United States of America v. Douglas S. Waterbury, Carol A. Waterbury, E&A Management Co., and Ontario Realty, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 5:18-cv-00440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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 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. 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 ISSO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2026 Jl if lg ta r Albany, New York f fe Ghat Mae A. D’ Agostino” U.S. District Judge