ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants, Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc. and Jeanne Kulick's, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law [DE 277]. The Court has carefully reviewed Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition thereto [DE 309], and Defendants' Reply [DE 323], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action for discrimination on the basis of familial status in the rental of housing in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.20 et seq. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that on March 20, 2013, Jonathan Merrigan posted an advertisement on Craigslist offering a particular unit in the Sonoma Bay condominium development for rent. See DE 93 ¶¶ 59-60. This advertisement contained a list of "HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION REQUIREMENTS," which included "report cards for children under 18." See id. ¶ 60; DE 93-2. On March 21, 2013, a "tester" for The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. (the "Fair Housing Center")—one of the Plaintiffs in this case—contacted Jonathan Merrigan, who confirmed that he was the leasing agent representing the owner of the unit and that applicants were required to submit a report card for minor children. See DE 93 ¶ 61. Plaintiffs allege that the inclusion of this requirement in the advertisement posted on Craigslist expressed a preference for families without children and imposed a limitation on families with children, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)1 and Fla. Stat. § 760.23(3).2 See id. ¶ 60.

In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendants Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Sonoma Bay HOA") and Jeanne Kulick seek judgment in their favor as a matter of law solely as to their liability for the March 20, 2013 Craigslist advertisement posted by Jonathan Merrigan. See DE 277; DE 323 ¶ 3. In support, Defendants have submitted the Affidavit of Jeanne Kulick as evidence that (1) all rentals within Sonoma Bay are private; (2) Sonoma Bay does not advertise for the rental or sale of units and does not participate in multiple listing services; (3) neither Sonoma Bay HOA, nor Jeanne Kulick, as president of Sonoma Bay HOA, had any involvement with or awareness of the drafting or publishing of the Craigslist advertisement; (4) Jonathan Merrigan is not affiliated with Sonoma Bay; and (5) neither Jeanne Kulick nor anyone else from Sonoma Bay met with the Fair Housing Center tester, communicated with the tester, or provided the tester with the Sonoma Bay Rental Application and Rules and Regulations. See DE 277 ¶¶ 9-12; id. at 9-11.

In their Response, Plaintiffs concede that they "have no information to refute that Sonoma Bay does not advertise the rental of units. ..." See DE 309 at 2. Plaintiffs otherwise fail to address, much less controvert, the Affidavit of Jeanne Kulick or Defendants' statement of material facts with respect to the Craigslist advertisement posted by Jonathan Merrigan. See DE 309. Plaintiffs do not argue that Sonoma Bay HOA and Jeanne Kulick should be held liable for the Craigslist advertisement. See id. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment is inappropriate because Sonoma Bay HOA and Jeanne Kulick directly violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) and Fla. Stat. § 760.23(3) in other ways, such as posting Sonoma Bay's Rental Application and Rules and Regulations on its website and distributing the same upon request. See id.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party." Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008). A fact is material if "it would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id.

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court does not weigh conflicting evidence. See Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, upon discovering a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court must deny summary judgment. See id.

Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a), both a motion for summary judgment and the opposition thereto must be accompanied by a statement of material facts that, among other things, is "supported by specific references to pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits on file with the Court. ..." Where an opposing party fails to controvert the movant's statement of material facts, Local Rule 56.1(b) provides as follows:

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Defendants' statement of material facts, supported by specific references to the Affidavit of Jeanne Kulick, establishes that (1) all rentals within Sonoma Bay are private; (2) Sonoma Bay does not advertise for the rental or sale of units and does not participate in multiple listing services; (3) neither Sonoma Bay HOA, nor Jeanne Kulick, as President of Sonoma Bay HOA, had any involvement with or awareness of the drafting or publishing of the Craigslist advertisement; (4) Jonathan Merrigan is not affiliated with Sonoma Bay; and (5) neither Jeanne Kulick nor anyone else from Sonoma Bay met with the Fair Housing Center tester, communicated with the tester, or provided the tester with the Sonoma Bay Rental Application and Rules and Regulations. See DE 277 ¶¶ 9-12; id. at 9-11. Plaintiffs have failed to controvert these facts in their own statement of material facts and have presented no evidence to the contrary. See DE 309. These facts are therefore deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(b).

In light of these undisputed facts, a reasonable trier of fact could not hold Sonoma Bay HOA or Jeanne Kulick liable for any violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) or Fla. Stat. § 760.23(3) arising from the March 20, 2013 Craigslist advertisement posted by Jonathan Merrigan. The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and Sonoma Bay HOA and Jeanne Kulick are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.3 See Miccosukee, 516 F.3d at 1243.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants, Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Inc. and Jeanne Kulick's, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law [DE 277] is GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED.