Refugio Rueda et al v. Evelyn Cofrancesco, No. 2:2010cv04011 - Document 82 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada GRANTING Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment 76 : (see document image for further details). Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants 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. (ad)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 REFUGIO RUEDA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, EVELYN COFRANCESCO, as an individual and dba IDLE WHEELS MOBILE HOME PARK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 10-4011-OP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 I. 19 PROCEEDINGS 20 On June 2, 2010, Refugio Rueda, Amalia Vargas, as an individual and as 21 Guardian Ad Litem for minors D.R. and S.R., and Miguel Garcia ( Plaintiffs ) 22 filed a Complaint against Evelyn Cofrancesco, as an individual and doing 23 business as ( dba ) Idle Wheels Mobile Home Park ( Defendant ) alleging 24 violations of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ( FHA ), the 25 California Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA ), the California Unruh 26 Civil Rights Act, and negligence. (ECF No. 2.) On October 4, 2010, Defendant 27 filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On December 14, 2010, 28 Defendant filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) The 1 1 parties have consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and General Order No. 12-01. (ECF No. 3 73.) 4 On June 7, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 5 ( MSJ ), along with supporting declarations, exhibits, and a Separate Statement 6 of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law. (ECF No. 76.) On June 22, 7 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the MSJ, along with a supporting 8 declaration and a Statement of Genuine Disputes. (ECF No. 78.) On June 27, 9 2012, Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition. (ECF No. 79.) On July 13, 10 2012, a hearing was held on Defendant s MSJ. Thereafter, the Court took the 11 matter under submission. (ECF No. 81.) 12 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant s MSJ in 13 its entirety. 14 II. 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 The court must render summary judgment if the movant shows that there 17 is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 18 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material 19 fact is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a 20 reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. 21 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 22 (1986); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 23 2d 686 (2007) (citation omitted) ( Where the record taken as a whole would not 24 lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine 25 issue for trial ). A factual dispute is material only if it might affect the 26 outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. All 27 reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the underlying facts must be 28 viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. 2 1 Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. 2 Ed. 2d 538 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, a judge s function is not to 3 weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter but, rather, to determine 4 whether there is any genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Balint v. 5 Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 6 The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the 7 basis of its motion and identifying evidence of record it believes demonstrates 8 the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 9 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the moving party 10 satisfies its initial burden, Rule 56 requires the party opposing the motion to 11 respond by submitting evidentiary materials that designate specific facts 12 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 13 Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to make a 14 showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 15 party s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. 16 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Moreover, summary judgment cannot be avoided by 17 relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data or in a 18 pleading. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 19 In determining any motion for summary judgment or partial summary 20 judgment, the Court may assume that the material facts as claimed and 21 adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without 22 controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in the 23 Statement of Genuine Disputes and (b) controverted by declaration or other 24 written evidence filed in opposition to the motion. C.D. Cal. R. 56-3. If a party 25 fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another 26 party s assertion of fact, the Court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes 27 of the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 28 3 1 III. 2 PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS 3 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) a violation of 4 the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601(f)(1) ( Claim One ); (2) a violation of the FEHA, 5 California Government Code section 12955 ( Claim Two ); (3) a violation of the 6 California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 et seq. 7 ( Claim Three ); and (4) negligence ( Claim Four ). (ECF No. 2.) All claims 8 stem from Defendant s alleged refusal to rent to Plaintiffs, based allegedly on 9 the disability of Plaintiffs daughter, when they applied for residence at 10 Defendant s mobile home park. 11 IV. 12 UNDISPUTED FACTS 13 Unless otherwise noted, the Court finds the following facts to be 14 undisputed ( Ct. UF ): 15 (1) Defendant, along with her husband, own the Idle Wheels Mobile 16 Home Park ( Mobile Home Park ), which they purchased 17 approximately thirty years ago. They have no employees. 18 Defendant is the sole manager of the Mobile Home Park. She has 19 possession of and personal knowledge of the business records and 20 practices of management of the Mobile Home Park. (Decl. of 21 Evelyn Cofrancesco ( Cofrancesco Decl. ) ¶¶ 3, 4); 22 (2) Screening of potential renters is an important aspect of the 23 management of the Mobile Home Park. Desirable tenants are those 24 that will abide by their rental agreement, including their agreement 25 to comply with the rules and regulations of the Mobile Home Park. 26 (Id. ¶ 5); 27 28 (3) Defendant s policy is to follow California Civil Code section 798.74 which allows for the use of information from prior tenancies of 4 1 potential tenants to determine whether they will comply with the 2 Mobile Home Park rules and regulations. Information regarding 3 prior tenancies is gathered during the application process by 4 telephoning or talking with prior landlords or managers and/or by 5 visiting the applicant s home to gain visual information of the 6 general condition, up-keep, and appearance of their home. The 7 information gathered depends on the circumstances of each 8 applicant. Defendant s preferred method is to conduct a drive-by 9 inspection of the exterior of an applicant s current residence. When 10 Defendant is unable to do so, she will inquire of the applicant s 11 current landlord as to the appearance of the applicant s residence.1 12 (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9); 13 (4) Defendant s application form for all applicants in use at the time of 14 Plaintiffs application has a space requesting directions to the 15 applicant s home, which she explains to the applicant. This will 16 allow Defendant to visit and make an exterior inspection of the 17 applicant s home. Defendant s experience is that tenants who keep 18 their residences in a neat and orderly manner will continue to do so, 19 and tenants who fail to properly maintain their residence will 20 continue to do so.2 (Id. ¶ 10); 21 22 1 In Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Disputes ( SGD ), they dispute the 23 contention that, as to every applicant, Defendant attempts to determine whether 24 the applicant will comply with the rules of the Mobile Home Park. (SGD ¶ 4.) The Court finds this dispute to be immaterial. 25 2 Plaintiffs dispute the contention that Defendant s application included an 26 area for them to provide driving directions to their current residence. (SGD ¶ 8.) 27 Defendant has provided an exhibit, however, demonstrating this to be the case. 28 Thus, the Court finds this to be an undisputed fact. (Cofrancesco Depo. Ex. 1.) 5 1 (5) Mobile Home Park rule no. 59 in effect at the time of Plaintiffs 2 application provided that Resident must keep their spaces, 3 including yards, driveways, and all landscaping, structures, 4 improvements, and other things attached to or placed on the home 5 site, in a clean[,] neat[,] well-kept and attractive condition. . . . (Id. 6 ¶ 7, Ex. A); 7 (6) Mobile Home Park rule no. 67 in effect at the time of Plaintiffs 8 application provided that There can be no storage around or behind 9 the mobile home or under the mobile home or on the roof. A metal 10 shed will need to be installed for all storage and if this is not enough 11 storage space, the tenant will need to rent a space at a storage 12 facility. (Id.); 13 (7) Plaintiffs knew that the Mobile Home Park rules included a 14 requirement for residents to keep their space in a clean, neat, 15 well-kept, and attractive condition. (Depo. of Refugio Rueda 16 ( Rueda Depo. ) at 39:17.) 17 (8) Plaintiffs knew that Defendant s application process requested 18 information to help her determine whether Plaintiffs would comply 19 with the Mobile Home Park rules. (Id. at 40:18); 20 (9) Plaintiffs knew and agreed that Defendant would use information 21 from their prior tenancies, including their current one, to determine 22 whether they would comply with Mobile Home Park rules. (Id. at 23 40:24); 24 25 (10) Based upon Plaintiffs prior tenancies, Defendant wanted to determine whether they would comply with the Mobile Home Park 26 27 28 6 rules.3 (Cofrancesco Decl. ¶ 11); 1 2 (11) Plaintiffs gave Defendant driving directions to their current 3 residence and knew Defendant would visit their residence in order to 4 determine whether they would comply with the Mobile Home Park 5 rules.4 (Rueda Depo. at 41:15, 23; 42:8); 6 (12) Defendant visited Plaintiffs residence prior to their arrival and 7 observed that the property was poorly kept, with what appeared to 8 be trash and storage all around the yard.5 (Cofrancesco Decl. ¶ 11); 9 (13) Upon Plaintiffs arrival, Defendant appeared upset, commenting that 10 Plaintiffs had a big mess all around the house and that she did not 11 like that. (Rueda Depo. at 41:23, 45:18, 46:15; Depo. of Amalia 12 Vargas ( Vargas Depo. ) at 22:6); 13 (14) Defendant commented to Plaintiff Rueda that she had difficulty with 14 15 3 Plaintiffs contend that this is a disputed fact because Defendant did not 16 check their rental history or check with prior landlords. (SGD ¶ 5.) The Court 17 finds this disputed fact to be immaterial. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 Plaintiffs dispute the contention that Defendant wanted to visit their residence to determine whether they would comply with the Mobile Home Park rules. (SGD ¶ 11.) They rely on Defendant s statement that I want to go see your daughter at your house and to see the way you live. (Id. (citing Rueda Depo. at 43:10-15).) The statement, however, provides a dual purpose for Defendant s visit which does not contradict the stated purpose of such a visit, i.e., to determine whether Plaintiff s would comply with the Mobile Home Park rules. Thus, the Court finds this to be an undisputed fact. 5 Plaintiffs dispute the contention that their yard appeared to have trash by 25 stating that the items such as boxes that were consistent with a family preparing to 26 move or were items that belonged to their adjacent neighbors. (SGD ¶¶ 13, 14, 17 (citing Rueda Decl. ¶ 4).) The Court finds that the proffered statement does not 27 sufficiently contradict the stated fact. Thus, the Court finds this to be an 28 undisputed fact. 7 1 the messy condition of his yard and that it was likely he would live 2 the same way at the Mobile Home Park. (Cofrancesco Decl. ¶ 11; 3 Vargas Depo. at 23:7; 50:6); 4 (15) A person s handicap or disability does not factor into Defendant s 5 determination as to whether an applicant qualifies as a tenant. 6 Defendant had and still has at least one tenant at the Mobile Home 7 Park who is disabled and uses a wheelchair ramp. Defendant s 8 husband is also disabled and uses a wheelchair and a walker. 9 (Cofrancesco Decl. ¶¶ 16, 17); 10 (16) Defendant never indicated that she did not allow handicapped 11 people to live at the Mobile Home Park, never indicated that she did 12 not like handicapped people, and never said she did not allow 13 wheelchair ramps at the Mobile Home Park.6 (Rueda Depo. at 53:6, 14 10; 57:6; Vargas Depo. at 24:11); 15 (17) In advance of meeting Plaintiffs Rueda and Vargas, Defendant was 16 told by Plaintiff Garcia that Plaintiffs Rueda and Vargas wanted to 17 become tenants at the Mobile Home Park because they needed a 18 larger home to accommodate their disabled daughter. Later, during 19 the home visit, Plaintiff Rueda asked if Defendant would like to 20 meet Plaintiffs daughter. Defendant agreed, was directed into the 21 home, where she met Plaintiffs daughter. Defendant greeted 22 Plaintiffs daughter then exited the home with Plaintiff Rueda. After 23 exiting, Defendant again expressed her concern over the bad 24 25 6 Plaintiffs dispute this proffered fact by proffering statements regarding 26 Defendant s demeanor and the manner in which Defendant expressed herself. (SGD ¶¶ 19, 20 (citing Rueda Depo. at 43:10-21, 47:11-15, Vargas Depo. at 27 24:14-18).) The Court finds that the proffered statements do not sufficiently 28 contradict the stated fact. Thus, the Court finds this to be an undisputed fact. 8 1 condition of the yard and her belief that Plaintiffs would not be able 2 to follow the rules of the Mobile Home Park. (Cofrancesco Decl. ¶ 3 13); 4 (18) Defendant never mentioned that the disability of Plaintiffs daughter 5 was a reason for not having Plaintiffs at the Mobile Home Park. 6 The disability of Plaintiffs daughter had nothing to do with 7 Defendant s determination that Plaintiffs were not qualified as 8 tenants. Defendant relied only on the unkempt condition and lack of 9 maintenance of their current home, yard, and space.7 (Rueda Depo. 10 11 at 53:10; Cofrancesco Decl. ¶¶ 14, 18); and (19) Plaintiffs believe there is some risk of misunderstanding between 12 themselves and others when only English is spoken without an 13 interpreter.8 (Rueda Depo. at 6:3-16; Vargas Depo. at 6:18-25, 7:1- 14 7). 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 21 7 25 8 Plaintiffs dispute this proffered fact by proffering statements regarding 22 Defendant s demeanor and the manner in which Defendant expressed herself. (SGD ¶¶ 22-24 (citing Rueda Depo. at 43:10-21, 47:11-15, Vargas Depo. at 24:1423 18).) The Court finds that the proffered statements do not sufficiently contradict 24 the stated fact. Thus, the Court finds this to be an undisputed fact. Plaintiffs dispute this proffered fact by relying on the declaration of 26 Plaintiff Rueda indicating that he and Plaintiff Vargas had no problems understanding Defendant. (SGD ¶ 25 (citing Rueda Decl. ¶ 5).) The Court finds 27 that the proffered statement does not sufficiently contradict the stated fact. Thus, 28 the Court finds this to be an undisputed fact. 9 1 V. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim 4 One Under the FHA. 5 1. 6 The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to Legal Standard. 7 otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of 8 a handicap of: (a) the buyer or renter; (b) a person residing in or intending to 9 reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (c) any 10 person associated with that buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The FHA 11 also makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, 12 conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of 13 services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of: 14 (a) the person; (b) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling 15 after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (c) any person associated with that 16 person. Id. § 3604(f)(2). 17 The Ninth Circuit applies Title VII discrimination analysis in examining 18 discrimination claims under the FHA. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 19 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997). A plaintiff can establish an FHA discrimination claim 20 under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact.9 Id. at 304-05. 21 A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination either by 22 adducing direct evidence of discriminatory intent or by satisfying his burden 23 under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 24 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640 25 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to adduce any direct evidence of 26 27 9 Plaintiffs only rely upon the theory of disparate treatment. As a result, the 28 Court will not address the theory of disparate impact. 10 1 discriminatory intent on Defendant s part. As a result, the Court will analyze 2 Plaintiffs disparate treatment claim by using a burden-shifting test. 3 McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. 4 The elements of a prima facie case vary depending on the facts of the 5 particular case. Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1997). 6 Adapted to the facts of the present case, Plaintiffs must first establish a prima 7 facie case by showing: (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they applied 8 for and were qualified to rent a space at Defendant s mobile home park; (3) they 9 were denied the opportunity to rent or to negotiate to rent a space despite being 10 qualified; and (4) the housing or rental property remained available thereafter. 11 See Asbury v. Brougham, 866 F.2d 1276, 1280 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations 12 omitted); see also McDonald v. Coldwell Banker, 543 F.3d 498, 503 (9th Cir. 13 2008); Gamble, 104 F.3d at 304-05; Dep t of Fair Emp t and Hous. v. Super. Ct. 14 (Mattox Trust), 99 Cal. App. 4th 896, 902 (2002). 15 After a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts 16 to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the 17 action. Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing McDonnell 18 Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. To accomplish this, the defendant is only 19 required to set forth a legally sufficient explanation. Harris, 183 F.3d 1051 20 (citing Tex. Dep t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255, 101 S. Ct. 21 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981)). 22 After a defendant articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for 23 the action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of 24 the evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305 25 (citations omitted). 26 The California Civil Code provides that when a landlord is considering the 27 rental application from a buyer of a mobile home in her park, [a]pproval cannot 28 be withheld if the purchaser has the financial ability to pay the rent and charges 11 1 of the park unless the management reasonably determines that, based on the 2 purchaser s prior tenancies, he or she will not comply with the rules and 3 regulations of the park. Cal. Civil Code § 798.74. 4 5 6 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 7 of disparate treatment, Defendant only places the second element at issue, i.e., 8 whether Plaintiffs were qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. (ECF 9 No. 76 at 6-9.) 10 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that they were qualified 11 to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. The undisputed facts as set forth above 12 establish that in order to be qualified to rent at the Mobile Home Park, 13 management requires compliance with the Parks rules and regulations, which 14 include keeping the exterior of the residence clean, neat, well-kept, and 15 attractive, with no storage around or behind the mobile home, or under the 16 mobile home or on its roof. (Ct. UF Nos. 2, 4-6.) Under California law, a 17 landlord is permitted to use information from prior tenancies to determine 18 whether potential tenants will comply with the Mobile Home Park rules, and one 19 way Defendant determines whether a potential renter will be compliant is by 20 conducting an inspection of the potential renter s current residence. (Id. Nos. 321 4, 10-11.) The undisputed facts show that Plaintiffs residence had what 22 appeared to be trash and storage all around the yard when Defendant visited to 23 gather information on Plaintiffs prior tenancy pursuant to California law. (Id. 24 Nos. 12-14, 17-18.) Defendant determined, therefore, that Plaintiffs were not 25 qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park based on the condition of their 26 current home, and that determination was not based on the disability of Plaintiff s 27 daughter. (Id. Nos. 13-18.) As a result, Plaintiffs have failed to establish a 28 genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were qualified renters, and 12 1 consequently have failed to make a prima facie case of disparate treatment. 2 Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim One. 3 3. 4 Even assuming there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs Have Failed to Show Pretext. 5 Plaintiffs were qualified renters, as discussed above, Defendant has articulated a 6 legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her action in refusing to rent to 7 Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 8 the proffered reason was pretextual. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305. 9 The evidence Plaintiffs point to in support of their claim that Defendant s 10 explanation is pretextual is twofold: (1) Defendant stopped the application 11 process and stated she wanted to visit Plaintiffs home after learning that their 12 daughter was disabled (Rueda Depo. at 43:10-15.); and (2) after meeting 13 Plaintiffs daughter, Defendant exited the home and commented that she did not 14 want any problems (id. at 47:12-25). From these facts, Plaintiffs contend that 15 they have established a genuine issue of material fact as to the issue of pretext. 16 The Court does not agree. 17 Plaintiffs evidence fails to support their claim of pretext and fails to 18 demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant s actions were in 19 any way actually related to the fact that they had a disabled daughter. Their 20 connection is tenuous at best, especially given the undisputed fact that before 21 ever meeting Plaintiffs Rueda and Garcia, Defendant was told by Plaintiff Garcia 22 that they needed a larger home to accommodate their disabled daughter (Ct. UF 23 No. 17); by the undisputed fact that Defendant has never indicated that she does 24 not allow handicapped people to live at the Mobile Home Park, does not like 25 handicapped people, or does not allow wheelchair ramps at the Mobile Home 26 Park (id. No. 16); and by the undisputed fact that Defendant still has at least one 27 tenant at the Mobile Home Park who is disabled and uses a ramp, and 28 Defendant s husband is also disabled and uses a walker and wheelchair (id. No. 13 1 15). Moreover, Defendant repeatedly stated during her visit that things were a 2 big mess, which she did not like, and that she believed as a result of her 3 observations that Plaintiffs would not be able to follow the rules of the Mobile 4 Home Park. (Id. Nos. 12-14, 17,1 8.) 5 After consideration of the undisputed facts in conjunction with 6 Defendant s action and statement upon which Plaintiffs rely, it is clear that 7 Plaintiffs reliance is based merely on their subjective belief that Defendant s 8 explanation is pretextual and not based on objective facts. Thus, the Court finds 9 in the alternative that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of 10 material fact as to whether Defendant s proffered reason was pretextual. 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to 12 judgment as a matter of law as to Claim One. 13 B. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim 14 Two Under the FEHA. 15 With respect to the FEHA claim, the same standard of proof and analysis 16 are applied as in a FHA case. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305. 17 Based on the facts and analysis as to Plaintiffs FHA claim, the Court finds 18 that Plaintiffs have also failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to 19 their FEHA claim. Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as 20 to Claim Two. 21 C. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim 22 Three Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 23 The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides: [a]ll persons within the jurisdiction 24 of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, 25 ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual 26 orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, 27 facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind 28 whatsoever. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). To prevail on a disability discrimination 14 1 claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he was 2 denied the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or 3 services in a business establishment; (2) his disability was a motivating factor for 4 this denial; (3) defendant denied plaintiff the full and equal accommodations, 5 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services; and (4) defendant s wrongful 6 conduct caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. Cal. Civil Jury 7 Instructions (BAJI), No. 7.92 (Fall 2009 Revision). 8 As set forth above, it is clear that Plaintiffs rely merely on their subjective 9 belief, not on objective facts, that the disability of their daughter was a 10 motivating factor in Defendant s determination that they were not qualified to 11 rent a space at the Mobile Home Park. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs 12 have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their Unruh claim. 13 Thus, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim Three. 14 D. Defendant Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law As to Claim 15 Four of Negligence. 16 To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a legal 17 duty to use due care; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) the breach was the 18 proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 12 19 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996). 20 As set forth above, it is clear that Plaintiffs rely merely on their subjective 21 belief, not on objective facts, that Defendant s determination that they were not 22 qualified to rent a space at the Mobile Home Park was based on the disability of 23 their daughter. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish 24 a genuine issue of material fact as to their negligence claim. Thus, Defendant is 25 entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Claim Four. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 15 1 VI. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant s Motion for 4 Summary Judgment in its entirety as to all claims. Judgment shall be entered 5 dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and Plaintiffs shall take nothing. 6 7 DATED: February 19, 2013 8 HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.