop” music [and]. . . . On one occasion, when Mr. Batey was sitting in his car outside of Ms. Reyes’ trailer
10

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 11 of 17
listening to rhythm and blues music, Barbara Hamilton came by and told him . . . “bee bop” music was not allowed, that Homestead was a nice park before “you people” moved in, and that it was going to stay that way. (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 3-4). Although the Homestead rules do not mention storage pods, “Edward Hamilton told [Mr. Jefferson] that [he] could not keep a storage pod by the trailer.” (Mr. Jefferson Aff. at 1 (¶5)). Further, the Homestead Rules provide: THERE ARE THREE [3] DUMPSTERS AT THE FRONT OF THE PARK FOR THE TENANTS [sic] USE,HOWEVER [sic] THESE ARE FOR HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE ONLY,NO [sic] FURNITURE [sic] ,BIKES [sic] ,OR [sic] TIRES,ETC. [sic] IS TO BE PLACED OUTSIDE THE DUMPSTERS, [sic] [3] WRITTEN WARNINGS FOR THIS COULD RESULT IN AN EVICTION. (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3 at 1). While, all three of these dumpsters are for tenants, Mrs. Johnson averred, “Shortly after we moved into Homestead, Barbara Hamilton came to our trailer and said that one of my sons put trash in the wrong dumpster. She said that she could evict us for putting trash in the wrong dumpster.” (Mrs. Johnson Aff. at 1 (¶5)). Additionally, the written park rules do not regulate parking. Nevertheless, African American tenants Paula and Kenyatta Gale claim that Mrs. Hamilton told them that Kenyatta’s car could not be parked next to Paula’s, and Mrs. Hamilton could evict them if they did not move the car. “During this conversation Ms. Hamilton told Paula Gale that they needed to move the vehicle because the ‘white woman’ who lived next door to them had a new car, and Ms. Hamilton did not want it to get damaged by
11

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 17
work her employees were doing.” (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 12). Likewise, Mitchell and, his African-American wife, Beverly Jefferson claim that the Hamiltons accused them and their African-American guests of parking improperly. “At these times, Ms. Hamilton referred to the Jeffersons and their guests as ‘you people.’” Id. at 15-16.
The written rules also do not prohibit fireworks. There is evidence that “On July 4, 2006, Edward Hamilton told Mr. Jefferson that his children were not allowed to set off fireworks at Homestead.” Id. at 15.
Other evidence which a jury could conclude calls the nondiscriminatory explanation into question is evidence that African American and interracial family tenants were falsely accused of conduct which they did not commit. By way of example, although the Hamiltons accused Batey, Reyes, African American tenant Charfonya Boose, Mr. and Mrs. Jefferson and their African American guests, Victoria, her fiancé Roosevelt Cherry, her niece Yvette Tucker, Mrs. Johnson and her African American guests Tomica Samuel and Tanishka Young of speeding, they deny driving over the park’s speed limit. Although the Hamiltons accused Batey, Charfonya, and Victoria of playing loud music, they deny that they ever played loud music. According to the Jeffersons, the Hamiltons:
accused the Jefferson family of knocking over a mailbox at Homestead and demanded that they pay for its replacement. While no one in the Jefferson family knocked over a mailbox at Homestead, they paid the replacement cost that the Hamilton Defendants demanded in order to avoid additional conflict with the Hamilton Defendants. Id. at 16.
12

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 17
There is also evidence that the Hamiltons did not in fact uniformly enforce the written notice and eviction rule. According to Defendants, the rules allowed an eviction notice to be issued after three written warnings. However, Charfonya only received two written warnings before her eviction notice. Her third written warning was not issued until three days after her eviction notice. Notably this was one month after Defendants received notice of the discrimination complaint filed by the Johnsons. According to Mrs. Johnson, she received three written warnings simultaneously with her eviction notice. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, all three written warnings appear to be about the same exact incident. They are all for speeding and disturbing the peace on March 4, 2006. The first states “speeding [on] 3/4/06 . . . Speeder was asked to do speed limit the women driving shot a bird and said F _ _ _ _ [sic] you.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. M at 2). The second reads, “speeding, loud music, threatening park employees with violence [on] 3/4/06 . . . note: police had to be called for #87 company to settle down.” Id. at 3. Finally, the third reads, “speeding, Disturbing the peace [on] 3/4/06 . . . again, police had to be called, Due to fact the company to #87 kept speeding thru park and cussing, using vulgar Language on Lady [sic] even threatened she had a gun.” Id. at 4. Reyes received three written warnings followed by a thirty-day eviction notice. On the other hand, Caucasian tenant Travis Vick averred that he received four written warnings plus a “written reminder” about the rules affecting his pet, but he never received a thirty-day eviction notice. (Vick Aff. at 1 (¶3)). There is evidence that Caucasian tenant Kris Perry received six written warnings before a thirty-day eviction notice on March 8, 2006, followed by a three-day
13

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 17
eviction notice on May 23. There is evidence that Caucasian tenant Ira Locke, Jr., received three written warnings concerning his pet. On the third warning a note is written that because he subsequently removed the animal from the property, the “notice was pulled back. And removed from notice list if no other problems in 30 days.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. I at 8). There is evidence that Caucasian tenant Starla Reid received three written warnings and no eviction notice. There is evidence that Caucasian tenant Margo Kiel received three written warnings and no eviction notice.
Finally, there is evidence that the Hamiltons used racial epithets and harassment towards African American and interracial family tenants and guests. Robinson averred that on “at least two occasions, I heard Edward Hamilton use the word ‘nigger’ when talking to other African-American tenants in the park.” (Robinson Aff. at 1 (¶)). Additionally, Melissa Byrd Harrison gave evidence of racial animus. She is Caucasian, married to Demond Harrison, an African American, and the two of them shared three children. She signed a lease with Homestead on November 21, 2005. According to her:
4. Approximately a week after signing a lease for a Homestead trailer, I went to talk to Barbara Hamilton because I discovered some of my belongings, which had been in my trailer, were missing.
5. Initially, Barbara Hamilton was sympathetic, apologizing for what had happened. When my husband joined us and told Ms. Hamilton that he was with me, her demeanor changed. Ms. Hamilton asked, “Why did you people leave your things there?” Because Ms. Hamilton’s demeanor and attitude changed as soon as my husband joined us, I understood that “you people” was a reference to his race and our interracial relationship.
14

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 17
6. Later, I was talking with my husband and another interracial couple and Ms. Hamilton walked by and said, “There goes the neighborhood. The niggers are moving in.”
(Mrs. Harrison Aff. at 1). According to the Government, this final statement was made only a “short time later” that same day. (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 14). Cooper accuses Mr. Hamilton of telling him “You people always think you can do what you want.” (Cooper Aff. at 1 (¶7)). Other “you people” comments have already been discussed previously. According to Mrs. Jefferson she drove past Mrs. Hamilton one day and saw her talking to another woman. “Ms. Hamilton said, ‘Look at that black bitch speeding.’” (Mrs. Jefferson Aff. at 1 (¶7)). Other evidence concerns Brandon Boose, Charfonya’s brother who resided with her, his Caucasian girlfriend, and their biracial baby. According to Brandon, “Edward Hamilton told me several times that I could not stay there. Mr. Hamilton told me that they did not allow interracial couples at Homestead.” (Brandon Aff. at 1 (¶5)). There is evidence that he also “called him a ‘nigger,’ and told him he had to leave” during this conversation. (Pl.’s 3d Am. Resp. to Interrogs. at 6). According to the Government, Mr. Hamilton continued to approach Brandon, thereafter, telling him he had to leave. “The last time that Mr. Hamilton approached Mr. Boose, [Mr. Hamilton] called [Brandon] a ‘nigger boy.’” Id. Charfonya testified that Mr. Hamilton likewise used racial harassment when discussing her tenancy. When one of her guests, “had accidentally caused minor damage to Homestead property, I offered to fix it. He said to me, ‘I am a redneck from Alabama. If someone messes up out here I’ll buy some chains and there’s a pond back there and they will be found missing.’” (Charfonya Aff. at 1 (¶5)). Finally, the Johnsons and their
15

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 17
guests testified to this same type of conduct. Samuel testified that when she arrived to attend the Johnsons’ barbecue, the Hamiltons cursed at her and accused her of speeding. Because she received a phone call from her daughter, she had to turn around to leave, but a car had appeared and blocked her exit. She maneuvered around and left. When she returned with her daughter, “Barbara Hamilton called me a ‘nigger’ and made profane gestures at me, and Edward Hamilton cursed at me.” (Samuel Aff. at 1 (¶4)). Subsequently, after the State court dismissed the eviction action filed against the Johnsons, Mrs. Johnson claims that she “was driving through Homestead and Edward Hamilton drove straight towards my car, nearly hitting it. He did not stop until he was a few feet away from my car.” (Mrs. Johnson Aff. at 2 (¶10)). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the majority of these statements and actions were made during or close in time to discussions about the terms of the respective tenancies–whether or not someone had a valid complaint, whether or not someone had broken park rules, or whether or not someone was welcome to reside in the park. There is evidence that the Hamiltons were the managers and were responsible for enforcing the park’s rules and eviction policy.
The Court need not decide whether there is further evidence of pretext. Viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants’ proffered explanation is merely a pretext and that race or color was a motivating factor for their conduct.
II. INDIVIDUAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE JOHNSONS Because there is evidence that there was a pattern and practice of housing
16

Case 1:09-cv-00376-LG -RHW Document 105 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 17
discrimination against African Americans during the same time period as the Johnsons’ complaints, there is no need for the Court to examine whether there is evidence to support the individual claims brought on the Johnsons’ behalf. MOTION TO STRIKE
The Government asks the Court to strike certain of the Defendants’ evidence as new evidence presented for the first time on rebuttal. All the challenged evidence does is ask the Court to discredit the Government’s witnesses, claiming that they are untrustworthy and the Hamiltons are more reliable. Credibility is for the jury, not for the Court on summary judgment. This evidence underscores the fact that there is a jury question on whether or not a discriminatory pattern and practice existed. Because there is no prejudice to the Government, the Court need not consider whether the evidence should be stricken. Therefore, the motion to strike is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that for the reasons stated above Defendants Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L. Hamilton, and Barbara A. Hamilton’s Motion for Summary Judgment [89] should be and is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion to Strike New Evidence [100] should be and is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 15th day of November, 2010.
s/ Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17

 </s> Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 1 of 13
CLOSED, JURY, RHW
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00376−LG −RHW

United States of America v. Indigo Investments, LLC et al Assigned to: Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/19/2009 Date Terminated: 01/18/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Erin Meehan Richmond U. S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE−CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202/307−0385 Fax: 202/514−1116 Email: erin.richmond@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitzi Dease Paige U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE − Jackson 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 601/973−2840 Fax: 601/965−4409 Email: Mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher James Fregiato U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW − NWB Washington, DC 20530 202/305−0022 Fax: 202/514−1116 Email: christopher.fregiato@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Maranzano U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202/305−0185 Fax: 202/514−1116 Email: jennifer.maranzano@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Indigo Investments, LLC

represented by David Jeffrey White BOYCE HOLLEMAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 2 of 13

1720 23rd Avenue Gulfport, MS 39501 228/863−3142 Fax: 228/863−9829 Email: jeff@boyceholleman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim C. Holleman BOYCE HOLLEMAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1720 23rd Avenue Gulfport, MS 39507 228/863−3142 Fax: 228/863−9829 Email: tim@boyceholleman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Edward L. Hamilton

represented by David Jeffrey White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim C. Holleman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Barbara A. Hamilton

represented by David Jeffrey White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim C. Holleman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Christopher S Hebert

represented by Melissa Batia Williams BROWN BUCHANAN, PA P. O. Box 1377 Ocean Springs, MS 39533−1377 228762−0035 Fax: 2284357090 Email: mbw@brownbuchanan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Page, Mannino, Peresich &McDermott, PLLC

represented by Nathan Lamar Prescott PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH &MCDERMOTT, PLLC − Biloxi 759 Vieux Marche' Mall Biloxi, MS 39530 228/374−2100 Email: nathan.prescott@pmp.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 3 of 13

06/19/2009 06/23/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/20/2009 07/21/2009 08/07/2009 08/10/2009 08/17/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009
08/20/2009 08/24/2009 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 10/06/2009

1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L. Hamilton, Barbara A. Hamilton, filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(avm) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
2 Summons Issued as to Indigo Investments, LLC, Edward L. Hamilton, Barbara A. Hamilton. (RLW) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
3 **NOTE: Disregard** SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America Barbara A. Hamilton served on 6/24/2009, answer due 7/14/2009. (Paige, Mitzi) Modified on 7/1/2009 (RLW). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
4 **NOTE: Disregard** SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America Edward L. Hamilton served on 6/24/2009, answer due 7/14/2009. (Paige, Mitzi) Modified on 7/1/2009 (RLW). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America Barbara A. Hamilton served on 6/30/2009, answer due 7/20/2009. (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America Edward L. Hamilton served on 6/30/2009, answer due 7/20/2009. (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #3 and #4. The Summonses were filed incorrectly and refiled as #5 and #6. (RLW) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
7 (Fax Copy) ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Edward L. Hamilton, Barbara A. Hamilton.(wld) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
8 Rule 16.1(A) Initial Order Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 8/18/2009 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker (JR) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
9 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Indigo Investments, LLC.(White, David) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America Indigo Investments, LLC served on 7/28/2009, answer due 8/17/2009. (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
11 US Marshal's SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Indigo Investments, LLC. (wld) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 8/18/2009 (JR) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
12 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: CJRA Track : Standard. Amended Pleadings due by 9/15/2009, Joinder of Parties due by 9/15/2009, Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 11/2/2009, Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 12/2/2009, Discovery due by 3/1/2010, Motions due by 3/15/2010, Settlement Conference set for 6/8/2010 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/11−13/2010 before District Judge Louis Guirola Jr., Jury Trial set for 9/13/2010 trial calendar before District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. ETT: 3 days. No conflicts. Parties do NOT consent. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on August 18, 2009 (JR) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
13 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff United States' Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
14 NOTICE of Service of Pre−Discovery Disclosure by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
15 NOTICE of Service of First Set Of Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
16 NOTICE of Service of First Set Of Request for Production by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
17 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 4 of 13

10/06/2009 11/02/2009 11/02/2009 12/17/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/13/2010 01/21/2010 01/21/2010 01/22/2010
01/22/2010
01/26/2010
01/26/2010
01/26/2010

18 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
19 NOTICE of Service of United States' Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
20 NOTICE of Service of United States' Response to Request for Production by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
21 NOTICE of Service of First Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Meehan Richmond on behalf of United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
23 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
24 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
25 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff United States' First Amended Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
26 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff United States' First Amended Response to Request for Production by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
27 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Barbara A. Hamilton (wld) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Motions Deadlines by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Good Faith Certificate)(Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by David Jeffrey White on behalf of Edward L. Hamilton, Barbara A. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The docket reflects that on January 21, 2010, Jeffrey White entered his appearance as counsel for the Hamiltons. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on January 22, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Motions Deadlines :TELEPHONIC Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2010 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. The MOVANT will place the call to Judge Walker's Chambers with all necessary counsel on the line.(JR) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Motion Hearing held on 1/26/2010 re 28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Motions Deadlines filed by United States of America. An order will follow. (JR) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. An amended case management order will be entered. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on January 26, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
30 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: CJRA Track : Standard. Discovery due by 7/15/2010 Motions due by 7/29/2010 Settlement Conference set for 11/2/2010 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker Pretrial Conference set for 12/8−10/2010 before District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. Jury Trial set for 1/10/2011 trial calendar before District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/8/2010. ETT: 3 days. No conflicts. Parties do NOT consent. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on January 26, 2010 (JR) Modified on 10/18/2010 to correct a typographical error (JR). (Entered: 01/26/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 5 of 13

04/08/2010 04/09/2010 04/12/2010
04/12/2010 04/13/2010 04/15/2010 04/20/2010 04/20/2010 04/21/2010 04/23/2010 05/05/2010 05/05/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/20/2010
06/02/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010

31 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Response to Request for Production by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States of America Subpoena to BancorpSouth for Documents/Records (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #32. Incorrect event chosen. Counsel should refile using the correct event code, "Subpoena Returned" which can be found under "Service of Process". (wld) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
33 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Bancorp South. (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
34 NOTICE of Service of Second Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
35 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Indigo Investments, LLC by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
36 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Edward L. Hamilton by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
37 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barbara A. Hamilton by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
38 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
39 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on April 23, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
40 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barbara A. Hamilton by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
41 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Edward L. Hamilton by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
42 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
43 NOTICE of Service of Pre−Discovery Disclosure by Edward L. Hamilton, Barbara A. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
44 NOTICE of Service of United States' Third Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Meehan Richmond on behalf of United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
46 NOTICE of Service of Second Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
47 NOTICE of Service of Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
48 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
49 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Request for Production by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
50 NOTICE of Service of Second Amended Response to Request for Production by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
51 NOTICE of Service of Second Amended Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
52 NOTICE of Service of Request for Admissions by United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 6 of 13

06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/15/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/30/2010 07/01/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/07/2010
07/07/2010 07/09/2010
07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/12/2010
07/13/2010

53 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barbara A. Hamilton by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
54 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Edward L. Hamilton by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
55 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Chris Hebert by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
56 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mary Hebert by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
57 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Doug Hebert by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
58 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff United States' Second Sets of Interrogatories by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
59 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mary Hebert by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
60 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Douglas Hebert by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
61 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Chris Hebert by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
62 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Indigo Investments, LLC by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa Batia Williams on behalf of Christopher S Hebert (Williams, Melissa) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
64 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Christopher S Hebert (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williams, Melissa) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 64 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Christopher S Hebert, staying any production of documents pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum pending the Court's ruling on the motion to quash. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 7, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
65 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #65. Attorney is advised when filing a document with combined discovery, each part of the discovery must be filed separately. Counsel should file this document again using the same pdf document and using the event code, "Notice of Service of Response to Requests for Production of Documents". (wld) (Entered: 07/08/2010) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
66 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
67 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Thelton Moses by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
68 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Barbara A. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
69 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Edward L. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 64 Motion to Quash subpoena, pursuant to notice from counsel for the parties that they have resolved the matters at issue. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 12, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
70 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barbara A. Hamilton by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 7 of 13

07/13/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/15/2010
07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010
07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010
07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010
07/20/2010

71 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Edward L. Hamilton by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
72 MOTION for Protective Order by Page, Mannino, Peresich &McDermott, PLLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Prescott, Nathan) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
73 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Thelton Moses by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
74 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Thelton Moses. (White, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
75 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Thelton Moses. (White, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 72. L.U.Civ.R. 7 requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (JCH) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
76 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
77 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
78 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
79 NOTICE of Service of Third Supplemental Response to Interrogatories by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
80 NOTICE of Service of Third Supplemental Response to Request for Production by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
81 **NOTE: DISREGARD ENTRY. NOTICE of Service of Fourth Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Richmond, Erin); Modified to restrict entry and add docket text on 7/15/2010 (JCH). (Entered: 07/15/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #81: Attorney advises that there is an error in this entry, and it should be disregarded. Incorrect document attached. Attorney will refile and attach the correct pdf document. (RLW) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
82 NOTICE of Service of Fourth Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER directing the Clerk to restrict access to 81 Notice of Service of Disclosure filed by United States of America, to protect sensitive information contained in the filing. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 15, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
83 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
84 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Richmond, Erin) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
85 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Harrison County Sheriff's Department. (White, David) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #76, #77, #79, and #80: On the respectfully submitted portion of the pleading, a defendant's name was not listed or was listed incorrect. In the future, attorney is advised to correctly list all parties. (RLW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Motion Deadline) by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 07/20/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 8 of 13

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/10/2010
08/12/2010 08/16/2010
08/26/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 86 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The motions deadline is extended to 8/9/2010. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 21, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 8/9/2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
87 MOTION to Withdraw 72 MOTION for Protective Order by Page, Mannino, Peresich &McDermott, PLLC (Prescott, Nathan) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER terminating 72 Motion for Protective Order pursuant to 87 notice of withdrawal of the motion. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 29, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 87 Motion to Withdraw, or notice of withdrawal of, 72 MOTION for Protective Order. Motion 72 has been terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 29, 2010. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
88 MOTION to Dismiss by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
89 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(White, David) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
90 MEMORANDUM in Support re 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #89 &90. These documents have the incorrect case number but appear to be correct in all other aspects. Also, as to document #90, L.U.Civ.R. 7 requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings by also including a brief description of each exhibit. (wld) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
91 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court finds the motion is well taken and should be granted. The Response is due by 9/9/2010. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on August 16, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
92 RESPONSE to Motion re 88 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
93 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Its Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by United States of America (Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
94 RESPONSE to Motion re 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 90 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of M. Johnson, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of J. Johnson, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of T. Samuel, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of T. Young, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of L. Reyes, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of W. Batey, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of D. Duong, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of C. Boose, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of B. Boose, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of P. Gale, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of K. Gale, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of B. Jefferson, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of M. Jefferson, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of N. Cooper, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of M.B. Harrison, # 17 Exhibit Declaration of R. Robinson, # 18 Exhibit Declaration of T. Vick, # 19 Exhibit Complaint, # 20 Exhibit Indigo

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 9 of 13

09/10/2010 09/17/2010 09/20/2010 09/28/2010 09/29/2010
09/30/2010 09/30/2010

Investments' Answers to Pl.'s First Set of Interrogatories, # 21 Exhibit Excerpts of Hebert 30(b)(6) Deposition 5/4/10, # 22 Exhibit Excerpts of Indigo 30(b)(6) Deposition 7/9/10, # 23 Exhibit Excerpts of Hebert Deposition 7/9/10, # 24 Exhibit Excerpts of B. Hamilton Deposition 6/1/10, # 25 Exhibit Excerpts of E. Hamilton Deposition 7/14/10, # 26 Exhibit Excerpts of B. Hamilton Deposition 7/14/10, # 27 Exhibit M. Barnes Written Warnings and Notice, # 28 Exhibit Homestead Park Rules, # 29 Exhibit M. Barnes Johnson Eviction Documents, # 30 Exhibit L. Reyes Eviction Documents, # 31 Exhibit C. Boose Written Warnings and Notice, # 32 Exhibit T. Vick Lease and Written Warnings, # 33 Exhibit M. Keel Lease and Written Warnings, # 34 Exhibit HUD Reasonable Cause Determination, # 35 Exhibit S. Reid Lease and Written Warnings, # 36 Exhibit I. Locke Lease and Written Warnings, # 37 Exhibit K. Perry Lease and Written Warnings, # 38 Exhibit GCFHC Testing Report, # 39 Exhibit R. Robinson Lease)(Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Court finds this motion is unopposed, well taken and should be granted. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on September 10, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
95 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 94 Response to Motion,,,,,,, 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
96 ORDER granting Defendants' 95 Motion for Extension of Time to file a Reply in support of their 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Replies are due by 9/30/2010. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on September 20, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
97 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Defendants' 97 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds the motion is well taken, unopposed, and should be granted. Defendants are given leave to file eight excess pages. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on September 29, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
98 Rebuttal re 90 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 94 Response to Motion,,,,,,, 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
99 Response in Support re 94 RESPONSE to Motion re 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 90 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of M. Johnson, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of J. Johnson, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of T. Samuel, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of T. Young, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of L. Reyes, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of W. Batey, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of D. Duong, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of C. Boose, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of B. Boose, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of P. Gale, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of K. Gale, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of B. Jefferson, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of M. Jefferson, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of N. Cooper, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of M.B. Harrison, # 17 Exhibit Declaration of R. Robinson, # 18 Exhibit Declaration of T. Vick, # 19 Exhibit Complaint, # 20 Exhibit Indigo Investments' Answers to Pl.'s First Set of Interrogatories, # 21 Exhibit Excerpts of Hebert 30(b)(6) Deposition 5/4/10, # 22 Exhibit Excerpts of Indigo 30(b)(6) Deposition 7/9/10, # 23 Exhibit Excerpts of Hebert Deposition 7/9/10, # 24 Exhibit Excerpts of B. Hamilton Deposition 6/1/10, # 25 Exhibit Excerpts of E. Hamilton Deposition 7/14/10, # 26 Exhibit Excerpts of B. Hamilton Deposition 7/14/10, # 27 Exhibit M. Barnes Written Warnings and Notice, # 28 Exhibit Homestead Park Rules, # 29 Exhibit M. Barnes Johnson Eviction Documents, # 30 Exhibit L. Reyes Eviction Documents, # 31 Exhibit C.

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 10 of 13

10/07/2010
10/11/2010 10/12/2010 10/14/2010 10/18/2010
11/01/2010 11/02/2010 11/08/2010

Boose Written Warnings and Notice, # 32 Exhibit T. Vick Lease and Written Warnings, # 33 Exhibit M. Keel Lease and Written Warnings, # 34 Exhibit HUD Reasonable Cause Determination, # 35 Exhibit S. Reid Lease and Written Warnings, # 36 Exhibit I. Locke Lease and Written Warnings, # 37 Exhibit K. Perry Lease and Written Warnings, # 38 Exhibit GCFHC Testing Report, # 39 Exhibit R. Robinson Lease)(Fregiato, Christopher), 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(White, David), 98 Rebuttal re 90 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 94 Response to Motion,,,,,,, 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David), 90 MEMORANDUM in Support re 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of B. Hamilton, # 2 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of C. Hebert, # 3 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of E. Hamilton, # 4 Exhibit Rose Robinson FEMA Lease, # 5 Exhibit Affidavit of Laurarance Newkirk, # 6 Exhibit Affidavit of Carl Stanton, # 7 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of T. Moses, # 8 Exhibit Affidavit of Rose Stanton)(White, David) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
100 MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Electronic Filing of Text−Only Order, # 2 Exhibit Indigo's Answers to US' First Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit Email from White supplementing disclosures, # 4 Exhibit Notice of Service of US' Response to Defs.' RFP, # 5 Exhibit Letter re: Moses depo transcript, # 6 Exhibit Email re: B. Hamilton depo transcript v.2, # 7 Exhibit Email re: B. Hamilton depo transcript v.1)(Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
101 RESPONSE to Motion re 100 MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Christopher S Hebert, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
102 ORDER denying 88 Motion to Dismiss Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 10/11/2010 (wld) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
103 REPLY to Response to Motion re 100 MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION to Strike 99 Response in Support,,,,,,,,,,,,, 101 Response to Motion, filed by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
NOTICE of Calendar Setting REMINDER of the settlement conference previously set for Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel are instructed to submit to Judge Walker, on or before one week prior to the conference, a memorandum (3 page maximum in PDF format) setting forth a brief explanation of the case, and a candid appraisal of the respective positions, including possible settlement figures. This document is NOT to be exchanged and will be viewed only by the Court. The settlement memoranda should be sent to Judge Walker via e−mail. PARTIES AND/OR COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES ARE TO BE PRESENT AT THE CONFERENCE. (JR) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
NOTICE of Hearing TIME CHANGE: Settlement Conference reset for 11/2/2010 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, due to a conflict in the Court's schedule.(JR) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Settlement Conference held on 11/2/2010. The case did not settle. (JR) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
104 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 12/10/2010 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 806 (Gulfport) before District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. (CG) (Entered: 11/08/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 11 of 13

11/15/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/30/2010
11/30/2010 12/01/2010
12/01/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010

105 ORDER denying 89 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 100 Motion to Strike Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 11/15/2010 (Guirola, Louis) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
106 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to the Criminal History of Edward Hamilton by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
107 MOTION in Limine Regarding Damages by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
108 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Allegations of Fraud and/or Theft by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
109 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Edward L. Hamilton and Barbara Hamilton, Individually by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
110 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Christopher S. Hebert, Individually and Piercing the Corporate Veil of Indigo Investments, LLC by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
111 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Subsequent Remedial Measures by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
112 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Sale of Homestead Mobile Home Park and Sale Proceeds by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
113 MOTION in Limine by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant Indigo's Second Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit Defendant Indigo's Initial Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit Hamilton Defendants' Initial Disclosures, # 4 Exhibit Defendant Indigo's Third Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts from Christopher Hebert, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Jennifer Maranzano)(Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
114 MOTION in Limine Memorandum in Support Thereof by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
Docket Annotation as to #114. Incorrect event code used. Counsel should refile this document as a "memorandum in support of motion" which can be found under "responses and replies" and link the memorandum to motion #113. Document #114 will be terminated as a motion. (wld) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
115 MEMORANDUM in Support re 113 MOTION in Limine filed by United States of America (Maranzano, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
116 RESPONSE to Motion re 113 MOTION in Limine filed by Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
117 RESPONSE in Opposition re 111 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Subsequent Remedial Measures, 109 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Edward L. Hamilton and Barbara Hamilton, Individually, 107 MOTION in Limine Regarding Damages, 112 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Sale of Homestead Mobile Home Park and Sale Proceeds, 110 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Christopher S. Hebert, Individually and Piercing the Corporate Veil of Indigo Investments, LLC, 106 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to the Criminal History of Edward Hamilton, 108 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Allegations of Fraud and/or Theft filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Answer by Barbara and Edward Hamilton, # 4 Exhibit Excerpts of Deposition of Mary N. Hebert, # 5 Exhibit Excerpts of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Christopher Hebert, # 6

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 12 of 13

12/09/2010 12/09/2010 12/09/2010 12/09/2010 12/10/2010 12/10/2010 12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010

Exhibit Responses to U.S.' Requests for Admissions by Edward Hamilton and Barbara Hamilton, # 7 Exhibit Excerpts from Deposition of Christopher Hebert individually, # 8 Exhibit Hamiltons' Answers to Plaintiff U.S.' First Set of Interrogatories, # 9 Exhibit Letter from Christopher Hebert to Jackson Office of HUD−FHEO, # 10 Exhibit Excerpts from Plaintiff U.S.' Fourth Supp. Pre−Disc. Disclosure Information)(Fregiato, Christopher) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
118 NOTICE of Service of Fifth Supplemental Pre−Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
119 NOTICE of Service of Third Amended Response to Request for Production by United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
120 NOTICE of Service of Second Amended Answers/ Response to Interrogatories by United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
121 NOTICE of Appearance by Tim C. Holleman on behalf of Barbara A. Hamilton, Edward L. Hamilton, Indigo Investments, LLC (Holleman, Tim) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.: Pretrial Conference held on 12/10/2010. Jury trial is set for 1/18/2011. Pretrial Order and jury instructions are due 12/27/2010. The court will enter rulings on the motions in limine. (CG) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
Set Hearings: Jury Trial set for 1/18/2011 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 806 (Gulfport) before District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. (CG) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 106 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to the Criminal History of Edward Hamilton. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 107 Motion in Limine Regarding Damages. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 108 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Allegations of Fraud and/or Theft. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 109 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Edward L. Hamilton and Barbara Hamilton, Individually. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 110 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Christopher S. Hebert, Individually, and Piercing the Corporate Veil of Indigo Investments, LLC. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 111 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Subsequent Remedial Measures. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-376 As of: 12/10/2011 02:11 AM CST 13 of 13

12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/22/2010 01/05/2011 01/07/2011 01/18/2011

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Defendants' 112 Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence and References to Sale of Homestead Mobile Home Park and Sale Proceeds. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Plaintiff's 113 Consolidated Motion in Limine. This motion is denied with leave to make contemporaneous objections at trial. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 13, 2010. (RH) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
122 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Thelton Moses by Indigo Investments, LLC (White, David) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
123 PRETRIAL ORDER signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on 1/3/2011 (CG) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
NOTICE of Settlement by All Parties. The parties have announced that this case has settled. They will be submitting a Consent Decree. (RH) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
124 CONSENT DECREE: Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 1/18/2011 (wld) (Entered: 01/18/2011)


[CONTENT] June 16, 2009 | the United States | the United States | District Court | the Southern District | Mississippi | the Fair Housing Act | 42 | 3612 | 98 | Gulfport | Mississippi ||| the Federal Emergency Management Agency | FEMA | Hurricane Katrina ||| U.S. | African American | African American |||  ||| Louis Guirola ||| November 15, 2010 | Court | U.S. ||| three-year | January 7, 2011 |||  |||  ||| 45,000 | twelve | 45,000 | the United States | 5,000 ||| January 18, 2011 [SUMMARY] On June 16, 2009, the United States filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3612, against the owners and managers of a 98-lot mobile home park located in Gulfport, Mississippi.  The defendants leased lots to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to house persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. claimed, based on evidence from particular complainants and witnesses and on fair housing testing, that the site's management applied various park rules more harshly against African American tenants and members of interracial households, openly made racial slurs, declared that they didn't want any African American residents living at the park, and generally harassed and intimidated black tenants. The plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as civil penalties. The case was assigned to Judge Louis Guirola.

On November 15, 2010, the Court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court found that the U.S. had produced sufficient evidence of discriminatory rule enforcement, racial bias, and harassment.  Though the case was scheduled for trial, shortly before that date arrived, the parties agreed to a three-year settlement on January 7, 2011. The agreement included a standard prohibition against discrimination, but it also included restrictions on the defendant manager in any future involvements in the rental real estate business.  These restrictions included regulating the conduct of the defendant-owner in the event it re-entered the rental real estate business, including notice to the plaintiff, fair housing training, notice provisions, non-discrimination policies, detailed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to allow plaintiff to monitor its compliance, and consent to periodic compliance testing. Defendants agreed to pay $45,000 in monetary damages to twelve named aggrieved persons, $45,000 to the United States, and a $5,000 civil penalty. The case closed on January 18, 2011.