Smith et al v. Cityfront Terrace Homeowners Association et al, No. 3:2015cv00427 - Document 42 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part Defendant City Terrace Homeowners Association's 28 Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs' fifth and seventh causes of action. Court declines to take supplemental j urisdiction over the remaining state causes of action and remands the case to State Court for resolution of the remaining claims. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/13/2016. (cc: San Diego Superior Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHARON SMITH, ET AL., 11 Case No. 15-cv-00427-BAS(WVG) Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIFTH AND SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT FOR DECISION ON REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION v. 13 CITYFRONT TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., 14 15 Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 28) 17 18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Defendant Epsten Grinnell & Howell removed this case from state to federal 22 court after Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding the second cause of 23 action alleging a violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. (ECF 24 No. 1.) On March 7, 2016, after a Joint Motion by the parties, this Court dismissed 25 Epsten Grinnell & Howell as a Defendant and dismissed the second cause of action 26 for a violation of the Federal Debt Collections Practices Act. (ECF No. 41.) 27 Defendant Cityfront Terrace Homeowners Association (“HOA”) moves to 28 dismiss the remaining causes of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28.) The –1– 15cv427 1 Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and 2 without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). This Court GRANTS the Motion to 3 the extent it requests dismissal of the fifth cause of action for a violation of the 4 Federal Fair Housing Act and the seventh cause of action for a violation of the 5 California Fair Housing Act. Because the fifth cause of action is the only remaining 6 federal cause of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 7 the remaining state causes of action and REMANDS the case back to the state court 8 for decision on the remaining state court causes of action. 9 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs live in a condo at 500 West Harbor #816. (ECF No. 22, Third 10 11 Amended Complaint (“TAC”) ¶6.) Presumably, the HOA is the homeowners 12 association at this condominium complex. Apparently, the HOA attempted to collect 13 what they alleged were overdue assessments from the Smiths and, when the Smiths 14 failed to pay the assessments, instituted foreclosure proceedings and barred Plaintiffs 15 from using the common areas of the condominium complex.1 16 Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Smith suffers “from an advanced arthritic 17 condition,” and that the HOA was aware of this condition. (TAC ¶107.) According 18 to Plaintiffs, “[t]he HOA intentionally singled Plaintiffs out for deactivation of their 19 key cards because the HOA knew of Mrs. Smith’s handicap” and were using her 20 handicap to coerce her to pay the HOA assessments. (TAC ¶110.) “By deactivating 21 her key cards, the HOA refused to allow Mrs. Smith use of the elevator that directly 22 accesses her unit. Instead, the HOA forced her to engage in additional physical 23 exertion and take more than one elevator to simply go from the garage to her unit.” 24 (TAC ¶113.) On June 25, 2014, when apparently confronted with their 25 26 27 28 1 These facts are largely derived from the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss along with earlier iterations of the Complaint, since much is omitted from the TAC. –2– 15cv427 1 discrimination, “the HOA admitted its discrimination by allowing Mrs. Smith full 2 elevator access.” (TAC ¶114.) 3 III. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 7 must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true and must construe 8 them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. 9 Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). To avoid a 10 Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, 11 rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombley, 550 U.S. at 556). 16 “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 17 liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement 18 to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 19 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 20 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 21 elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting 22 Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (alteration in original). A court need 23 not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Despite the deference 24 the court must pay to the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume 25 that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants 26 have violated the…laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. 27 Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 28 (1983). –3– 15cv427 1 Courts may not usually consider material outside the complaint when ruling 2 on a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 3 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). However, documents specifically identified in the 4 complaint whose authenticity is not questioned by parties may also be considered. 5 Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (superseded by statute on 6 other grounds). Moreover, the court may consider the full text of those documents 7 even when the complaint quotes only selected portions. Id. It may also consider 8 material properly subject to judicial notice without converting the motion into one 9 for summary judgment. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994). 10 As a general rule, a court freely grants leave to amend a complaint which has 11 been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied 12 when “the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the 13 challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. 14 v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 IV. ANALYSIS 16 Under the Federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), it is unlawful to discriminate 17 against any person “in the provision of services or facilities in connection” with a 18 dwelling because of a handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Contrary to the arguments 19 of the HOA, the statute is not limited to those who are in the process of renting or 20 buying a dwelling. 21 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). See, e.g., DuBois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 22 A plaintiff can allege a violation of the FHA in one of three ways: by alleging 23 disparate treatment, disparate impact or failure to make accommodations. Gamble v. 24 City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304-05 (9th Cir. 1997). In order to allege a 25 disparate treatment claim the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that she 26 is a member of a protected class and that others similarly situated to the plaintiff were 27 treated differently. Id.; see also Hayden Lake Recreational Water & Sewer Dist. v. 28 Haydenview Cottage, LLC, 835 F. Supp. 2d 965, 978 (D. Idaho 2011) (“[T]o prevail –4– 15cv427 1 on a disparate treatment claim, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged 2 regulation or policy singles out a protected group (in this case, the disabled) and 3 applies different rules to them because of their protected trait.”) (citing Community 4 House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 490 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2007)). The burden then 5 shifts to the Defendant to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the 6 disparate treatment. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305. 7 For a disparate impact case, a plaintiff must allege that there were practices in 8 place that, although outwardly neutral, had a “significantly adverse or 9 disproportionate impact on persons of a particular type produced by Defendant’s 10 facially neutral acts or practices. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305. Thus, Plaintiff must 11 allege that somehow the HOA practices had a significantly adverse or 12 disproportionate effect on the physically disabled. 13 Finally, to allege a “reasonable accommodation” case, the Plaintiff must allege 14 that the HOA “refuses to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, 15 practices, or services, where such accommodations may be necessary to afford 16 physically disabled equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Gamble, 104 17 F.3d at 306. Thus, in order to allege a failure to “reasonably accommodate” her, 18 Plaintiff must allege that she gave the HOA notice and an opportunity to 19 accommodate her. Taylor v. Harbour Pointe Homeowners Ass’n, 690 F.3d 44, 49 20 (2nd Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs must further allege that “‘but for the accommodation, they 21 will likely be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.’” S. 22 Cal. Housing Rights Ctr. v. Los Feliz Towers Homeowners Ass’n, 426 F. Supp. 2d 23 1061, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. 24 Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1997)). 25 In this case, Plaintiffs attempt to allege “disparate treatment” and a failure to 26 reasonably accommodate. (TAC ¶¶109-110, 114.) However, Plaintiffs fail to “plead 27 enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombley, 550 28 U.S. at 570. First, although the Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Smith suffered from an –5– 15cv427 1 “advanced arthritic condition,” they fail to allege that this condition impacted her 2 mobility such that the requirement that she take two elevators made it difficult for 3 her to enter her condominium. Second, Plaintiffs repeatedly allege a formulaic 4 recitation of the elements of the cause of action, disapproved by Twombley. (See 5 TAC ¶106) (“The HOA has engaged in discriminatory housing practices[.]”); (TAC 6 ¶110) (“Plaintiffs were discriminated against by the HOA because of Mrs. Smith’s 7 handicap.”); (TAC ¶111) (“The HOA engaged in a discriminatory housing act by 8 discriminating against Mrs. Smith in the terms, conditions or privileges in the 9 provision of services or facilities in connection with the Property because of a 10 handicap of Mrs. Smith.”) 11 To the extent Plaintiffs allege facts supporting their claim for relief, they claim 12 the HOA deactivated Plaintiffs’ access keys which prohibited their access to the 13 condominium common areas purportedly because they failed to pay their overdue 14 homeowners association fees and that this denied Mrs. Smith “use of the elevator that 15 directly accessed her unit. Instead [she was] forced to engage in additional physical 16 exertion and take more than one elevator to simply go from the garage to her unit and 17 vice versa.” (TAC ¶113.) These allegations are insufficient to establish either 18 disparate treatment or disparate impact claims. Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently 19 allege that Mrs. Smith was a member of a protected class, that others similarly 20 situated to the Plaintiffs were treated differently or that the policy suspending access 21 to the common areas for nonpayment of homeowners fees singles out a protected 22 group and applied different rules to them because of their protected trait. See 23 Haydenview Cottage, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 978. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that the HOA 24 had practices or policies that, although outwardly neutral, had a significantly adverse 25 impact on the disabled. Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305. 26 With respect to the reasonable accommodation claim, Plaintiffs do not allege 27 that they informed the HOA of the difficulty Mrs. Smith was having and the HOA 28 refused to make reasonable accommodation for her disability. In fact, to the contrary, –6– 15cv427 1 the Complaint alleges, that when confronted with the problem Mrs. Smith was 2 having, the HOA allowed Mrs. Smith full elevator access. (TAC ¶114.) 3 Since this Court dismisses the fifth cause of action for a violation of the Federal 4 Fair Housing Act, so too must the seventh cause of action under the California Fair 5 Housing Act fail. See Los Feliz Towers Homeowners Ass’n, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 1068 6 (“An analysis under the [California Fair Housing Act] mirrors the analysis under the 7 federal Fair Housing Act.”) (citing Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1131 8 n.8 (9th Cir. 2001)). 9 V. CONCLUSION 10 The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28). 11 The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ fifth and seventh 12 causes of action. The Court declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over the 13 remaining state causes of action and REMANDS the case to the State Court for 14 resolution of the remaining claims. See Ramirez v. Bank of America Corp., No. CV 15 09-7788 DDP (SSx), 2009 WL 5184480, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009) (“After 16 dismissal of all federal claims, a court may decline to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand the case sua sponte if 18 there exists no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. 19 §§ 1367(c), 1447(c)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 DATED: April 13, 2016 23 24 25 26 27 28 –7– 15cv427
]]>
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.
