How To File In Small Claims Court In Tarrant County' title='How To File In Small Claims Court In Tarrant County' />Sheet3 Libarary CCaldwell EThePageant G1072G2604 The Bender Family Lineage Burnham May Cooper Abel and Polly Manny Cooper Fielding and Sarah HuntTheir Ancestors. Dallas County, Tarrant County, Denton County, Collin County. Ellis County. Invite you to join the. North Texas DWI Press Conference. Disclaimer All data and information provided on these pages, while believed to be accurate, is nonetheless provided for informational purposes only. The. Can I file suit in small claims court for the cost of the repairs Who would I go after, the driver. Small Claims Court in Tarrant County, TX How to Sue CPS in Federal Court What to Do If Child Protective Services Social Workers Are Investigating You Why the Child Protective Services Social Worker Isn. Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly. Summary of Emotional Support Animal Cases. I. Breed of Dog as Emotional Support Animal ESABhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., 7. F. 3d 1. 27. 7 1. Cir., 2. 01. 4. Appellee Ajit Bhogaita, who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder PTSD, filed suit against Appellant Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, Inc. Association for violating the disability provisions of the Federal and Florida Fair Housing Acts, 4. U. S. C. 3. 60. FHA and the Florida Fair Housing Act, when it enforced its pet weight policy 2. Bhogaita remove his emotional support dog from his condominium. The jury awarded Bhogaita 5,0. Bhogaita more than 1. This court affirmed that decision finding that there was evidence that the Association constructively denied appellees requested accommodation. In fact, the court opined, Neither Bhogaitas silence in the face of requests for information the Association already had nor his failure to provide information irrelevant to the Associations determination can support an inference that the Associations delay reflected an attempt at meaningful review. Chavez v. Aber, No. EP 1. 5 CV 0. KC, 2. WL 4. W. D. Tex. Aug. Plaintiffs sought damages stemming from Defendants refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs minor sons mental health disabilities by allowing Plaintiffs to keep a mixed breed pit bull as an emotional support animal in their rented duplex. Plaintiffs asserted 1 housing discrimination under the Federal Housing Act FHA, 2 unlawful retaliation under the FHA, 3 discrimination under the Texas Fair Housing Act TFHA, and 4 unlawful retaliation under 9. Texas Property Code. Defendants filed the Motion, seeking dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1. The court disagreed, finding this specific assistance animal did not pose a direct threat where a veterinarian found no signs of aggression. The court found Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded all claims and denied the Defendants motion to dismiss. Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Assn, Inc., 4. 9 F. Supp. 3d 1. 08. 2, 1. S. D. Fla. 2. 01. In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant argues Plaintiffs accommodation request under the Federal Fair Housing Act the FHA to modify Defendants no pet policy was unreasonable because Plaintiffs emotional support animal was a pit bull and pit bulls were banned by county ordinance. In denying the Defendants motion, the District Court found that changing a no pets policy for an emotional support animal was a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court also found that enforcing the county ordinance would violate the FHA by permitting a discriminatory housing practice. However, in line with US Department of Housing and Urban Development notices, the court found genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the dog posed a direct threat to members of the condominium association, and whether that threat could be reduced by other reasonable accommodations. II. Clean up or Care Responsibilities for Emotional Support Animal ESAWoodside Village v. Hertzmark, 1. 99. WL 2. 68. 29. 3 Conn. The question in this case is whether federal and state laws outlawing discrimination in housing prohibit the eviction of a mentally disabled defendant from his federally subsidized apartment because of his failure to comply with the plaintiffs pet policy. The plaintiff here had disabilities including schizophrenia and severe learning disabilities. The plaintiff landlord allowed tenants to keep pets, but required pet care, which included walking the dogs in a designated area and requiring that tenants use a pooper scooper to clean up behind their pets. The tenant defendant here does not dispute that he failed to comply, but claims the plaintiff landlord, as a recipient of federal funds, failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. The court found that plaintiff landlord did in fact accommodate the defendant tenants disability by either waiving the provisions of its pet policy or permitting the defendant to build a fenced in area for the dog in the rear of the defendants apartment. The eviction here was not based on the fact that defendant tenant possesses a dog, but on his demonstrated inability to comply with the plaintiffs pet policy. This, said the court, put other residents health, safety and comfort at risk. III. College or University Housing and Emotional Support Animal ESAUnited States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, 9. F. Supp. 2d 9. 74, 9. D. Neb. 2. 01. 3. This case considers whether student housing at the University of NebraskaKearney UNK is a dwelling within the meaning of the FHA. The plaintiff had a service dog or therapy dog as the court describes it trained to respond to her anxiety attacks. When she enrolled and signed a lease for student housing an apartment style residence about a mile off campus, her requests to have her service dog were denied, citing UNKs no pets policy for student housing. The United States, on behalf of plaintiff, filed this suit alleging that UNKs actions violated the FHA. UNK brought a motion for summary judgment alleging that UNKs student housing is not a dwelling covered by the FHA. Specifically, UNK argues that students are transient visitors and the student housing is not residential like other temporary housing migrant housing, halfway houses, etc. However, this court was not convinced, finding that UNKs student housing facilities are clearly dwellings within the meaning of the FHA. Velzen v. Grand Valley State Univ., 9. F. Supp. 2d 1. 03. W. D. Mich. 2. 01. On March 3. 0, 2. Plaintiff and the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan FHCWM brought suit against Defendants, a university, alleging unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act FHA, Federal Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act PWDCRA, for denying Plaintiffs request to keep an emotional support animal in on campus housing. All claims brought against the individual defendants were brought against them in their official capacities as university administrators. Plaintiffs sought both injunctive and compensatory relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1. The District Court decided the following would be dismissed 1 all claims under the PWDCRA against all defendants 2 all claims for compensatory damages under the FHA brought against all defendants 3 all claims for injunctive relief under the FHA brought against the institutional defendants 4 all claims for relief under the Rehabilitation Act by the FHCWM and 5 all claims for relief under the Rehabilitation Act by Plaintiff that depended on disparate treatment. The following claims remained 1 Plaintiff and the FHCWMs claims under the FHA seeking injunctive relief from the individual defendants and 2 Plaintiffs claims against all defendants for compensatory damages and injunctive relief under the Rehabilitation Act pursuant to the failure to accommodate theory. Can Am Spyder Driving Test. IV. Common Area Access for Emotional Support Animal ESAStevens v. Hollywood Towers Condo. Assn, 8. 36 F. Supp. N. D. Ill. 2. 01. Plaintiffs brought the instant suit contending that their Condo Boards refusal to accommodate the need for an emotional support animal forced them to sell their condo. The Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.