MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OSWALD PARADA, Magistrate Judge.
I.
PROCEEDINGS
On June 2, 2010, Refugio Rueda, Amalia Vargas, as an individual and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors D.R. and S.R., and Miguel Garcia ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against Evelyn Cofrancesco, as an individual and doing business as ("dba") Idle Wheels Mobile Home Park ("Defendant") alleging violations of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and negligence. (ECF No. 2.) On October 4, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On December 14, 2010, Defendant filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) The parties have consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and General Order No. 12-01. (ECF No. 73.)
On June 7, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), along with supporting declarations, exhibits, and a Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law. (ECF No. 76.) On June 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the MSJ, along with a supporting declaration and a Statement of Genuine Disputes. (ECF No. 78.) On June 27, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition. (ECF No. 79.) On July 13, 2012, a hearing was held on Defendant's MSJ. Thereafter, the Court took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 81.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's MSJ in its entirety.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court must render summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a "reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party."
The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis of its motion and identifying evidence of record it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
In determining any motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, the Court may assume that the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in the "Statement of Genuine Disputes" and (b) controverted by declaration or other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion. C.D. Cal. R. 56-3. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, the Court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
III.
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) a violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601(f)(1) ("Claim One"); (2) a violation of the FEHA, California Government Code section 12955 ("Claim Two"); (3) a violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 et seq. ("Claim Three"); and (4) negligence ("Claim Four"). (ECF No. 2.) All claims stem from Defendant's alleged refusal to rent to Plaintiffs, based allegedly on the disability of Plaintiffs' daughter, when they applied for residence at Defendant's mobile home park.
IV.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Unless otherwise noted, the Court finds the following facts to be undisputed ("Ct. UF"):
V.
DISCUSSION
A. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim One Under the FHA.
1. Legal Standard.
The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of: (a) the buyer or renter; (b) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (c) any person associated with that buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The FHA also makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of: (a) the person; (b) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (c) any person associated with that person.
The Ninth Circuit applies Title VII discrimination analysis in examining discrimination claims under the FHA.
A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination either by adducing direct evidence of discriminatory intent or by satisfying his burden under
The elements of a prima facie case vary depending on the facts of the particular case.
After a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.
After a defendant articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual.
The California Civil Code provides that when a landlord is considering the rental application from a buyer of a mobile home in her park, "[a]pproval cannot be withheld if the purchaser has the financial ability to pay the rent and charges of the park unless the management reasonably determines that, based on the purchaser's prior tenancies, he or she will not comply with the rules and regulations of the park." Cal. Civil Code § 798.74.
2. Plaintiffs Have Not Established a Prima Facie Case for Disparate Treatment.
As to the four elements needed for Plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, Defendant only places the second element at issue, i.e., whether Plaintiffs were qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. (ECF No. 76 at 6-9.)
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that they were qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. The undisputed facts as set forth above establish that in order to be qualified to rent at the Mobile Home Park, management requires compliance with the Parks' rules and regulations, which include keeping the exterior of the residence clean, neat, well-kept, and attractive, with no storage around or behind the mobile home, or under the mobile home or on its roof. (Ct. UF Nos. 2, 4-6.) Under California law, a landlord is permitted to use information from prior tenancies to determine whether potential tenants will comply with the Mobile Home Park rules, and one way Defendant determines whether a potential renter will be compliant is by conducting an inspection of the potential renter's current residence. (
3. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Show Pretext.
Even assuming there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were qualified renters, as discussed above, Defendant has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her action in refusing to rent to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual.
The evidence Plaintiffs point to in support of their claim that Defendant's explanation is pretextual is twofold: (1) Defendant stopped the application process and stated she wanted to visit Plaintiffs' home after learning that their daughter was disabled (Rueda Depo. at 43:10-15.); and (2) after meeting Plaintiffs' daughter, Defendant exited the home and commented that she did not want any problems (
Plaintiffs' evidence fails to support their claim of pretext and fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant's actions were in any way actually related to the fact that they had a disabled daughter. Their connection is tenuous at best, especially given the undisputed fact that before ever meeting Plaintiffs Rueda and Garcia, Defendant was told by Plaintiff Garcia that they needed a larger home to accommodate their disabled daughter (Ct. UF No. 17); by the undisputed fact that Defendant has never indicated that she does not allow handicapped people to live at the Mobile Home Park, does not like handicapped people, or does not allow wheelchair ramps at the Mobile Home Park (
After consideration of the undisputed facts in conjunction with Defendant's action and statement upon which Plaintiffs rely, it is clear that Plaintiffs' reliance is based merely on their subjective belief that Defendant's explanation is pretextual and not based on objective facts. Thus, the Court finds in the alternative that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's proffered reason was pretextual.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim One.
B. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim Two Under the FEHA.
With respect to the FEHA claim, the same standard of proof and analysis are applied as in a FHA case.
Based on the facts and analysis as to Plaintiffs' FHA claim, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have also failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their FEHA claim. Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim Two.
C. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim Three Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides: "[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). To prevail on a disability discrimination claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he was denied the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in a business establishment; (2) his disability was a motivating factor for this denial; (3) defendant denied plaintiff the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services; and (4) defendant's wrongful conduct caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. Cal. Civil Jury Instructions (BAJI), No. 7.92 (Fall 2009 Revision).
As set forth above, it is clear that Plaintiffs rely merely on their subjective belief, not on objective facts, that the disability of their daughter was a motivating factor in Defendant's determination that they were not qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their Unruh claim. Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim Three.
D. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim Four of Negligence.
To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a legal duty to use due care; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.
As set forth above, it is clear that Plaintiffs rely merely on their subjective belief, not on objective facts, that Defendant's determination that they were not qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park was based on the disability of their daughter. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their negligence claim. Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim Four.
VI.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety as to all claims. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and Plaintiffs shall take nothing.
Comment
User Comments