Elliott v. QF Circa 37, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS |
| Parties | NATSUE ELLIOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QF CIRCA 37, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before the Court is Defendants Versa CIC, LP and ConAm Management Corporation's ("Defendants") Rule 56 motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiffs Natsue Elliott and Linda Brown have opposed the motion (ECF No. 120) and Defendants have replied (ECF No. 124). The Court previously issued a tentative ruling and set the matter for oral argument. (ECF No. 165.) Having considered oral argument and the parties' briefing, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment for the reasons set forth herein.
Plaintiff Natsue Elliott is an 89-year old who has Alzheimer's. (ECF No. 4, FAC ¶4-6; ECF No. 120-30 ("Brown Decl.") ¶3.) Plaintiff Linda Brown is Elliott's self-appointed guardian and daughter. (FAC ¶5; Brown Decl. ¶2.) Defendants own and operate the Versa at Civita apartment complex ("Civita"), a senior living community in San Diego, California. .) Elliott executed a lease for a studio apartment at Civita on March 27, 2015 and lived at Civita thereafter. (Id. ¶6; Brown Decl. ¶4.) Elliott moved out of Civita in January 2017. (ECF No. 92-7 ("Guion Decl.") ¶9; ECF No. 92-3 ("Kanno Decl.") Ex. 6.)
This case centers on Plaintiffs' requests for reasonable accommodations related to Elliott's disability and Defendants' treatment of Plaintiffs during Elliott's time at Civita. In April 2015, Elliott was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. (Brown Decl. ¶3.) Brown informed Vanessa Castanon, an employee of ConAm, who was the on-site manager at Civita, of this. (Jt. Stmt. ¶4; Brown Decl. ¶3.) In connection with Elliott's disability, Plaintiffs made several requests of Defendants and filed a housing discrimination complaint based on alleged denials of those requests.
In April 2015, Elliott was prescribed an emotional support animal. (Brown Decl. ¶6.) Brown's boyfriend sent an email to Defendants requesting permission for a dog to reside with Elliott on April 27, 2015, along with a physician letter. (ECF No. 120-31 ("Smelser Decl.") ¶2; Brown Decl. ¶3; ECF No. 120-5 Ex. 2 (physician letter); ECF No. 120-6 Ex. 3 (email).) Brown followed up with Castanon about this request on April 28, 2015 and did not hear back. (Brown Decl. ¶6.) Shortly thereafter, the onsite maintenance man, Joe Goodhue, told Elliott she could not have a dog. (Id. ¶7.) When Brown asked Castanon about this, Castanon told her Goodhue's statement was false. (Id. ¶7.) Brown testified that Castanon "told me itwas fine with a note" and "that it was fine because of the notice." (Brown Dep. 311:3-5, 311:20-312:9.) While Elliott lived at Civita, Brown brought a dog over to the apartment. (Jt. Stmt. ¶19.) Elliott also resided with a dog during her tenancy, including when Brown's son resided with Elliott for several months, during which time he had a dog. (Brown Dep. at 230:2-231:13.) Defendants conditionally approved the email request on December 15, 2015 and provided final written approval on December 28, 2015. (ECF No. 92-2 Ex. 4 at P14; ECF No. 120-22 Ex. 58.)
On May 24, 2015, Plaintiffs requested that Goodhue unlock Elliott's apartment when Elliott locked herself out. (FAC ¶27; Jt. Stmt. ¶20; Brown Decl. ¶9.) Goodhue refused to unlock the apartment. (Brown Decl. ¶9.) He refused because ConAm policy prohibited after hours lockouts. (ECF No. 92-6 ("Castanon Decl.") ¶¶18-19.) Brown's spare key was not on her but was accessible within driving distance. (Brown Decl. ¶9; Brown Dep. 140:16-23, 243:4-13.) Plaintiffs waited until Elliott's other caregiver came with a spare key. (FAC ¶27.)
Plaintiffs also allege that on May 4, 2015, Castanon told Brown that Elliott's car could not be in a handicap parking space unless Elliot was the driver. (FAC ¶22.) Castanon allegedly refused to permit Elliott to park in the space. (Id.) Brown had not obtained a handicap placard. (Castanon Decl. ¶7.)
After this incident, around May 26, 2015, Elliott fell at the apartment and was hospitalized. (FAC ¶28.) Upon returning from the hospital, Brown parked at the curb next to Elliott's apartment. (Id. ¶29.) Both parties dispute whether the curb was marked as a designated fire lane and whether "no parking" signs were in place when Brown attempted to park. (Contrast Brown Decl. ¶10 with Castanon Decl. ¶6; Brown Dep. at 176:7-9, 176:16-17.) Brown claims that "no parking" signs were dutifully erected after this incident. (Brown Decl. ¶11.) Brown further states that after theincident, Castanon prohibited her from parking at the curb near Elliott's apartment, repeatedly threatened to tow Brown's car, and stated she did not care Elliott had a disability and was unwilling to make any accommodation. (Id. ¶10.)
Brown secured a live-in caregiver for Elliott. (Brown Decl. ¶6.) On June 25, 2015, Elliott requested a reasonable accommodation to move "to preferably a two bedroom to accommodate caregiver or possible one bedroom." (Jt. Stmt. ¶10; Brown Decl. ¶13.) On July 27, 2015, Defendants approved Elliott "[t]o transfer to the next available 1 or 2 bedroom unit, so long as you qualify for the unit at your option." (Brown Decl. ¶13; Castanon Decl. ¶12, Ex. 6.) However, all two-bedroom units were rented when Civita opened in March 2015 and through the end of 2015. (Castanon Decl. ¶13.) Castanon subsequently offered Elliott two one-bedroom units, but Elliott and Brown declined to accept those first two transfers because they preferred a two bedroom option when it became available. (Jt. Stmt. ¶11; Castanon Decl. ¶13; Brown Decl. ¶14; ECF No. 120-19 Ex. 37 at 3.) Elliott accepted Defendants' third offer of a one-bedroom unit in August 2015. (Castanon Decl. ¶14; Brown Decl. ¶14; ECF No. 120-19 Ex. 37 at 3.) After receiving approval from San Diego Housing Commission ("SDHC") for a live-in caregiver under her Section 8 voucher, Elliott transferred into a one-bedroom unit in September 2015. (Castanon Decl. ¶14, Ex. 7; Brown Decl. ¶14.)
At the time that Civita residents moved in, parking spots were not assigned to residents. (Jt. Stmt. ¶3.) At Civita, there were only 124 assignable parking spots on the premises for 150 units, excluding 5 handicap spaces and 2 visitor spaces. (Id. ¶7.) Castanon reviewed resident rental applications, including Elliott's application, to determine how to assign spots. (Id. ¶8.) Brown requested a parking spot for Elliott's caregivers after Castanon had assigned the spots. (Id. ¶9.) On August 3, 2015, Brown requested to know when Elliott would have a spot. (Id. ¶16.) Castanonresponded that Elliott was "2nd in line for the next available parking spot." (Id. ¶17.)
Around October 15, 2015, Brown submitted a discrimination complaint to the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("DFEH") on behalf of Elliott. (Jt. Stmt. ¶1; Brown Decl. ¶17.) The complaint alleged that Defendants had refused reasonable accommodation requests for a larger unit, an assigned parking space, and an emotional support animal. (ECF No. 92-2 Ex. 2 at P8.)
On November 2, 2015, within a few weeks of the complaint, Elliott received an assigned parking spot. (Jt. Stmt. ¶18; Brown Decl. ¶18.) On that day, Castanon also emailed Brown that Elliott could transfer to the next available two-bedroom unit when a resident vacated. (Castanon Decl. ¶15.) Three days later, Castanon advised Brown that a unit would be available in January 2016, with a move-in date of January 4, 2016. (Jt. Stmt. ¶14; Castanon Decl. ¶16; Brown Decl. ¶19.)
About a month later on December 1, 2015, another resident complained of noise coming from Elliott's apartment. (Jt. Stmt. ¶12; Guion Decl. ¶3.) An employee of Defendants, Yolanda Dolezal-Guion, went to the resident's apartment later that day to listen for noise. (Jt. Stmt. ¶13; Guion Decl. ¶3.) When she heard no noise, she went to Elliott's apartment, but no one answered the door. (Guion Decl. ¶3.) She issued a notice of lease violation to Elliott thereafter. (Id. ¶3, Ex. 1 ("Notice of Lease Violation").) The single page notice stated "[w]hile we want you to enjoy your apartment we ask you to be courteous and respect the peaceful enjoyment of," and identified no "corrective actions." Plaintiffs claim they feared eviction based on the notice. (Brown Decl. ¶21.)
A few days later, Guion told Brown that Elliott was no longer permitted to move to a two-bedroom unit. (Brown Decl. ¶20.) Elliott was not eligible for another unit transfer under the terms of her Section 8 voucher unless she could satisfy an exception and receive approval from SDHC for that transfer. (Guion Decl. ¶¶5-7, Ex. 2; Kanno Decl. Ex. 4.) After Elliott completed the SDHC paperwork to permither to receive approval for a two-bedroom unit by December 28, 2015, she received approval from Defendants and transferred to a two-bedroom unit at Civita on January 5, 2016. (Guion Decl. ¶8; see also Brown Decl. ¶14.)
On January 14, 2016, the DFEH closed its investigation of Plaintiffs' complaint, finding that Plaintiffs had received the accommodations they requested and there was "insufficient evidence" to show that the accommodations had been denied. (ECF No. 92-2 Ex. 4 at P16.) Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants in this Court on February 3, 2016, asserting claims under (1) the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.; (2) California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), CAL. GOV. CODE §§12927 and 12955 et...
To continue reading
Request your trial