United States of America v. Waterbury et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	5:18-CV-440
(MAD/TWD)
DOUGLAS S. WATERBURY, CAROL A.
WATERBURY, E&A MANAGEMENT CO.,
and ONTARIO REALTY, INC.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF THE UNITED 	LORI K. WAGNER, AUSA
STATES ATTORNEY 	ELIZA SIMON, AUSA
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 	KATHERINE RAIMONDO, AUSA
Washington, D.C. 20530
Attorneys for the Government
GANGULY BROTHERS, PLLC 	ANJAN K. GANGULY, ESQ.
140 Allens Creek Road - Suite 220
Rochester, New York 14618
Attorney for Defendants
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On April 11, 2018, the United States of America filed a complaint against Defendants
Douglas S. Waterbury, Carol A. Waterbury, E&A Management Co., and Ontario Realty,
Incorporated, alleging violations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. ("Fair Housing Act"). See Dkt. No. 1. The United States alleged that
Defendants were owning, managing, and/or operating properties in Oswego, New York through
discriminatory means. See id. On August 8, 2019, the Government filed a proposed consent
Case 5:18-cv-00440-MAD-TWD Document 119 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
decree, signed by all parties. See Dkt. No. 61. This Court entered the Consent Decree the next
day. See Dkt. No. 63. The Consent Decree stated as follows:
Unless otherwise specified or extended pursuant to Paragraph 70,
the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be in effect for a period
of five (5) years from the date of this Consent Decree. The Court
shall retain jurisdiction for a period of five (5) years after the
effective date, for the purpose of enforcing or interpreting the
provisions of this Consent Decree, after which the case shall be
dismissed with prejudice.
Id. at ¶ 14.
On December 4, 2020, the United States filed a Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree and
for Sanctions. See Dkt. No. 70. Defendant opposed the motion, see Dkt. No. 77, and the United
States replied. See Dkt. No. 80. On September 22, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion. See Dkt. No. 84. Defendants were held in contempt for violating the Consent
Decree and fined $15,000. See id. Throughout 2022, the parties litigated an issue concerning
attorneys' requests to withdraw as counsel for Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 85, 86, 89, 90, 98, 106.
New counsel appeared on Defendants' behalf on June 9, 2022. See Dkt. No. 115. There has been
no litigation in this case since that time.
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss this case with
prejudice based on the five-year limit set forth in the Consent Decree. See Dkt. No. 116.
Defendants filed their motion on August 20, 2025. See id. The United States has not responded.
"It is without question that consent decrees may expire under their own terms." J.G. v. Bd.
of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. Dist., 193 F. Supp. 2d 693, 700 (W.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Balark v.
City of Chicago, 81 F.3d 658, 663 (7th Cir. 1996); E.E.O.C. v. Local 40, International Assoc. of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, 76 F.3d 76, 80 (2nd Cir. 1996)). Here, the
Consent Decree included an effective period of five years beginning on August 9, 2019. See Dkt.
Case 5:18-cv-00440-MAD-TWD Document 119 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
No. 63. As such, it expired on August 9, 2024. Neither party moved to extend the terms of the
Consent Decree. The United States has not objected to its termination.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 116) is GRANTED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in
accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:18-cv-00440-MAD-TWD Document 119 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3