Curtis W. Andrade v. Westlo Management LLC

Syllabus

The defendants, Westlo Management LLC, Smith/Keen Limited Partners, and Lindsey Hahn, filed a petition for certiorari to challenge an order granting partial summary judgment on counts one, two, three, and seven of the plaintiffs' third amended complaint against Westlo in favor of the plaintiffs, Curtis W. Andrade and The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. On appeal, the defendants asserted that the existence of genuine issues of material fact precluded partial summary judgment, namely, on the issue of whether an accommodation of a pet policy was reasonable under the Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act and the federal Fair Housing Act. Additionally, the defendants contended that the commission did not have standing to intervene in this matter. <br><br>The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of the liability of Westlo, concluding that, due to the highly fact-specific nature of the assessment of an assistance animal, the issue was not within the purview of summary judgment, and thus genuine issues of material fact existed. The Supreme Court further held that it could not address the issue of the commission's intervention because Westlo failed to provide the Court with a proper transcript of the hearing on the commission's motion to intervene or the subsequent hearings conducted on Westlo's motion to vacate and motion to reconsider the respective orders granting the commission's intervention.<br> <br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed that portion of the order on review granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the issue of the liability of Westlo on counts one, two, three, and seven of the plaintiffs' third-amended complaint.