Prendergast v. Snyder

Decision Date10 May 1966
Citation50 Cal.Rptr. 903,413 P.2d 847,64 Cal.2d 877
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 413 P.2d 847 64 Cal.2d 877, 413 P.2d 847 Wilfred J. PRENDERGAST et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Respondents, v. Clarence SNYDER, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. L.A. 28422.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, William French Smith, Samuel O. Pruitt, Jr., and Charles S. Battles, Jr., Los Angeles, for defendant, cross-complainant and appellant.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs, cross-defendants and respondents.

John F. Duff, San Francisco, Richard G. Logan, Oakland, Cyril A. Coyle, Sacramento, James S. DeMartini, Thomas Arata, Santa Rosa, William J. Bush, Peter J. Donnici, James T. McDonald, Richard B. Morris, Richard A. Bancroft, San Francisco, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Robert M. O'Neil, Berkeley, Joseph B. Robison, Sol. Rabkin, New York City, Duane B. Beeson, Seymour Farber, Robert H. Laws, Jr., Howard Nemerovski, John G. Clancy and Ephraim Margolin, San Francisco, amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs, cross-defendants and respondents.

PEEK, Justice.

Defendant landlord appeals from a judgment for plaintiff tenants entered upon defendant's motion for summary judgment on his cross-complaint for declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs Prendergast are husband and wife, respectively a Negro and a Caucasian. Prior to their marriage Mrs. Prendergast rented from defendant an apartment in his seven-unit dwelling on an oral, month-to-month tenancy. Mr. Prendergast moved into the apartment with his wife following their marriage, and defendant thereupon purported to terminate plaintiffs' tenancy in the exercise of his claimed right '(1) to select the persons with whom he would associate both in the continuing relationship of landlord and tenant and in the relationship of neighbors under the same roof, and (2) to acquire, use, enjoy and dispose of his property in any manner he may choose which is not prohibited by statute, ordinance or other legislation.'

The instant action was commenced by plaintiffs to enjoin defendant from evicting them by reason of plaintiff husband's race. In his cross-complaint defendant sought a declaration that his termination of the tenancy was not invalid, that defendant is entitled to possession of the premises, that his refusal to rent to any particular person or persons or his termination of such rental would not be unlawful even if his unexpressed reason therefor was the race or religion of the person or persons involved, and that defendant has a right to have a court of law recognize and enforce the termination of plaintiff's tenancy. Defendant relies upon article I, section 26 of the Constitution, which provides in pertinent part: 'Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.'

The trial court, in a memorandum opinion, held that the Fourteenth Amendment, through the equal protection clause, proscribed discrimination based on race where directly practiced by a state and also if practiced by private persons where 'to some significant extent the State in any of its manifestations has been found to have become involved in it,' citing Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45, and Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161. The court then noted that 'the prohibited involvement occurs when a state court enforces the racial discriminatory act of a private individual relating to occupancy of residential real property in cases where affirmative relief is sought in aid or furtherance of the discrimination. (Shelley v. Kraemer, supra; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586); Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Cal.App.2d 242 (22 Cal.Rptr. 309). * * '

In the Abstract Investment Co. case a landlord commenced an unlawful detainer action to recover possession of premises leased to and occupied by a Negro under a month-to-month tenancy. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed on the ground that it was prejudicial error to deny defendant an opportunity to show that he was being evicted solely because of his race. The court held in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Newby v. Alto Riviera Apartments
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 1976
    ...299 F.Supp. 501, in which the federal court refused to enjoin state unlawful detainer proceedings. See also Prendergast v. Snyder (1966) 64 Cal.2d 877, 50 Cal.Rptr. 903, 413 P.2d 847 (trial court granted an injnction enjoining a landlord from instituting eviction proceedings on the basis of......
  • Reitman v. Mulkey
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1967
    ...Cal.2d 529, 50 Cal.Rptr. 881, 413 P.2d 825. For similar reasons, the court affirmed the judgment in the Prendergast case. 64 Cal.2d 877, 50 Cal.Rptr. 903, 413 P.2d 847. We granted certiorari because the cases involve an important issue arising under the Fourteenth Amendment. 385 U.S. 967, 8......
  • Hosey v. Club Van Cortlandt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 24, 1969
    ...evictions was nearly placed before the United States Supreme Court in a case coming from California. Prendergast v. Snyder, 64 Cal.2d 877, 50 Cal.Rptr. 903, 413 P. 2d 847 (1966), involved a married couple who sought an injunction to enjoin the landlord from instituting eviction proceedings ......
  • S. P. Growers Association v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1976
    ...litigated in unlawful detainer. (Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Cal.App.2d 242, 22 Cal.Rptr. 309; Prendergast v. Snyder, 64 Cal.2d 877, 50 Cal.Rptr. 903, 413 P.2d 847.) On the other hand, the relationship of the claimed violation of law to the disputed tenancy has been held insu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT