United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
M. Burt, Esq. Sanjeev Lath, pro se
R. Maxwell, Esq.
Brendan D. O'Brien, Esq.
Gregory V. Sullivan, Esq.
E. Will, Esq.
M. Wyatt, Esq.
Dufresne, pro se
McCafferty, United States District Judge
case now consists of eight claims against four defendants,
including a claim against Warren Mills and the Oak Brook
Condominium Owners' Association ("Association")
for violating 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) by creating a hostile
housing environment for Sanjeev Lath because of his sexual
orientation, race, or national origin. Before the court is a
motion for summary judgment filed by Mills and the
Association. Lath objects. For the reasons that follow,
defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate when the record shows that 'there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"
Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll.,
840 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Farmers Ins.
Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 782 (1st Cir. 2011);
citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). When a court considers a motion
for summary judgment, "[t]he evidence . . . must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . .
. and all reasonable inferences must be taken in that
party's favor." Harris v. Scarcelli (In
re Oak Knoll Assocs., L.P.), 835 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir.
2016) (citing Desmond v. Varrasso (In re
Varrasso), 37 F.3d 760, 763 (1st Cir. 1994)) .
owns a unit at Oak Brook. As of June 8, 2014, Mills also
owned a unit at Oak Brook, and was the president of the
Association's board of directors. Lath's hostile
housing environment claim is based upon the following
allegations concerning an incident that took place on June 8,
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis
alleges, that Defendant Warren Mills assaulted Lath, by
forcing his way into Lath's residence, and shouting
obscenities at Lath, calling him a "faggot" and
"sand nigger". Such actions of Mills were motivated
because of Lath's sexual orientation as a bisexual man,
and Lath's national origin and race.
Second Am. Compl. (doc. no. 48-1) ¶ 31. Lath claims that
the conduct described above violated 42 U.S.C. §
3604(b). Lath's § 3604(b) claim has been designated
as Count 1.