Gilead Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Town of Cromwell

604 F.Supp.3d 1

GILEAD COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.TOWN OF CROMWELL, Defendant.

No. 3:17-cv-00627 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed May 27, 2022

Andrea Lowe, Pro Hac Vice, Tara K. Ramchandani, Pro Hac Vice, Yiyang Wu, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Allen, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Gerhart Allen, Pro Hac Vice, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, Washington, DC, Greg J. Kirschner, CT Fair Housing Center, Inc., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.

Julia Lavine, West Hartford, CT, Kari L. Olson, Murtha Cullina LLP, Hartford, CT, Katherine E. Rule, Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS AND ORDER

VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gilead Community Services, Inc. ("Gilead"), Rainbow Housing Corp. ("Rainbow Housing"), and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. ("CFHC") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") sued the Town of Cromwell (the "Town" or "Defendant")¹ , claiming violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("Fair Housing Act" or "FHA"), and its implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. Part 100, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. ("ADA"), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.² Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1 (Apr. 17, 2017) ("Compl."); First Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 57-1 (June 22, 2018) ("First Am. Compl.").

Following a six-day trial, which included testimony from fifteen witnesses, and the admission of 190 exhibits, the jury unanimously found that the Town of Cromwell violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and awarded compensatory damages of $181,000 and punitive damages of $5,000,000. Verdict Form at 2–3, ECF No. 239 (Oct. 15, 2021) ("Verdict"). The jury also unanimously concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center did not prove any compensatory damages. Id. at 2.

The parties have filed three post-trial motions since the jury reached its verdict.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for nominal damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or in the alternative, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Pls.’ Mot. for Nominal Damages Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), or in the Alternative, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), ECF No. 255 (Dec. 2, 2021) ("Pls.’ Mot.").

The Town of Cromwell filed a renewed motion for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Def.’s Renewed Mot. for J. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and, in the Alternative, Mot. for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, ECF No. 249 (Nov. 12, 2021) ("Def.’s JMOL"); Def.’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for J. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and, in the Alternative, Mot. for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, ECF No. 249-1 (Nov. 12, 2021) ("Def.’s JMOL Mem."). The Town of Cromwell also filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment. Mot. for Stay of Execution of J. Without Bond or Other Security, ECF No. 254 (Dec. 2, 2021) ("Def.’s Mot. for Stay"); Def.’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Stay of Execution of J. Without Bond or Other Security, ECF No. 254-1 (Dec. 2, 2021) ("Def.’s Mem. for Stay").³

On April 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ post-trial motions. Min. Entry, ECF No. 271 (Apr. 14, 2022).

For the reasons outlined below, the motion for nominal damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) is GRANTED ; the renewed motion for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and, in the alternative, motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is DENIED ; and the motion for stay of execution of judgment is DENIED .

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of the case.

Based on the testimony, and other evidence admitted at the trial, the jury reasonably could have determined the following happened:

On March 26, 2015, Gilead purchased the home at 5 Reiman Drive, with the intention of turning it into a group home. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 76: 6–7.

Days later, on or about March 29, 2015, residents of the Town of Cromwell created a Facebook group called Reiman Strong. Members used this Facebook group to share updates concerning Gilead's plan to convert the home at 5 Reiman Drive into a group home. Pls.’ Ex. 102 (capturing all posts on the Facebook page from March 29, 2015 through May 10, 2016). Members of the Facebook group openly shared their hopes that Gilead would abandon its plans for 5 Reiman Drive. See, e.g. , Pls.’ Ex. 52 (comments in response to a Facebook post, including a comment where Diane Uccello, an administrator of the Facebook group, said she hoped to soon "see a For Sale sign" at 5 Reiman Drive).

Toward the end of March 2015, Daniel Osborne, the Chief Executive Officer of Gilead, spoke with Town Manager Anthony Salvatore, to inform Mr. Salvatore that Gilead had purchased the home at 5 Reiman Drive. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 83:7–23, 84:13–21. Town Manager Salvatore noted having already received calls from concerned residents. Id. Mr. Osborne also met with several members of Town of Cromwell leadership, including the Mayor, the Town Manager, and a representative from the school system, among others. A public forum was recommended at this meeting. Id. at 84:13–25, 85:22–86:6.

On April 20, 2105, even before Gilead moved residents into 5 Reiman Drive in Cromwell, key Town of Cromwell officials, including the Mayor Vincent Faienza, Town Manager Salvatore, members of the Town of Cromwell Council, the Chief of the Police Department, the Chief of the Fire Department, the Town's Planning Director, the head of the Building Department, and the Superintendent of Schools, as well as numerous Town of Cromwell residents voiced opposition to the opening of the group home. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 89:11–13, 94:1–7, 94:23–100:19 (Mr. Osborne's testimony concerning the comments made by Town of Cromwell officials and residents at the April 20, 2015 public forum); Trial Tr. vol. 2, 335:1–14, 338:6–341:6 (the moderator of the forum explaining that all of the town leaders spoke at the forum before Gilead presented, and also noting that residents shouted questions out of order); Trial Tr. vol. 3, 542:14–20 (examination of Town Manager Salvatore, "Q: Do you recall at the town forum the mayor stating that the number of group homes in town should be limited the way that package stores are limited? A: I recall something like that, but that was kind of like an analogy of how the number of package stores are decided for a jurisdiction."); Trial Tr. vol. 3, 626:12–17 (examination of Mayor Faienza, "Q: ... did you say at the ... public forum, ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ‘Where does this end? How many group homes are going to be established in Cromwell?’ A: Yes, at some point in there I did."); Pls.’

Ex. 23 (remarks of Diane Uccello—a resident who publicly spoke against the 5 Reiman Drive group home—prepared for the forum, in which she states "[h]ow will it be for your clients—in a neighborhood where [they] will not feel accepted nor wanted?").

On April 21, 2015, the day after the public forum, Mayor Faienza issued a press release requesting that Gilead consider abandoning the home. Trial Tr. vol. 3, 543: 1–19 (Town Manager Salvatore identifying the press release and agreeing that it "communicates a preference from the [M]ayor's office that Gilead locate somewhere besides 5 Reiman"); Pls.’ Ex. 30 (April 21, 2015 Town of Cromwell press release which states that "[b]ecause of the lack of information provided by Gilead and [D]HMAS based on the concerns by those in attendance, Mayor Enzo Faienza is officially and public[ly] requesting, on behalf of the citizens of the Town of Cromwell, that Gilead consider relocating to a more suitable location"). The press release also was posted to the Reiman Strong Facebook group, which the Facebook members celebrated and commented on with praise for the Mayor and Town Manager. Pls.’ Ex. 52 (including a comment which says "[h]ats off to all who have contributed to this effort, especially the Mayor and Town manager. Sticking together for ‘Reiman Strong’ works").

Several weeks later, in May 2015, Gilead learned that the Town of Cromwell had petitioned the Department of Public Health to reject Gilead's license for the home, which Gilead did not believe it needed. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 109:22–110:12 (Mr. Osborne testifying that Gilead later learned that the Town of Cromwell "petitioned to deny a license for a program that didn't need a license"); Pls.’ Ex. 51 (May 13, 2015 press release from the Office of the Town Manager of the Town of Cromwell, stating that "[a]s as result of Gilead Community Services attempting to install another community residence in the Town of Cromwell, Acting Town Manager Anthony Salvatore, with the support of Mayor Enzo Faienza and the Town Council, petitioned the Commissioner of Public Health to deny Gilead ... authority to install another community residence in the Town of Cromwell"). On May 29, 2015, the Department of Public Health wrote to Gilead stating that it did not require a license to run its group home. Pls.’ Ex. 59. On June 29, 2015, Town Manager Salvatore filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the Department of Public Health reconsider its decision to not require a license to operate in the Town of Cromwell. Def. Ex. 561.

After the Department of Public Health petition failed, the Town sent Gilead a cease-and-desist letter. In this July 1, 2015 letter, the Town of Cromwell claimed that the 5 Reiman Drive home "appears to be in violation of the Town of Cromwell Zoning Regulations" and that the property should not be used "without first obtaining all necessary zoning permits," or else Gilead would incur a fine of $150 per day. Pls.’ Ex. 75. On July 8, 2015, the Town withdrew the cease and desist on the condition that Gilead did not move in more than two residents into the 5 Reiman Drive property. Pls.’ Ex. 84.

On July 16, 2015, Gilead received a letter from the Cromwell Town Assessor...