Daniel Glaser v. City of Boulder and Park Gables Homeowners Association

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado considers Daniel Glaser’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning his participation in Boulder’s permanently affordable homeownership program. The court declines to consider the motion against Park Gables Homeowners Association because service was not adequately demonstrated, and concludes that Glaser is unlikely to succeed on his Fair Housing Act and Colorado Fair Housing Act claims against the City. The motion seeks to prevent enforcement of requirements that Glaser reoccupy or sell the property and to permit continued leasing as a disability accommodation.

Holdings

1. The court would not consider the preliminary-injunction motion against Park Gables because plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that Park Gables was served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or the applicable Colorado service rule.
2. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success because the requested accommodation was not reasonable and was not shown to be necessary to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
3. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on his FHA retaliation claim because his accommodation request was not protected activity and he presented no sufficient evidence connecting his earlier complaints to the City's 2025 reoccupation requirement.
4. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on his CFHA claim because it was based on the same conduct and analysis as his unsuccessful FHA claims.
5. The court could resolve the preliminary-injunction motion without an evidentiary hearing because the written record clearly showed that plaintiff lacked a right to relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction against Park Gables when the record did not establish proper service of process.
2. Whether plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on his FHA failure-to-accommodate claim based on his request to remain absent from the affordable home and lease it indefinitely.
3. Whether plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on his FHA retaliation claim based on the requirement that he reoccupy or sell the property.
4. Whether plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on his Colorado Fair Housing Act claim based on the same reoccupation requirement.
5. Whether the court could resolve the preliminary-injunction motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

other