Kantsepolsky v. River Shores Association, Inc., .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-61725-CIV-DAMIAN/Strauss
VALERY KANTSEPOLSKY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIVER SHORES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28]
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report
and 	Recommendation 	(“Report”) 	[ECF 	No. 	28], 	entered 	on 	December 	12, 	2025,
recommending that Defendant, River Shores Association, Inc.’s (“Defendant”), Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion”) [ECF No. 18] be granted in part.
THE COURT has considered the Motion,1 the Report, the pertinent portions of the
record, and relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint against the
Defendant alleging claims under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.,
1 Plaintiff did not file any response to Defendant’s Motion, despite requesting and being
granted an approximately forty-two-day extension from her initial fourteen-day deadline to
respond. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1) (“[E]ach party opposing a motion shall file and serve
an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the
motion. Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by
default.”). Plaintiff also did not file any objections to Judge Strauss’s Report.
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 1 of 7

2
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. See generally ECF
No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff alleges that she owns and resides in a condominium unit that
is governed by the Defendant condominium association. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff also alleges that
she suffers from medical conditions that limit her ability to tolerate the environment created
by demolition, which may spread chemicals, dust, and mold and present other breathing
hazards. Id. ¶ 9. She alleges that Defendant refused to provide reasonable accommodations
for Plaintiff ’s health conditions when it tried to conduct exploratory demolition to resolve
maintenance issues affecting other units. See id. ¶¶ 6-8. The Defendant filed suit against her
in state court to enforce its right of entry into her unit and otherwise resolve the parties’
dispute related to the exploratory demolition. See id. ¶ 11.
In that underlying state court action (River Shores Association, Inc. v. Kantsepolsky, No.
CACE23-013970 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.) (“State Court Action”)), Plaintiff raised as a
counterclaim an FHA violation, similar to that which is presented in this action, and
Plaintiff moved for a ninety-day continuance of all pretrial and trial deadlines as a result of
her disability, which Defendant opposed. Id. ¶ 11. The trial court denied her motion for
continuance on August 5, 2025. Id. ¶ 12. On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff 	moved for
reconsideration, which, to the best of this Court’s knowledge, is currently pending before the
state court. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. In the case before this Court, Plaintiff appears to seek declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages from the Defendant. See generally id. The case
was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-
11. See ECF No. 2.
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 2 of 7

3
The same day Plaintiff filed her case, she filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, Reasonable Accommodation, and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion for
TRO”) [ECF No. 3], which seeks an order from this Court enjoining the Defendant from
“opposing or interfering with Plaintiff’s request for a reasonable accommodation in the form
of a 90-day extension of pretrial and trial deadlines in the pending state-court action,”
directing the Defendant to only engage in exploratory demolition and repairs in Plaintiff’s
unit subject to her medical conditions, and requiring the Defendant to engage in an
interactive process regarding Plaintiff’s accommodation requests. See Mot. for TRO at 4.
Because Judge Strauss could not directly enter an order on the Motion for TRO, see
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the case was randomly reassigned to the undersigned. [ECF No.
9]. This Court promptly entered an order concluding that the Motion for TRO was not a
true emergency, directing Plaintiff to serve the motion on the Defendant, re-styling the
Motion for TRO as one for a preliminary injunction, and referring the matter to Judge
Strauss for him to, inter alia, issue a report and recommendation on the Motion for TRO. See
ECF No. 11 at 6.
Following briefing on the Motion for TRO, Judge Strauss issued a Report and
Recommendation in which Judge Strauss recommended denial of the Motion for TRO
because the sought-after injunction was barred by the Anti Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283,
and because the ADA did not provide a statutory basis for the sought-after injunction. See
generally ECF No. 19. Plaintiff objected to Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 22], and Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Objections [ECF No. 26]. On
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 3 of 7

4
November 10, 2025, this Court affirmed and adopted the Report and Recommendation,
overruling Plaintiff’s Objections and denying the Motion for TRO. [ECF No. 27].
A few days before Judge Strauss issued the Report and Recommendation on the
Motion for TRO, Defendant filed the Motion currently before the Court. Plaintiff never
responded to the Motion, even after receiving a ten-day extension sua sponte from this Court
[ECF No. 21] and another thirty-two-day extension from Judge Strauss [ECF No. 25].
In the Report, Judge Strauss recommends that Plaintiff’s FHA claims be stayed
pending resolution of the State Court Action based on the abstention doctrine articulated in
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (“Colorado River
abstention”). Judge Strauss applied seven factors, found that at least three factors weighed
strongly in favor of abstention and another factor arguably also weighed in favor of
abstention. See Rpt. 12-13. Judge Strauss observed that one factor alone can be sufficient to
warrant abstention and concluded that abstention was appropriate to prevent piecemeal
litigation. Judge Strauss further concluded that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an FHA
violation in her Complaint to stave off dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds for failure to state
a claim. Id. at 14-15. Finally, Judge Strauss concluded that the ADA claim should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim because the section of the ADA Plaintiff relies upon,
Title III, only applies to “a private entity that offers commercial services to the public,” and
Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant offers commercial services to the public. Id. at 15-16
(quoting A.L. by and through D.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 900 F.3d 1270, 1289
(11th Cir. 2018)).
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 4 of 7

5
The parties had fourteen days to file any objections to the Report, which passed on
December 26, 2025. Neither party filed any objections. The Report is now ripe for
adjudication by this Court.
II. 	DISCUSSION
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to
require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the Motion, the record, and the applicable
law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light of that
review, 	the 	undersigned 	agrees 	with 	the 	thorough 	analysis 	and 	well-reasoned
recommendations 	stated 	in 	Judge 	Strauss’s 	Report 	and 	agrees 	with 	Judge 	Strauss’s
conclusions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 5 of 7

6
1. 	Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED and incorporated by reference herein for the purpose of
appellate review.
2. 	The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED IN PART. All ADA
claims (Count II and part of Count III of the Complaint [ECF No. 1]) are
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE. 	Plaintiff 	may 	file 	an 	amended
complaint by January 23, 2026. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint
by this deadline, only Count I (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
under the FHA) and part of Count III (Retaliation under the FHA) will remain.
If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Defendant’s deadline to respond is
STAYED pending further order of this Court.
3. 	This case is STAYED based on the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The
parties shall file a status report every thirty (30) days apprising this Court as to
the status of the State Court Action. The first status report is due by February 2,
2026.
4. 	The Clerk shall CLOSE this case for administrative and statistical purposes only.
Either party may move to reopen the case upon termination of the State Court
Action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 30th
day of December, 2025.
__________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 6 of 7

7
cc: 	U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss
Counsel of record
Valery Kantsepolsky, Pro Se
2970 NE 16th Ave, Unit 416
Oakland Park, FL 33334
Email: kodiakisland7@gmail.com
Case 0:25-cv-61725-MD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 7 of 7