__________________________________________

SHIRLEY AND MOHAMMED DOKA )

3600 Turbridge Drive )

Montgomery County )

Burtonsville, MD 20866 )

(301) 890-3470 )

and )

THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL )

OF GREATER WASHINGTON )

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. )

Suite 500 )

Washington, D.C. 20005 )

(202) 289-5360 )

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION________________

GREENCASTLE LAKES COMMUNITY )

ASSOCIATION, INC. )

c/o The Management Group Associates, Inc. )

One Bank Street )

Suite 301 )

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 )

(301) 948-6666, )

THE MANAGEMENT GROUP )

ASSOCIATES, INC. )

One Bank Street )

Suite 301 )

Montgomery County )

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 )

(301) 948-6666, )

and )

JOHN S. TUMA )

3608 Turbridge Drive )

Montgomery County )

Burtonsville, MD 20866 )

(301) 890-3172 )

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

Plaintiffs, Shirley Dunbar Doka, Mohammed Doka, and the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, Inc. (the "FHC"), bring this action against defendants, the Greencastle Lakes Community Association (the "Association"), the Management Group Associates, Inc. (the "Management Group"), and John S. Tuma ("Tuma"), to obtain redress for racial harassment that has placed Mr. and Mrs. Doka and their two children at risk of physical and emotional harm. Beginning in September 1997 and continuing through the present, Tuma, a neighbor of the Dokas, has engaged in a relentless campaign of racial harassment to drive the Doka family out of their home. The harassment has entailed threats, the utterance of racial epithets and, on information and belief, the intentional and willful dumping of hazardous objects onto the Dokas’ property.

Since September 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Doka have repeatedly informed the Association and the Management Group of Tuma’s racial harassment and requested that they take action to protect them. Despite its knowledge of Tuma’s harassment, and despite the numerous steps that the Association and the Management Group could have taken to discipline Tuma, the Association and the Management Group have failed to take any meaningful or effective action to stop Tuma’s conduct and protect the Dokas. As a result of Tuma’s incessant harassment and intimidation and the Association’s and the Management Group’s deliberate and intentional refusal to act, Mr. and Mrs. Doka have been forced to live in constant fear for the safety of themselves and their children. These actions, and in the case of the Association and the Management Group the failure to act, have violated the plaintiffs’ federally protected rights under the Fair Housing Act.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

1. This is an action for declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees, based on a continuing pattern of racially discriminatory conduct. This action arises under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982. Plaintiffs Shirley and Mohammed Doka also assert claims for repeated trespasses.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related common-law claims for trespass pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because the claims arose in Maryland and the defendants reside or conduct business in Maryland.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

4. Plaintiffs Shirley Dunbar Doka and Mohammed Doka are black. Mrs. Doka serves as the coordinator for the Prevention Program of Cara House, a program operated by the Baptist Home for Children and Families in Bethesda, Maryland. Mr. Doka is a certified public accountant and serves as the assistant executive director for budget and management at the Hopkins House for Children and their Families in Alexandria, Virginia.

5. Mr. and Mrs. Doka own a single-family home in the Greencastle Lakes Community at 3600 Turbridge Drive, Burtonsville, MD 20866. They live at this residence with their two children, Halima, age three, and Ajiya, age two. Mr. and Mrs. Doka have been and continue to be adversely affected by the acts, policies, and practices of the defendants and/or their agents. The Dokas are members of the Association.

6. Plaintiff FHC is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business at 1212 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005.

7. The FHC’s purpose is to promote the equal availability of housing to all persons without regard to race, religion, gender, national origin, familial status, or handicapped condition, and to protect the right of individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in an integrated community. The FHC engages in activities to identify barriers to fair housing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and to counteract and eliminate discriminatory housing practices. In support of its goals, the FHC provides a wide range of counseling, education, fair housing planning, and referral services throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Defendants

8. Defendant Tuma is white. He is a resident of the Greencastle Lakes Community who resides at 3608 Turbridge Drive, Burtonsville, MD 20866, adjacent to the Dokas’ residence. He is a member of the Association.

9. Defendant Association is an incorporated association doing business in Maryland. It conducts the business of the Greencastle Lakes Community, including performing certain functions for its residential properties and managing its common areas and community facilities. These powers are derived from the Association’s articles of incorporation.

10. By purchasing a home within the Greencastle Lakes Community, a buyer becomes a member of the Association and agrees to abide by the Association’s by-laws and declaration of covenants. The Association is governed by a board of directors (the "Board"). The Board is responsible for administering the affairs of the Association and is permitted to employ a property manager to perform its duties and services. Since 1997, all members of the Board have been white.

11. Defendant Management Group, during all times relevant hereto, is an incorporated association doing business in Maryland. Upon information and belief, the Association has contracted with the Management Group to serve as the property manager for the Association.

12. At all times relevant hereto, the Board and the Management Group acted with the consent of, under the control or supervision of, and/or within its authority as agent or apparent agent of defendant Association.

FACTS

Events Giving Rise to This Complaint

a. The Greencastle Lakes Community

13. The Greencastle Lakes Community is a homeowners’ development that consists of 843 homes, of which approximately 68 are single-family homes. The remainder are town houses and back-to-back houses. The single-family homes have two stories and a basement and sit on lots ranging from about 1/5 to ½ of an acre. They currently sell from approximately $179,000 to $217,000. The overwhelming majority of the single-family homes in the Greencastle Lakes Community are owned by non-African-American families.

14. All members of the Association are required to abide by the rules of the Association. The Association’s by-laws confer general powers upon the Board and the Association to punish members who violate Association rules. The Board may establish and collect assessments and assess, file, and enforce liens consistent with law and the by-laws and covenants; the Association may temporarily suspend the voting rights or the rights to use common areas and community facilities for any infraction of the Association’s rules; and the Association may enforce the covenants by bringing suit at law or in equity against any person violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction.

15. In April 1995, after searching several months for a house, Mr. and Mrs. Doka purchased a single-family home in the Greencastle Lakes Community for $179,000. The house was ideal for their needs; it was conveniently located, affordable, and the place where they wanted to raise their family. They and their two children have resided in this house continuously from April 1995 through the present.

16. Upon information and belief, Tuma purchased a single-family home in the Greencastle Lakes Community in August 1985. Tuma has lived in this house continuously from that time through the present.

b. Construction of Privacy Fence

17. In February 1997, the Dokas decided to construct a privacy fence around their backyard to protect their young children from traffic on the road adjacent to their property. Pursuant to rules of the Association, they requested and received approval for the type of fence they sought to build and for its construction. When Tuma was presented with an opportunity to voice his concerns about the construction of the fence, he signed a document consenting to its construction without objection.

18. In September 1997, while the fence was being constructed, Tuma sent Mr. Doka a hostile letter that included racially-charged language and a threat of violence. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

19. In this letter, Tuma expressed outrage at the fence, which he likened to the walls of a concentration camp, and criticized the appearance of the Dokas’ yard and house. Tuma denounced the Dokas’ "offensive lifestyle" and wrote, "your heritage will not allow you to grasp the disappointment my family . . . feels." Tuma’s letter also threatened that if any member of the Doka family entered onto his property, he or she would "suffer the consequences." Tuma concluded that the "saddest lesson" is that "[a] black family moves in next door and then slowly destroys their home."

20. After receiving Tuma’s letter, Mr. and Mrs. Doka felt shocked and violated, feared for the safety of themselves and their children, and felt unable to use their yard. The Dokas were particularly anxious about Tuma’s threat to retaliate if any of the Dokas entered his property and worried that Tuma would harm their older child, then age two, if she accidentally wandered onto his property. Due to the threatening nature of Tuma’s letter, Mr. and Mrs. Doka brought the letter to the attention of the Montgomery County police.

21. Mr. and Mrs. Doka notified the Board of Tuma’s letter and attended the Board’s next meeting. Board members characterized Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ concerns about Tuma as a dispute between neighbors, and stated that the Board would not involve itself in the matter.

c. Dumping of Debris

22. On information and belief, beginning in November 1997 and continuing to the present, Tuma has waged a campaign of harassment against the Dokas for the express purpose of driving them out of the Greencastle Community. On at least seventeen separate occasions, Tuma has intentionally and willfully dumped debris and dead animals on the Dokas’ property. Items thrown by Tuma on the Dokas’ property included, among other things, dead crows, dead squirrels, dead mice, razor blades, shards of broken glass, nails, and empty beer and vodka bottles.

23. The first dumping occurred in November 1997. Mr. and Mrs. Doka noticed Tuma outside of his house gathering leaves and cleaning his yard. The next day, the Dokas found piles of leaves dumped in their backyard directly over the fence from Tuma’s yard. Mr. and Mrs. Doka reported this incident to Ruchita Patel, an employee of the Management Group who serves as the property manager for the Association. Ms. Patel informed the Dokas that the Association could not take any action to stop Tuma.

24. The next dumping occurred in December 1997 when Mr. and Mrs. Doka found a discarded pumpkin and VCR in their yard. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully dumped these objects in the Dokas’ yard. The Dokas reported this incident to Ms. Patel of the Management Group.

25. Later in that month, Mr. and Mrs. Doka found piles of leaves on their front lawn. This time, boys playing in the street identified Tuma as the responsible party. The Dokas then called the police, and an officer arrived and confronted Tuma. Tuma admitted to the officer that he had dumped the leaves and stated that he would pick them up.

26. Shortly after the officer left, Tuma pounded on the Dokas’ front door. Mrs. Doka opened the door but did not unhook its chain lock. Tuma then yelled, "I’ve picked up the leaves you nigger bitch and now the fun is really going to begin." Mrs. Doka quickly shut the door and immediately called 911 for assistance. That evening, Mr. and Mrs. Doka contacted Joel Duffy, the Board president, about this incident. Mr. Duffy promised to write a letter to Tuma and left a phone message for Ms. Patel of the Management Group. Ms. Patel never called the Dokas to follow up.

27. Several days later, when Mr. Doka was raking leaves in his yard, Tuma approached him and said, "one of us has to move."

28. Throughout January and February 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka continued to find piles of leaves, boxes, packaging, and large shards of broken glass in their yard close to the common property line with Tuma’s yard. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully dumped these objects in the Dokas’ yard. Mr. and Mrs. Doka feared that Tuma’s racial animosity was escalating, and during this period called the police on several occasions. Mr. and Mrs. Doka also installed a surveillance camera inside their house to monitor activity in their back yard.

29. In February 1998, Mr. Doka received a telephone call in which the caller said, "you nigger" and "you crazy nigger," before hanging up. Mr. Doka recognized the caller’s voice as that of Tuma. The call was traced to a pay phone approximately one mile from the Dokas’ home.

d. Continued Efforts to Obtain Assistance from the Association and the Management Group

30. In January and February 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka advised the Board and the Management Group in writing that Tuma had been stalking and racially harassing them and that their civil rights were being violated. They requested that the Association and the Management Group take immediate action. The Management Group repeatedly characterized Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ complaints about Tuma’s harassment as a neighbors’ dispute and stated that it could not become involved. The Board did not respond to the Dokas’ letters.

31. On January 22, 1998, Ruchita Patel of the Management Group sent Mr. and Mrs. Doka a letter stating that the Board did not have any obligation to respond to the Dokas’ complaints.

32. On February 5, 1998, Ms. Patel sent another letter to Mr. and Mrs. Doka advising them that the Board "cannot and has no authority to take enforcement action against Mr. Tuma for his alleged harassment of you."

33. Upon information and belief, all of these statements by the Management Group were false. Under the Association’s by-laws, the Association had a wide array of enforcement actions it could have employed against an Association member, like Tuma, whose actions violated the rules of the Association.

e. Continued Dumping

34. Throughout March and April 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka continued to find large shards of broken glass, nails, rusted razor blades, and beer bottles in their yard close to the border of Tuma’s yard. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully threw these objects into the Dokas’ yard. Because these objects posed a serious risk of physical harm, during this period Mr. and Mrs. Doka called the police on several occasions.

35. In April 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka found two dead squirrels and two dead crows in their backyard. The squirrels and crows appeared to have been shot by a pellet gun. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully shot these animals and deposited them in the Dokas’ yard.

36. Upon information and belief, during May 1998, Tuma vandalized the Dokas’ property. A substance was applied to a section of Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ front lawn bordering Tuma’s front lawn that caused the lawn to turn brown and die. Also during this month, a sticky substance was applied to the Dokas’ mailbox that attracted bees, ants, and other insects. As a result, the Dokas had to scrape insects off of their mail and wash out their mailbox.

37. In June 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka advised the Board in writing that they continued to be racially harassed. The Dokas received no response from the Board to this letter.

38. From June through August 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka found more broken glass and razor blades, three dead mice, and parts from a VW camper in their yard close to the border of Tuma’s yard. The parts matched a VW camper that Mr. and Mrs. Doka had seen parked on a regular basis in Tuma’s driveway earlier in the year. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully dumped those objects in the Dokas’ yard.

39. In September 1998, Mrs. Doka found a poster board affixed by Tuma on the Dokas’ fence with a message in which Tuma admitted depositing objects in the Dokas’ yard.

40. On November 14 and November 28, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Doka found piles of leaves on their front yard. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully dumped these piles of leaves in the Dokas’ yard.

41. As recently as January 23, 1999, the Dokas found large shards of glass, roofing material, and a crushed Diet Coke can in their back yard. Tuma replaced his roof in the fall of 1998. Upon information and belief, Tuma intentionally and willfully dumped those objected in the Dokas’ yard.

42. As a result of the repeated dumping of dangerous and threatening debris in the Dokas’ yard, the pattern of racial harassment by Tuma against the Doka family, and Tuma’s malicious campaign to drive the Doka family out of their home, Mr. and Mrs. Doka have considered moving away from the Greencastle Lakes Community. As of this date, they have not moved because of the cost of moving, the substantial improvements that they have made to their house, and their conviction that they should not be forced to sacrifice their right to live in the house of their choice.

f. Efforts of the Fair Housing Council

43. Faced with the growing campaign of harassment, in February 1998, Mrs. Doka requested assistance from the FHC. The FHC staff called Mrs. Doka, interviewed her, and provided counseling. Since that time, the FHC has advised Mrs. Doka of her fair housing rights, the civil and administrative complaint process, the role that the FHC could play in providing support to Mr. and Mrs. Doka as complainants, and related FHC civil and administrative complaints. The FHC has also expended considerable staff resources since February 1998 investigating the Dokas’ complaint.

g. The Obligation and Authority of the Association and the Management Group to Intervene

44. The Association and the Management Group are both subject to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19. Under § 3604(b) of the Act, it is illegal to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith on the basis of race. Harassment that creates a racially hostile living environment constitutes discrimination under this section. When a homeowners’ association or property manager receives notice that the acts of one association member are creating a hostile living environment for another member, the Fair Housing Act requires that the party on notice take steps available to it that are reasonably calculated to correct the harasser’s misconduct.

45. Both the Association and the Management Group were notified repeatedly that Tuma was racially harassing the Dokas, and had the power under Association by-laws to take punitive steps against Tuma, yet the Association and Management Group did nothing to prevent further harassment, took no meaningful steps to discipline Tuma for his racially harassing conduct, and took no steps to protect the Dokas. By refusing to intervene, the Association and the Management Group fostered the existence of a racially hostile living environment in the Greencastle Lakes Community that violated the Dokas’ rights under the Fair Housing Act.

46. Contrary to its assertions, the Association and the Management Group could have taken several courses of action to end Tuma’s harassment. Under the Association’s by-laws and covenants, the Board and the Association were authorized to investigate the Dokas’ numerous complaints about the dumping of debris on their property and to prevent further trespasses. In addition to the obligations of membership and powers delegated to the Association that are described in paragraph 14 above, the covenants specifically prohibit accumulations of litter, scrap metals, refuse, waste, or trash of any kind on any lot and enable the Association to investigate potential violations by allowing the Association, through its agents, employees, or committees to enter on any lot to determine whether any violation exists.

47. The Association was thus fully authorized to enter onto the Dokas’ property to investigate their complaints about the dumping of debris in their yard. The covenants also permitted the Association to enter onto Tuma’s property to ascertain whether he was storing objects that appeared on the Dokas’ lawn, such as razor blades and broken glass.

48. The Association’s covenants further authorize the Association, through the Architectural and Environmental Review Committee, a committee whose members are appointed by the Board, to enforce the prohibition against accumulations of debris on members’ lots. The covenants specifically empower the Association to remedy violations involving debris on the lot of one member for which another member is responsible. The covenants provide that if the violation is not removed promptly:

49. Had the Association properly investigated the Dokas’ charges and concluded, as was obvious, that Tuma was responsible for the dumping, the Association could have assessed Tuma with the cost of cleaning up the debris. Had he continued the campaign of racial harassment, it could have taken further "steps as may be necessary" to put an end to Tuma’s conduct. Such steps could have included monetary fines, the withdrawal of permission to use common areas, and, ultimately, legal action.

50. Upon information and belief, the Association and the Management Group have, in the past, exercised their powers to enforce the rules of the Association with respect to members who have violated the Association’s rules in a manner not involving the racial harassment of other members of the Association.

51. Notwithstanding these powers, the Association and the Management Group failed to take even preliminary steps to address the Dokas’ complaints of racial harassment. They did not inspect the dangerous debris that was thrown on the Dokas’ property or otherwise conduct an investigation of the Dokas’ charges. Because they did not conduct an investigation, the Association and the Management Group did not bring any of their considerable powers to bear upon the Dokas’ harasser; they did not assess the harasser, strip him of his voting rights or right to use of the common areas, or bring suit against him.

52. By failing to act, the Association and the Management Group, through their knowledgeable inaction, ratified Tuma’s racial harassment of the Doka family, fostered a racially hostile environment, and violated the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act rights.

53. As a result of defendants’ actions, Mr. and Mrs. Doka have suffered economic loss and emotional distress, including but not limited to humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, fear, nervousness, and depression. As a result of defendants’ actions, Mr. and Mrs. Doka have suffered a continuing deprivation of their right to equal housing regardless of race.

54. In addition, defendants’ discriminatory actions have: (a) frustrated the FHC’s mission of eliminating discriminatory housing practices against persons on the basis of their race in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; (b) forced the FHC to devote scarce resources to identify and counteract defendants’ unlawful housing practices; and (c) injured and interfered with the right of the FHC’s constituents to enjoy the benefits of living in an integrated community.

55. By engaging in the unlawful conduct described above, defendants have continuously, intentionally, willfully, and recklessly violated Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ rights in derogation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

56. By engaging in the unlawful conduct described above, defendant Tuma has repeatedly trespassed on the Dokas’ property in violation of Maryland common law.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (Fair Housing Act: Hostile Environment)

57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

58. As alleged above, Tuma’s conduct was unwelcome and was based on the race of the Dokas. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ living conditions and to create an abusive environment. Although the Association and the Management Group knew of the harassment, they took no effectual action to correct the situation.

59. By racially harassing Mr. and Mrs. Doka, as alleged above, Tuma violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

60. By failing to take action to curtail Tuma’s harassment of Mr. and Mrs. Doka as alleged above, the Association and the Management Group violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and § 3604(b) (Fair Housing Act: Disparate Treatment)

61. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

62. As alleged above, the Association and the Management Group failed to act on Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ complaints of racial harassment in the same manner in which they acted on complaints and rules violations not involving racial harassment.

63. By failing to enforce provisions of the by-laws and covenants when faced with a complaint of racial discrimination, but acting to enforce these same by-laws and covenants in non-racial contexts, the Association and the Management Group have violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b).

64. By harassing Mr. and Mrs. Doka on the basis of race, as alleged above, Tuma violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b).

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. § 3617 (Fair Housing Act: Interference and Retaliation)

65. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

66. By racially harassing Mr. and Mrs. Doka, as alleged above, Tuma violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

67. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

68. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 57-64, all defendants have violated Mr. and Mrs. Dokas’ rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

COUNT V

(Repeated trespasses)

69. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

70. Each and every one of the dumpings by Tuma alleged above constitutes a separate trespass under Maryland common law, with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Doka.

71. Because Mr. and Mrs. Doka have no adequate remedy at law for Tuma’s ongoing trespasses, they seek a permanent injunction.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief against defendants Greencastle Lakes Community Association, Inc., the Management Group Associates, Inc., and John S. Tuma:

1. A declaration that the actions of defendants complained of in Counts I, II, and IV are in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and (b), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1982.

2. An order that defendants take appropriate affirmative actions to ensure that the activities complained of in Count I, II, and IV are not engaged in again by them or any of their agents.

3. A declaration that the actions of defendant Tuma complained of in Count III are in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

4. An order that defendant Tuma take appropriate affirmative actions to ensure that the activities complained of in Count III are not engaged in again by him.

5. An injunction permanently enjoining defendants, their agents, and their employees from discriminating on the basis of race or any other ground prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

6. An injunction permanently enjoining defendant Tuma from further trespassing on the property of plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Doka and from further retaliating against Mr. and Mrs. Doka for assertion of their Fair Housing Act rights.

7. As to Counts I and II, a finding that defendants are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs pursuant to the causes alleged therein.

8. As to Count III, a finding that defendant Tuma is liable to plaintiffs pursuant to the cause alleged therein.

9. As to Count IV, a finding that defendants are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Doka.

10. Compensatory and punitive damages in an amount appropriate to proof a trial.

11. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

12. Such other just and equitable relief as this Court deems fit.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Trial by jury is demanded on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,

January 28, 1999