Elliott v. Versa Cic, L.P.
| Decision Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS |
| Parties | NATSUE ELLIOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VERSA CIC, L.P., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL RULE 50(b) RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
[ECF No. 221];
(2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 4];
This case stems from Plaintiff Natsue Elliott's rental of an apartment at the Versa at Civita apartment complex ("Civita"), a senior living community in San Diego, California. Elliott was determined to have Alzheimer's shortly after she moved to Civita in March 2015. She1 and her daughter, Plaintiff Linda Brown, have contended throughout this litigation that Defendants Versa CIC, LP ("Versa") and ConAm Management Corporation ("ConAm") (together, "Defendants") violated federal and California anti-discrimination laws by discriminating on the basis of disability.2 Plaintiffs' claims for trial principally concerned whether Defendants discriminated when a Civita manager, Vanessa Castanon, refused to let Brown park at the curb in front of Elliott's Civita apartment in late May 2015. During the course of trial, the parties stipulated that the area was designated as a fire lane. Plaintiffs also raised discriminatory statements claims based on remarks Castanon made related to curb parking and handicapped parking spots at Civita.
Before the Court submitted the claims to the jury, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a), which the Court denied. (ECF No. 210.) Thereafter, the jury deadlocked in a 6-1 vote in favor of Defendants and the Court declared a mistrial. (ECF No. 216.) Defendants renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b). (ECF No. 221.) Plaintiffs oppose. (ECF No. 224.) Because a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Plaintiffs, the Court grants Defendants' Rule 50(b) motion and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' remaining claims.
Prior to renting an apartment at Civita, Plaintiff Natsue Elliott began to experience a mental decline while she resided in Chico, California. (ECF 211, Trial Transcript Vol. 1 ("Trial Tr. Vol. 1.") at 36:2-11.) As a result, Elliott's daughter, Linda Brown, immediately looked for a place in San Diego, California, where Brown resided, and which would make it easier for Brown to care for her mother. (Id. at 36:20-37:6.)
Around February 2015, Brown found Civita, a then-new apartment complex which had Section 8 housing available. (Id. at 37:7-14, 37:17-20; 38:2-3.) Brown met with Vanessa Castanon regarding Elliott potentially renting an apartment at Civita and Brown completed a rental application on her mother's behalf. (Id. at 38:6-7, 38:17-21.) Elliott was approved and moved to Civita at the end of March 2015. (Id. at 39:8-14.) The following month, Elliott was determined to have "moderate dementia," specifically, Alzheimer's. (ECF No. 227, Trial Transcript Vol. 2A ("Trial Tr. Vol. 2A") at 91:5-92:20.)
Relevant to the events that ensued were Civita's limited parking offerings. There were approximately 122 parking spots for 150 units, five handicapped parking spots, two spots for two-hour parking, and two office parking spots. (Id. at 166:2-8.) Elliott did not drive. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 43:18-20.) In response to a question inElliott's Civita rental application regarding "Vehicle Type," Brown wrote "N/A," i.e., "not applicable." (Trial Tr. Vol. 2A at 103:6-14.) This response meant little initially because when Elliott first moved to Civita, parking was on a "first-come-first served basis." (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 45:10-15.)
At some point, however, Castanon assigned parking spots to Civita tenants and did not assign a spot to Elliott. (Id. at 45:16-46:1.) Brown learned that Castanon had assigned parking spots through conversations with other tenants. (Id.) Thereafter, when Brown asked Castanon for an assigned parking spot, Castanon said she did not assign a spot because Elliott did not have a car. (Id. at 46:9-10.) Brown explained that her mother was disabled and needed a parking spot "for us and the caregivers to be going to doctor's appointments." (Id. at 46:11-14.) Castanon apologized and said she would put Elliott on the waiting list for the next available spot. (Id. at 46:15-19.) "[R]eally soon after" Castanon assigned parking spots, another Civita tenant, Ted Casselberry, allowed Brown and Elliott to use his parking spot until Elliott received an assigned spot. (Id. at 69:2-12.)
After parking spots were assigned and notwithstanding Casselberry allowing Brown to use his spot, Brown had difficulties parking at Civita at various times when she went to see her mother. (Id. at 47:1-7.) Sometimes Brown parked in an area in front of Elliott's ground floor apartment which Castanon told her was a fire lane although the curb was not painted red, there was no signs indicating the curb was a fire lane, and there were no fire hydrants. (Id. at 47:2-19.) During trial, the parties stipulated that the Civita site plans indicated that this area was designated as a fire access lane. (ECF No. 212, Trial Transcript Vol. 2B ("Trial Tr. Vol. 2B") at 225:5-8.) Trial evidence further showed that the City of San Diego required the fire access lane before the City would approve Civita's construction. (Id. at 230:23-231:4 9 ().)
Before "No Parking" signs were placed up, Castanon told Brown that she was not allowed to park there and if Castanon caught Brown parking there, Castanon would have Brown's car towed. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 49:6-13.) Brown testified that "other people"—"quite a few"—parked there. (Id. at 47:20-24, 48:15-18.) Brown further testified that, at some point, she had seen moving vans parked there as well as cars parked there overnight. (Id. at 49:2-5.) Brown stated that Castanon "didn't say anything to the other people, just me[.]" (Id. at 50:1-3.)
At some point before "No Parking" signs were placed along the curb, Brown asked Castanon about the possibility of using one of Civita's handicapped parking spots. Brown testified this was "[b]ecause I was trying to be creative and . . . get my mom a parking spot." (Id. at 69:13-19.) Brown approached Castanon at Civita's on-site office. (Id. at 69:24-70:4.) Brown testified that Castanon told her she could not have a spot because her mother was not the person driving. (Id. at 71:23-72:2.)4 In response to this statement, Brown had Elliott's physician fill out a California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") handicapped placard application, a copy of which Brown provided to Castanon. (Id. at 72:24-73:7.) Brown, however, did not go to the DMV to obtain an actual handicapped parking placard because "it was too much of a hassle for me . . . and I just didn't want to go to the DMV, and we had already got a parking space from Ted." (Id. at 73:8-73:14.) At no point did Elliott have a handicapped placard during her residence at Civita and thus she did not receive permission to park in one of the five handicapped parking spots. (Trial Tr. Vol. 2A at 115:11-13.)
In late May 2015, Elliott tripped on a curb while taking a walk, hit her head and was hospitalized. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 60:3-25.) When Brown brought Elliott to Elliott's apartment after the hospital stay, Brown parked in the area in front of Elliott's apartment. (Id. at 61:5-7.) Castanon was outside and told Brown that "[she] couldn't park there" or "I'll have you towed." (Id. at 61:3-7; 62:8-9, 62:13-15.) When Brown tried to explain that she was trying to quickly retrieve some things from Elliott's apartment following Elliott's hospital stay, Castanon "just said she didn't care about my mom's disability or hospital stay." (Id. at 62:13-18.) Brown told Castanon "go ahead and tow me," left her car parked at the curb with her mother inside the car, and retrieved several items from Elliott's apartment. (Id. at 62:10-12, 63:11-16, 63:21-23.) According to Brown, Castanon just shook her head in disbelief because Brown "went above and beyond her rules." (Id. at 63:13-20.) After this incident, Elliott stayed with Brown for a few days. (Id. at 64:24-65:5.) When Brown returned to Civita, the curb in front of Elliott's apartment remained unmarked. (Id. at 65:6-16.) At no point did Brown testify that she was in fact towed for parking at the curb.
In June 2015, Castanon had "No Parking" signs placed at Civita, including along the designated fire lane in front of Elliott's apartment. (Id. at 65:20-66:5, 67:9-24.) Brown thought Castanon put the signs up "just to make more problems for me" and she testified that the signs "impacted me deeply." (Id. at 66:6-8, 68:6-8.)
Brown explained that "in the beginning" she was at Civita taking care of Elliott "quite a bit, like every day," which lessened to about "50 percent of the time" when she got a caregiver, Melissa Wilder, for her mother around May 2015. (Id. at 57:13-15, 77:8-77:11; see also id. at 43:21-23.) Throughout Elliott's residence at Civita, Castanon was "rude" to Brown and Elliott when they would run into her at theapartment complex. (Id. at 44:13-17.) "She ignored things that [Brown] said and just never really said hello, didn't acknowledge us [Elliott and Brown]." (Id. at 44:13-17.) Wilder, a friend of Brown's, agreed that Castanon was "cold and distant," did not include Elliott in conversations, and (Id. at 58:3-7; Trial Tr. Vol. 2B at 214:9-25.) Castanon's behavior humiliated and caused stress for both Brown and her mother. (Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 63:5-7, 63:21-64:7.)
Prior to filing this case, Plaintiffs filed a complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial