Valery Kantsepolsky v. River Shores Association, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed and adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning claims brought by Valery Kantsepolsky against River Shores Association, Inc. The court dismissed the ADA claims without prejudice, stayed the FHA claims under the Colorado River abstention doctrine pending resolution of a related state-court action, and granted leave to amend. The court also directed periodic status reports and closed the case for administrative and statistical purposes subject to reopening.

Holdings

1. When no party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court need only determine whether clear error appears on the face of the record before accepting the recommendation.
2. The FHA claims should be stayed under the Colorado River abstention doctrine because the parallel state-court action created a substantial risk of piecemeal litigation and the relevant factors supported abstention.
3. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged an FHA violation, so the FHA claims were not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
4. The ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant is a private entity offering commercial services to the public, as required for the Title III provision on which she relied.
5. The requested injunction was denied because it was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and the ADA did not provide a statutory basis for the requested injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should review the unobjected-to report and recommendation for clear error rather than de novo.
2. Whether Plaintiff's FHA claims should be stayed under the Colorado River abstention doctrine because of the parallel state-court action.
3. Whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged an FHA violation to survive dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
4. Whether Plaintiff's ADA claim failed because Title III of the ADA applies only to private entities offering commercial services to the public and Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant did so.
5. Whether the requested injunction concerning the pending state-court action was available under the Anti-Injunction Act or the ADA.

Disposition

other