Colvin v. Parker's Lake Apt

Background

Brenda Calloway Colvin applied for an apartment at Parkers Lake Apartments in March 2018. She told the apartment manager that she had credit concerns and was trying to remove a prior eviction from her records. After additional consideration, her first application was denied. She later expunged the prior eviction, reapplied, and was approved for a nine-month lease for Unit 1112 at $2,085 per month. She and her children moved in.

Colvin later reported problems with the unit’s refrigerator. The defendants’ records indicated that they responded to her complaints, and the refrigerator was replaced in March 2019. In January 2019, the defendants required her to pay future rent by money order, cashier’s check, or another approved form after two rent checks were returned for insufficient funds. The defendants then brought an eviction case in Minnesota state court, asserting that Colvin owed $7,502.67 in rent, fees, and other charges. The state court entered judgment for the defendants on May 20, 2019, while temporarily staying issuance of a writ allowing recovery of the premises.

Colvin filed this federal lawsuit on April 16, 2019. She alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by treating her differently because of race and familial status. She also filed a motion for injunctive relief, meaning a request for an early court order requiring or preventing certain conduct. A magistrate judge recommended denying that motion because, although Colvin showed a threat of irreparable harm, she had not shown that she was likely to succeed on her Fair Housing Act claim. On June 28, 2019, the court overruled her objections and adopted that recommendation.

Motions at Issue

Colvin filed a motion to reconsider the June 28 order and for an extension of time to submit evidence. She later filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the court treated as supplementing her reconsideration motion. She also referred to seeking a new trial under Rule 59(b).

The court noted that its local rules require permission and compelling circumstances before a party moves for reconsideration. Colvin had not obtained permission, but the court considered the substance of her motions. The court explained that its earlier assessment of her likelihood of success on the request for injunctive relief was not a final decision on whether she would ultimately win her Fair Housing Act claims. The lawsuit could continue through the ordinary stages of pleadings, discovery, motions, and possibly trial.

Colvin’s additional evidence included part of a Minnesota Department of Human Services plan identifying steps needed for her children to return to her custody, including maintaining safe and suitable housing. It also included the first page of a child-protection chronology stating that an officer found two unattended children, a nonfunctioning refrigerator, and no food except spoiled milk. The court concluded that the first exhibit was not relevant to the housing-discrimination claim and that the second did not change its analysis of the injunction factors or its conclusion that the magistrate judge had considered Colvin’s allegations about ignored maintenance requests.

Ruling

The court held that Colvin had not identified a basis to reconsider the June 28 order. Her request for more time to submit evidence was denied as moot because she had already submitted the evidence with her later motion, and a pretrial scheduling order had established discovery deadlines.

The court also held that Colvin’s request for a new trial or relief from judgment was moot because there had been no trial, final ruling on her claims, or final judgment. The order therefore states that:

- Colvin’s motion to reconsider the June 28, 2019 order and for an extension of time to submit evidence was denied and denied as moot. - Colvin’s motion for relief from judgment was denied and denied as moot.

This order addressed Colvin’s post-order motions; it did not decide the ultimate merits of her Fair Housing Act claims.