6
deposition testimony which indicate that Northgate Housing was concerned about the
Whites being elected to the Northgate Residents Board. As a former Northgate Residents
employee testified, Northgate Housing “wanted them to be taken off the board” and
directed Northgate Residents employees to “find a way to either have them in violation of
their lease or find some other clause that prohibited them from being allowed to be on the
[Northgate Residents] board.” This same former employee testified that Northgate
Housing later discovered that an eviction action would force the Whites off the Northgate
Residents Board, and that such an action was Northgate Housing’s “out” or excuse
through which it could accomplish this goal.
There is contrary evidence that the property manager had decided to begin eviction
proceedings before the Whites were elected to the Northgate Residents Board. This
evidence would indicate that the eviction had nothing to do with the White’s membership
to the board. But in a summary judgment motion, the court must give the nonmoving
party the benefit of all reasonable doubts. Carr v. Peerless Ins. Co., 168 Vt. 465, 476
(1998). Hence, the testimony of the former Northgate Residents employee weighs in
favor of denying Northgate Housing’s motion.
Although the Whites’ third-party complaint does not expressly raise a retaliatory
claim against Northgate Residents, the parties suggest that Northgate Residents may be
subject to injunctive or declaratory relief to ensure that Northgate Housing does not use
Northgate Residents to retaliate against the Whites. Thus, as the parties suggest, there
may be a derivative retaliatory claim against Northgate Residents. Such a claim lacks
merit here. The Whites’ retaliatory claim against Northgate Housing essentially posits
that Northgate Housing brought its eviction claim because the Whites engaged in
organizing residents, especially by being elected to the Northgate Residents board. Thus,
the eviction was retaliatory. Northgate Residents was not in a position to evict the Whites
because it was not the landlord in this case and the parties have not represented that
Northgate Residents had the power to evict any residents. Therefore, the retaliatory claim
against Northgate Residents has no merit and is dismissed.
In summation, the Whites have no right of action to bring any of their claims
regarding a violation of rights imbedded in HUD regulations. Hence, Northgate Residents
motion to dismiss and Northgate Housing’s motion for summary judgment are granted
with respect to these claims. The Whites also have no meritorious claim that Northgate