On May 31, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (E.D. Va.). The complaint alleges that from 2005 to 2009, SunTrust Mortgage discriminated against at least 20,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers across the country by systematically charging higher discretionary broker fees and retail loan markups to those borrowers than to white borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, provides for a $21 million settlement fund and for injunctive relief specifying that SunTrust Mortgage must maintain for at least three years specific improved pricing policies and fair lending monitoring that it has adopted since the conduct at issue in the complaint occurred.

On April 2, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. ("GFI") violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating against African-American and Hispanic borrowers in the pricing of home-mortgage loans. Specifically, the United States alleges that from 2005 through at least 2009, GFI charged African-American and Hispanic borrowers significantly higher interest rates and fees than it charged to similarly-situated white borrowers for home loans, resulting in thousands of dollars in overcharges to minority borrowers because of race or national origin. The complaint alleges that GFI had a policy or practice of allowing and encouraging its loan officers to promote loan products, price loans, and charge fees in a manner that was unrelated to credit risk or loan characteristics. In addition, by providing loan officers a substantial percentage of the profits generated on each loan, GFI's compensation scheme provided strong financial incentives to loan officers to price their loan products in a discriminatory manner. The lawsuit also maintains that GFI failed to supervise, train or monitor its loan officers adequately to ensure that they were pricing loans in a non-discriminatory manner.

On December 28, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans and Countrywide Bank (C.D. Cal.), resolving the United States' claims of race, national origin and marital status discrimination in residential mortgage lending and providing $335 million in monetary relief for victims of discrimination. The claims in the United States' complaint, which was filed on December 21, 2011, are the largest pattern or practice lending discrimination violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ever alleged by the Division. The United States' complaint alleges that from 2004 to 2008, Countrywide discriminated against more than 10,000 Hispanic and African-American borrowers across the country by systematically giving those borrowers subprime loans while similarly-situated white borrowers received prime loans. The complaint also alleges that Countrywide discriminated against more than 200,000 Hispanic and African-American borrowers by systematically charging higher discretionary fees and markups to those borrowers than to white borrowers. The complaint further alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of marital status by encouraging non-applicant spouses to forfeit their property rights as part of their spouse obtaining a Countrywide loan. The consent order provides that the $335 million settlement fund will be distributed to victims by an independent administrator, and that if Countrywide re-enters the business of home mortgage lending, it must adopt fair lending policies and procedures that will be subject to review by the Division.

On October 4, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. C&F Mortgage Corporation (E.D. Va.), a pattern or practice case under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges that C&F charged greater interest rate markups (overages) and gave lesser discounts (underages) on home mortgage loans made to African-American and Hispanic borrowers by giving its employees wide discretion in overages and underages without having in place objective criteria for setting the overages and underages. The complaint alleges that this policy had a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic borrowers. The consent order resolves the case by requiring C&F to develop uniform policies for all aspects of its loan pricing and to phase out the practice of charging overages to home mortgage borrowers. The settlement also requires the bank to pay $140,000 to black and Hispanic victims of discrimination, monitor its loans for potential disparities based on race or national origin, and provide equal credit opportunity training to its employees.

On August 23, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission and refused to enjoin its investigation of an individual's Fair Housing Act national origin discrimination complaint. The court's opinion in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission (E.D. Pa.) held PHRC's investigation "is not subject to federal preemption" because it is specifically authorized and required by federal law," as set out in the Fair Housing Act. The court reasoned that granting USAA's request "would render the FHA anti-discrimination provision a nullity and unenforceable where a federal savings and loan institution discriminated" and "would frustrate the antidiscrimination enforcement scheme intended by Congress." The court also stated that federal banking law does not preempt state antidiscrimination laws that require banks to follow the same requirements as federal fair lending law. On April 28, 2011, the Division filed a statement of interest, arguing that federal banking law does not preempt state agencies enforcing state laws from investigating a federally chartered bank because the Fair Housing Act specifically provides for substantially equivalent state agencies to investigate fair housing complaints.

On May 29, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a proposed final partial consent decree in United States & Willborn v. Sabbia, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act case. The complaint, filed on September 20, 2010, alleges that the owners, listing agent and listing broker of a five-bedroom, 8,000 square foot single-family home in Chicago, Illinois discriminated on the basis of race (African-American), in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3605 and 3617, by refusing to sell the home to radio and TV personality George Willborn and his wife and their two children. On November 9, 2011, the court entered a partial consent decree with the listing agent and listing broker, requiring the payment of $30,000 to the Willborns' real estate agent, Dylcia Cornelious, fair housing training and the ability of the United States to conduct compliance testing; the Willborns entered into a confidential settlement with the same defendants in a related case. In the final partial consent decree with the homeowner defendants, Ms. Cornelious will receive $6,000. The Willborns have entered into another separate confidential settlement.

On May 24, 2012, the court entered a settlement agreement in United States v. Richardson (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleged that defendants Ryan Richardson and Ryan Smith conducted a campaign of racial harassment against their neighbors, and their four minor children. The decree requires the defendants to: pay $10,000 to the family and $3,000 to the Toledo Fair Housing Center; issue written apologies to the complainants; submit retractions to police, child welfare authorities, animal welfare organizations, professional organizations, and neighbors of all the complaints they filed against the complainants; be enjoined from contacting them, their children, or any members of their immediate families, including through social media such as Facebook; and attend fair housing training. The decree has a five-year term.

On April 26, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Wheeling Housing Authority (N.D. W. Va.), a Fair Housing Act case. In the complaint, which was filed on January 14, 2011, the Division alleged that the Wheeling Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race and color when it failed to act on the complaints of African-American tenants who were being racially harassed by a white neighbor. The consent order includes monetary damages to the African-American family totaling $18,500.

On April 17, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Burgundy Gardens, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act case filed by the United States Attorney's Office. The complaint, filed on December 8, 2010, based in part on testing conducted by the Civil Rights Division's Fair Housing Testing Program, alleged that the owner of Burgundy Gardens Apartments discriminated against persons on the basis of race and color, by, among other things, telling African Americans that certain apartments were not available while telling non-African Americans that such apartments were in fact available, and quoting higher rent prices to African Americans. In the consent decree, the defendant admits that its former on-site agent gave incorrect or incomplete information to African-American prospective tenants about the availability of apartments and failed to show available apartments to African-Americans. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay a $25,000 civil penalty and $150,000 into a victim fund to compensate persons who were harmed by its discriminatory practices.

On April 11, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Mercker (S.D. Miss.). The complaint alleges that Theresa O. Mercker violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by evicting a married couple and their five minor children from a home with three bedrooms and a den because there were too many people living in the house. The consent order requires Ms. Mercker to allow the maximum number of occupants permitted under the applicable local occupancy codes to live in her rental units, to undergo training on the Fair Housing Act, and to pay a total of $6,000 to the family.

On January 31, 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement in United States v. Brown (E.D. Mich.), a case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of familial status by the owner of a small apartment complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The settlement agreement requires the defendant to pay $9,000 into a settlement fund for victims and a $3,000 civil penalty.

On January 27, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed an amended complaint in United States v. Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that the owners and managers of a 72-unit rental building located in the Riverdale area of the Bronx misrepresented the availability of apartments, quoted higher prices, failed to provide rental applications, and failed to show apartments to African American testers while similarly situated white testers were told about apartments, shown apartments, provided applications, and quoted lower prices.

On November 30, 2011, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Harris (E.D. Mo.). The United States' Fair Housing Act complaint, filed in November 2009, and amended on October 10, 2011, alleged that Mr. Harris, the property manager of a federally subsidized property in Rolla, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of race and sex, sexually harassed female tenants, and retaliated and intimidated tenants who reported his unlawful conduct. The suit also named as defendants Hediger Enterprises Inc., Carroll Management Group, Forum Manor Associates L.P. and Forum Manor LLC, which jointly owned and managed the subject property, Forum Manor. Under the consent decree, Mr. Harris' employment was terminated, he has been permanently enjoined from managing federally subsidized properties, and corporate defendants will undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, implement non-discrimination policies and procedures, and report periodically to the Department. The defendants are also required to pay $260,000 to the aggrieved persons and $35,000 to the United States in civil penalties.

On November 17, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Dovenberg Investments (W.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act case referred by HUD. The complaint, filed on October 28, 2011, alleges that the owner and manager of a two bedroom single-family home located on a cattle farm in Bangor, Wisconsin discriminated on the basis of sex and familial status when they refused to rent the home to a single mother and her young son because there would be no man to shovel the snow and help them survive the brutal winters. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay the mother and her son $15,000 in damages, to attend fair housing training and to sign a letter of apology.

On October 31, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Ruth (N.D. Ohio), alleging that the owners of apartments in Massillon, Ohio discriminated on the basis of race and familial status when renting their apartments, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants and their agents have denied apartments to African-American prospective tenants, misrepresented the availability of units to African-American prospective tenants, and have treated similarly situated African-American and white tenants and prospective tenants differently at three apartment complexes. The complaint also alleges that the defendants have discriminated against families with children, including denying families with children the opportunity to rent upper-level apartments and restricting families with children to basement-level apartments.

On October 26, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Geneva Terrace Apartments, Inc. (W.D. Wis.), alleging that the manager and owner of an apartment complex in La Crosse, Wisconsin told prospective African-American renters that apartments were not available when they were, while telling prospective white renters that there were apartments available. The complainants contacted the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, which conducted testing that supported the allegations.

On September 21, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Altman (D. S.C.), a Fair Housing Act case developed by the Civil Rights Division's Fair Housing Testing Program. The complaint alleges that the owner of an apartment complex in Summerville, South Carolina has discouraged families with children from living in the apartment complex.

On September 2, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Bouchon (E.D. La.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging that the owners and operators of a 16 unit apartment complex in New Orleans, Louisiana denied housing to African American prospective renters on the basis of race and color. The decree requires defendants to pay $70,000 in damages and penalties, adopt non-discriminatory policies and procedures and comply with specified reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

On July 29, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Loki Properties (D. Minn.). The complaint, filed on June 24, 2010, alleges that the owner and manager of a four unit apartment building in Red Wing, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to a African-American man who was trying to use a Section 8 voucher because of the combination of his race and his gender. The consent decree requires fair housing training, recordkeeping and reporting, and the payment of $15,000 in damages to the complainant.

On July 13, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Tel-Clinton Trailer Courts, Inc. (E.D. Mich.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, filed on July 5, 2011, alleges that Tel-Clinton Trailer Courts Inc., the owner and operator of Shamrock Village Mobile Home Park in Monroe, Michigan, discriminated against families with children by preventing families with more than one child from residing there. Under the consent decree the defendants will pay $27,500 in damages and civil penalties, including a fund for individuals who suffered damages as a result of the defendants' conduct. The defendants will also develop and maintain non-discrimination policies at Shamrock Village and provide fair housing training to their employees. This case was based on testing conducted by the Fair Housing Council of Washtenaw County.

On April 30, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on July 5, 2011, alleged that MGIC violated the Fair Housing Act by requiring women on maternity leave to physically return to work before approving their applications for mortgage insurance. The settlement creates a $511,250 fund to compensate victims, including $42,500 for the HUD complainant and $468,750 to 69 additional aggrieved persons identified through the Division's review of applications MGIC underwrote between July 2007 and September 2010, and a $38,750 civil penalty to the United States. It also sets out detailed provisions that MGIC must follow in underwriting future applications involving paid or unpaid maternity or paternity leave.

On August 16, 2011, the court granted the United States' motion for default judgment against five owner-defendants in United States v. Bahr (M.D. Ala.) a Fair Housing Act case alleging that Jamarlo Gumbaytay sexually harassed female tenants while managing apartments in Montgomery, Alabama on behalf of numerous owner-defendants. Additionally, based on evidence submitted at an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fuller granted the United States' proposal for injunctive relief and awarded $26,750 in damages for eight aggrieved persons (ranging from $500 to $7,000) and assessed $15,000 in civil penalties across the five defaulted owner-defendants. Combining the above figures with earlier consent decrees, the Department secured $88,300 in damages for 19 women and $19,450 in civil penalties against 13 owner-defendants for a grand total award of $107,750.

On February 27, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Fox Point at Redstone Association (D. Utah), a Fair Housing Act case in which the United States alleged that a condominium association and its property manager prohibited a former resident with disabilities from keeping an emotional support animal. The complaint also alleged that defendants also attempted to charge the resident "pet" fees and required that he purchase liability insurance for the animal. The complaint further alleged that when the resident refused to pay the pet fees, the defendants fined his landlord, who then refused to renew the resident's lease. Under the consent decree, the former resident will receive $20,000 in damages, and the defendants will adopt a new policy that removes all fees and insurance requirements for service animals.

On February 14, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Woodbury Gardens Redevelopment Co. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that a housing cooperative for senior adults in Woodbury, New York refused to allow a bed-ridden woman with depression, anxiety, severe pulmonary hypertension, cirrhosis and diabetes to keep an emotional support animal during the last year of her life, and then, after she died, threatened to evict her husband if he did not pay fines related to the dog.

On January 4, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Hialeah Housing Auth. (S.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on September 26, 2008, alleged that a public housing authority refused to transfer a man with a mobility impairment to a unit with a bedroom and a bathroom on the same floor. On April 19, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant. On June 29, 2011, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The consent order requires the housing authority to pay $20,000 to the Rodriguez family, adopt nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation policies and provide fair housing training to its employees.

On November 23, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Univ. of Nebraska (D. Neb.), alleging that the University of Nebraska at Kearney ("UNK") violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by denying a reasonable accommodation request by a student with a disability (anxiety) to live with her emotional support animal in off-campus student apartments. The complaint further alleges that UNK denied her request because she could not produce documentation from her doctor that the dog had been trained as a service animal as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and that UNK required the student to fulfill unduly onerous and intrusive requirements to document her disability, including submitting to counseling sessions by UNK's own counselor.

On June 25, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. JPI Construction, LP (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on March 4, 2009, alleged that the defendants designed and constructed multifamily housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $10.25 million to establish an accessibility fund to increase the stock of accessible housing in the communities where defendants' properties are located, including providing retrofits at defendants' properties. It is the Division's largest ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement fund. The defendants are also required to pay a $250,000 civil penalty and, in the event they reenter the multifamily development or construction business, to construct all future housing in compliance with the FHA and ADA and comply with training and reporting requirements.

On May 25, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. 475 Ninth Avenue Associates, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice design and construction case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed together with the consent decree by the United States Attorney's Office on May 25, 2012, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct Hudson Crossing, a 259-unit apartment building in New York City, in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The decree provides injunctive relief and requires retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and within the dwellings. The decree requires the defendants to pay up to $115,000 to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices at Hudson Crossing, with unspent monies to be distributed to a qualified organization conducting fair housing enforcement-related activities in New York City. The decree also contains a $20,000 civil penalty.

On January 26, 2012, the court entered the final partial consent order with the architect in United States v. Larkspur, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The consent orders, including a prior partial consent decree with the developers, require the defendants to pay $60,000 in damages and $55,000 in civil penalties. The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2011, alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act's accessibility provisions at an apartment complex in Manhattan.

On December 8, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Cogan (W.D. Ky.), a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the owners, developer, and design professionals involved in the design and construction of Park Place Apartments, a multi-family housing complex in Louisville, KY with 138 covered ground-level units. The complaint, filed on August 10, 2010, alleged the defendants discriminated against persons with disabilities when they designed and constructed Park Place in violation of the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The decree provides for significant retrofits of the covered units, the public and common use areas and the accessible routes. It also provides $275,000 in compensation for 29 identified aggrieved victims.

On October 26, 2011, the court entered a final partial consent order with Thomas & Hutton Construction Co., the site engineer in United States v. Genesis Designer Homes (S.D. Ga.). The complaint, which was filed on September 26, 2007, and amended on November 12, 2008, was consolidated with private litigation brought by Savannah-Chatham County Fair Housing Council, Inc. (SCFHC). The cases challenged the failure to design and construct two multifamily housing developments to be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act. The partial consent order with Thomas & Hutton requires it to fund and provide an array of services to retrofit the public and common use areas of both properties, including a payment of $2,000 to LIFE, Inc., a non-profit advocacy organization for persons with disabilities, to administer the oversight of the public and common use area retrofits; pay $227,500 into a retrofit fund to fund selected retrofits for approach walks to units at the two properties; and pay $50,000 to named aggrieved persons and $158,375 in monetary damages to SCFHC. On June 13, 22 and 30, 2011, the court entered partial consent orders resolving the United States' claims against the three other defendants: Genesis Designer Homes, Inc., Malphrus Construction Co. and Genesis Real Estates Group, LLC, respectively. All three entities have gone out of business.

On September 30, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Montagne Development, Inc. (D. Or.), alleging that developers and builders failed to design and construct 112 ground floor apartments in Salem, Oregon in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements.

On July 22 and 25, 2011, the court entered consent decrees in United States v. L&M 93rd Street LLC (The Melar) (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice design and construction case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2010, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct a 143-unit apartment building in New York City in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The consent decrees require the defendants to establish a $180,000 settlement fund, pay $80,000 in civil penalties, establish a $288,300 Accessibility Project Fund, obtain training on accessibility requirements and retrofit the units to make them comply with the Fair Housing Act.

On June 21, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Colorado City (D. Ariz.) against the town of Colorado City, Ariz.; the City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Water Authority; and Twin City Power, alleging a pattern or practice of police misconduct and violations of federal civil rights laws. The adjoining towns of Colorado City and Hildale are located on the border of Arizona and Utah and are populated primarily by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). The FLDS is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The complaint alleges discrimination based on religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the first lawsuit by the Justice Department to include claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The complaint alleges that the cities, their joint police department and local utility providers under the cities' control have allowed the FLDS Church to improperly influence the provision of policing services, utility services and access to housing and public facilities, and that this improper influence has led to discriminatory treatment against non-FLDS residents.

On April 19, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of New Berlin (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed on June 23, 2011, alleges that the City withdrew its initial approval for the construction of a Low Income Housing Tax Credit affordable housing development in response to race-based opposition from community residents and also took actions in response to that opposition to prevent the future construction of affordable housing. The Division, as well as the project's developer, had previously filed motions for a preliminary injunction, after which the City agreed to allow the construction of the project. Under the consent decree, the City is enjoined from further obstructing completion of the development. The City is also required to reverse its actions that prevented the development of other affordable housing and must implement a housing outreach plan to encourage developers of affordable housing to come to New Berlin. The City will also be required to establish a Housing Trust Fund that is capitalized initially with $75,000 to assist projects that promote affordable housing and residential integration in the City. City officials must also receive fair housing training, and the City must pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

On January 31, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. St. Bernard Parish (E.D. La.), alleging that the Parish violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a multi-year campaign to limit rental housing opportunities for African Americans through exclusionary zoning practices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These practices include the establishment of a restrictive permit-approval process for single-family rentals, the elimination of multi-family zoning from most of the parish zoning map, and repeated attempts to block the construction of multi-family affordable-housing developments on pretextual grounds. The complaint alleges that the Parish's actions disproportionately disadvantaged African-American renters in St. Bernard Parish.

On November 21, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Santa Rosa (N.D. Cal.), alleging that the city and homeowners' association discriminated against families with children by enforcing a 55-and-over age requirement included in the zoning designation and restrictive covenants.

On August 4, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Joliet (N.D. Ill.) alleging that the City's actions to condemn and take by eminent domain a Section 8 project-based affordable housing complex known as Evergreen Terrace violated the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that the City has not put forth a reasonable plan to provide safe and affordable replacement housing for the displaced residents, 96% of whom are African-American, and that the condemnation will have a discriminatory impact on that protected class. The complaint also includes a claim that the City's actions violate the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA), which prohibits discrimination in any program funded in whole or in part by HUD funds granted under the HCDA, which includes Community Development Block Grants.

On May 25, 2012, the Division filed a statement of interest in O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV-USA), et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County (D. N.M.). In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant unlawfully denied their application to build a temple in Santa Fe County on land that is religiously significant to members and where they had conducted religious services for 14 years, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and other constitutional and statutory provisions. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, arguing in part that plaintiffs had not stated a claim under RLUIPA. The statement of interest filed by the United States opposes defendant's motion, and argues that plaintiffs have stated a claim under RLUIPA's substantial burden, equal terms, and non-discrimination provisions.

On September 12, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Henrico County (E.D. Va.), a religious discrimination case brought under RLUIPA alleging that the county discriminated against an Islamic group seeking to construct a mosque by denying the group's application for rezoning. The decree requires the county to conduct RLUIPA training, report to the United States, retain records, and expedite other permitting needed for the Islamic group to construct the mosque.

On September 1, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Lilburn (N.D. Ga.), a religious discrimination case brought under RLUIPA alleging that the city discriminated against an Islamic group seeking to construct a mosque by denying the group's applications for rezoning and a special use permit. The settlement requires the city to conduct RLUIPA training, establish procedures for addressing RLUIPA complaints, report to the United States, retain records, and expedite other permitting needed for the Islamic group to construct the mosque.

On August 4, 2011, the court entered an agreed order in United States v. City of Walnut (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 13, 2010, alleges that the City violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), when, in 2008, it denied a conditional use permit to the Chung Tai Zen Center. The Zen Center sought the permit so that it could build and operate a Buddhist house of worship at property it then owned in the city. The agreed order, which is enforceable by the court, mandates that the City not impose differential zoning or building requirements on houses of worship. The City also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the City will adopt new procedures that clarify its appeals process for houses of worship, and will report periodically to the Justice Department. The Buddhist house of worship's private claims have not been settled, and trial is expected to occur in April or May 2012.

On July 12, 2011, the court issued an order in Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.), granting the congregation's motion for partial summary judgment and denying the City's motion for summary judgment. The court quoted and relied heavily on the statement of interest that the United States submitted in support of the Congregation's motion in finding that the City's denial of a conditional use permit to worship in a residential district constituted both substantial burden and as-applied equal terms violations under RLUIPA. The court also preliminarily enjoined the City from taking any actions that would prevent the Congregation from using the property in a manner consistent with its requested conditional use permit.

On May 21, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a complaint in United States v. Occoquan Forest Drive, LLC (E.D. Va.), alleging that the owners of a single-family home in Manassas, Virginia violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by refusing to return a $2,450 security deposit and imposing over $5,000 in unjustified charges on an Air Force Major when he tried to terminate his lease. The Air Force Major was serving at the Pentagon as Deputy Chief in the Operational and Export Policy Division when he received permanent change of station orders to serve as Assistant Director of Operations at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

On May 2, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. B.C. Enterprises, Inc. ("Aristocrat") (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2008, and amended on November 2, 2009, alleged that a towing company in Norfolk, Virginia towed and sold a Navy Lieutenant's car without a court order, in violation of the SCRA. The complaint also alleged that the defendants may have towed and sold at least twenty servicemembers' cars without court orders. Pursuant to the consent order, the defendants must pay $75,000 in damages and repair the credit of the aggrieved servicemembers. On November 6, 2009, the court issued an order on summary judgment resolving "a question of first impression" by adopting the United States' position that Section 537 of the SCRA is a strict liability statute and finding that servicemembers need not notify towing companies of their active duty status in order to benefit from the SCRA's protections. This matter was referred to the Department of Justice by the United States Navy.

On March 8, 2012, court entered a and a consent order in United States v. Empirian Property Mgmt, Inc. (D. Neb.). The complaint, filed on March 1, 2012, alleges that Empirian, a corporation that manages numerous apartment complexes throughout the United States, including Nebraska, refused to terminate at least four residential leases entered into by active duty members of the United States Air Force assigned to Offutt Air Force Base, and/or refused to refund security deposits due, after those servicemembers received military orders for a permanent change of station and provided Empirian with copies of those orders and written notices of lease termination. The consent order, requires the defendant to pay a total of $12,500 in damages to four identified servicemembers, and up to $20,000 to compensate any additional servicemembers harmed by Empirian's actions.

On November 10, 2011, the United States announced that servicemembers whose homes were unlawfully foreclosed upon will each receive a minimum $116,785 plus compensation for any equity lost in United States v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (C.D. Cal.), a casebrought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). The complaint , filed on May 26, 2011, alleged that Countrywide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corp., foreclosed without court orders on the pre-service residential mortgages of approximately 160 individuals who were in military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA in states that allowed for non-judicial foreclosure from January 1, 2006 through May 31, 2009, and that Countrywide failed to check consistently for the military status of mortgagors prior to foreclosure. The consent order, entered on May 31, 2011, requires Countrywide to establish a $20 million victim fund to compensate servicemembers foreclosed on between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2009, in violation of the SCRA. The consent order also requires Countrywide to compensate any additional victims from June 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Moreover, Countrywide will not pursue any remaining amounts owing under the mortgages and must take steps to remedy negative credit reporting directly resulting from Countrywide's foreclosures of affected servicemembers' loans. Further, the consent order requires Countrywide to adopt measures designed to help secure the SCRA rights of servicemembers going forward. These measures include a monitoring program to test for effective compliance with the SCRA, training on the SCRA for employees who provide customer service to servicemembers or who have significant involvement in any aspect of the mortgage foreclosure process, systematic checks of the Defense Manpower Data Center's SCRA database during the foreclosure process, as well as record-keeping and reporting requirements to the United States. Finally, Countrywide must perform an audit of its compliance with the provision of the SCRA limiting the interest rate to 6% on certain credit obligations.