Motion to Dismiss Granted for the Defense

William S. Thomas, managing principal of the Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, P.C. firm in St. Louis, Missouri, recently won another case involving the Fair Housing Act. His client, a local engineering firm, was brought into a case as a third party defendant, and charged with violating the Fair Housing Act, in Federal District Court, in East St. Louis, Illinois.

The United States Department of Justice, through its Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, brought an original action against Dan Shiels, Shanrie Co., Inc., the owner, developer and contractor, Netemeyer Engineering Associates, Inc., a structural engineer who prepared plans and specifications, and Forest Hills, L.P., the Mark Twain Trust and Brian and Pamela Bauer, the owners of certain apartment buildings, alleging they were in violation of the Fair Housing Act’s “design and construct” provisions relating to handicap accessibility.

These defendants then brought a third party action against Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc., a civil engineering firm represented by Mr. Thomas, alleging that if the defendants were liable under the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(C) (2008), then TWM should be liable to them, claiming they participated in the design and construction of the Hartman Lane and Rockwood Apartments in St. Clair County, Illinois, such that they did not provide for accessibility to individuals with disabilities.

Mr. Thomas filed a Motion to Dismiss the matter, arguing that neither the express or implied language of the FHA allowed for third party actions for contribution or indemnity. The District Court agreed, and in its opinion granting TWM’s motion to dismiss, adopted Mr. Thomas’ arguments.

Last summer, Mr. Thomas tried the first case brought to trial under the FHA’s “design and construct” requirements, representing the same civil engineering company. After nearly three years of pretrial discovery and a week long trial, the jury deliberated for only 30 minutes and returned a unanimous 12-0 verdict in favor of Mr. Thomas’ client.