Housing And Civil Enforcement Cases Documents

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS RAIMO; DENRAY
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.;
DENRAY MANAGEMENT

           Defendants.

____________________________________

I.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The United States has brought this action against Defendants Dennis Raimo, Denray Insurance Services, Inc., and Denray Management Services, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), to enforce the provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C §§ 3601 et seq.

Defendant Dennis Raimo was the president of Denray Insurance Services, Inc., and Denray Management Services, Inc., which provided mortgage, insurance, and management services. At all times relevant to the actions forming the basis for the United States' complaint, the defendant companies were Illinois corporations doing business in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant Dennis Raimo is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois.

Defendants, along with several other parties not relevant to this Decree, were involved in selling a single-family house, located at 7113 South King Drive in Chicago, Illinois, in the Northern District of Illinois, to Theresa Hill; the sale closed on December 6, 2001. On August 27, 2002, Ms. Hill filed an administrative complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), and on November 6, 2002, Ms. Hill filed an amended complaint with HUD, alleging that the Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race and sex by: engaging in discriminatory financing in a residential real-estate transaction (42 U.S.C. § 3605); discriminating in provision of brokerage services (42 U.S.C. § 3606); discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of services and facilities (42 U.S.C. § 3604); and violating 42 U.S.C. § 3617, which prohibits interference, coercion, or intimidation with respect to the rights protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 3603, 3604, 3605, and 3606.

In resolution of the administrative complaint, Ms. Hill and Defendants signed a Conciliation Agreement that became effective on July 11, 2003, when it was approved by HUD. The Agreement required Defendants to pay Ms. Hill the sum of $1,000.00 upon the signing of the Agreement. Defendants also agreed to affirmatively advertise their products and services in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with HUD's advertising regulations and to incorporate the Equal Housing Opportunity logo in all of their ads and other marketing materials.

Mr. Raimo requested and was granted two extensions for paying the $1,000.00 to Ms. Hill. After these extensions, the due date for the payment was to be July 31, 2003. Mr. Raimo did not tender the payment on that date. HUD employees attempted to locate Mr. Raimo to ascertain when he would make the payment, but their efforts were unsuccessful. HUD therefore referred the matter to the Department of Justice for enforcement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(c). The Department filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 27, 2004.

Separately, on November 14, 2003, Ms. Hill filed a private lawsuit, Case No. 03-CV-8172, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, requesting relief against multiple defendants, including Raimo and Den Ray Mortgage Company. The complaint recited two claims each against Defendants Raimo and Den Ray Mortgage Company: one claim for common law fraud, based on the circumstances surrounding the sale of the single family house on South King Drive, and one claim to enforce the Conciliation Agreement. On March 5, 2004, the court entered an order granting default judgment jointly and severally against Raimo, Den Ray Mortgage Company, and a defendant who was not a party to the Conciliation Agreement, in the total amount of $42,170.14, plus an additional $5,088.00 in attorney's fees and costs. A copy of the judgment is attached to this Consent Decree. Ms. Hill has not collected or attempted to collect this judgment.

The parties have agreed that in order to avoid protracted and costly litigation, the controversy should be resolved without further litigation. Therefore, without a trial or adjudication of any of the facts alleged by the United States, the parties consent to the entry of this Decree, and agree that this Decree satisfies all judgments obtained and releases all claims against Defendants arising from both the United States' complaint and Ms. Hill's default judgment against Defendants Raimo and Den Ray Mortgage Company. This Decree does not resolve or otherwise address judgments or claims against the defendants in Ms. Hill's private lawsuit (Case No. 03-CV-8172) who were not named as defendants in this lawsuit.

II.    MONETARY RELIEF

1. Defendants shall pay to Theresa Hill the sum of $7,500.00. The parties acknowledge that the Defendants paid $2,000.00 of this amount to Ms. Hill on April 15, 2004. Defendants shall pay the remaining $5,500.00 to Ms. Hill in four equal installments of $1375.00 each, on May 15, 2004; June 15, 2004; July 15, 2004; and August 15, 2004. These four payments shall be made by certified or cashier's check made out to the John Marshall Law School, and mailed or hand-delivered to The John Marshall Law School Fair Housing Legal Clinic, 28 East Jackson Boulevard, Suite 500, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, Attn: F. Willis Caruso.

2. In consideration for this payment, Theresa Hill shall execute the release set forth in Appendix A.

III.    EFFECTIVE DATE, JURISDICTION,
AND REMEDIES FOR NONPERFORMANCE

1. The parties have consented to the entry of this Decree as indicated by the signatures below. This Consent Decree is effective immediately upon its entry by the Court.

2. The parties agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Decree to enforce the terms of the Decree, after which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The time limits for performance imposed by this Decree may be extended by mutual consent of the parties.

3. The parties to this Consent Decree shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Decree prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event of a failure by Defendants, whether willful or otherwise, to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Consent Decree or otherwise to act in violation of any provision thereof, the United States may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including but not limited to, an order requiring performance of an act, deeming an act to have been performed, or awarding any damages, costs and/or attorneys' fees that may be occasioned by the Defendants' violation of this Consent Decree.

Ordered this ______ day of __________________________, 2004.

For Plaintiff United States of America:

Contingent upon payment to Theresa Hill of $7,500.00 by Defendants, pursuant to the provisions of the Consent Decree entered in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in United States of America v. Dennis Raimo, et al., Case No. 04-CV-0621, Theresa Hill hereby releases and forever discharges Defendants Dennis Raimo, Denray Insurance Services, Inc., and Denray Management Services, Inc., of and from all legal and equitable or administrative claims or causes of action arising out of this lawsuit (Case No. 04-CV-0621) or of the related lawsuit (Case No. 03-CV-8172) or the default judgment entered therein, and all claims which were or could have been pursued based on these allegations, including all claims for costs and attorneys' fees.