Fair Hosing Councel of Riverside County Inc. v. Riverside Two, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGraber
Citation249 F.3d 1132
Docket NumberNo. 99-55830,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Decision Date21 May 2001
Parties(9th Cir. 2001) THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INC.; THE INLAND MEDIATION BOARD, INC., PLAINTIFFS, AND EUGENIA GREEN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR IRAN GREEN, WENDI GREEN, AND KAMDEN GREEN, MINORS; SHANNON STAPLES, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JORDAN PALMS AND BRIANNA STAPLES, MINORS; PAMELA JACKSON BOYNES, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR CANDACE BOYNES(VAPX) AND LESLY BOYNES, MINORS,, v. RIVERSIDE TWO, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP; PATRICK MCSHERRY; TOMALEEN MCSHERRY; AND GREG MCSHERRY; AS INDIVIDUALS AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE UNIVERSITY HILLS APARTMENTS AND THE CASA DEL MAR APARTMENTS; AND MARGARET MILLER,

Page 1132

249 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2001)
THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INC.; THE INLAND MEDIATION BOARD, INC., PLAINTIFFS,
AND
EUGENIA GREEN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR IRAN GREEN, WENDI GREEN, AND KAMDEN GREEN, MINORS; SHANNON STAPLES, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JORDAN PALMS AND BRIANNA STAPLES,

Page 1133

MINORS; PAMELA JACKSON BOYNES, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR CANDACE BOYNES(VAPX) AND LESLY BOYNES, MINORS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
RIVERSIDE TWO, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP; PATRICK MCSHERRY; TOMALEEN MCSHERRY; AND GREG MCSHERRY; AS INDIVIDUALS AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE UNIVERSITY HILLS APARTMENTS AND THE CASA DEL MAR APARTMENTS; AND MARGARET MILLER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 99-55830
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2001
Filed May 21, 2001

Page 1134

Clifford A. Dover, Law Office of Clifford A. Dover, Fountain Valley, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward L. Xanders, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland Llp, Beverly Hills, California, for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-97-00042-RT

Before: Harry Pregerson, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges.

Graber, Circuit Judge

The parties to this civil case filed simultaneous cross- motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motions, denied Plaintiffs' motion as moot, and entered a judgment dismissing the action. We hold that, when simultaneous cross-motions for summary judgment on the same claim are before the court, the court must consider the appropriate evidentiary material identified and submitted in support of both motions, and in opposition to both motions, before ruling on each of them. Because we cannot ascertain from the record whether the district court followed that procedure, we reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are Shannon Staples and her minor children, Eugenia Green and her minor children, and Pamela Jackson Boynes and her minor children.1 They brought this action against Defendants Riverside Two, Patrick McSherry, Tomaleen McSherry, Greg McSherry, and Margaret Miller. The Staples and Green families resided at the Casa del Mar Apartments; the Boynes family rented an apartment in the University Hills complex. Defendants Riverside Two and the McSherrys owned and operated the two complexes; Defendant Miller was the resident manager at University Hills.

Plaintiffs alleged discrimination by Defendants on the basis of race and familial status, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§§§ 3601 to 3619 ("FHA"), and the California fair-housing laws. Plaintiffs also alleged several other claims under California law. After the district court dismissed with prejudice several of Plaintiffs' claims, 2 the parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the FHA claim. Plaintiffs joined in a single motion; Defendants filed separate

Page 1135

motions against each family. As it happens, Plaintiffs' motion and Defendants' motions were filed on the same day.

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted a substantial amount of deposition testimony in support of their respective motions. Their accompanying memoranda contained citations to specific places in the supporting documentation. The parties filed "Statements of Genuine Issues" and memoranda in opposition to each others' motions for summary judgment. Defendants submitted additional evidence in support of their opposition. They also made 145 evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs' evidence.3

Plaintiffs did not submit additional evidence in opposition to Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Instead, their opposing papers relied on the evidence that they had submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' "Statement of Genuine Issues" contained seven specific citations to the evidence that they had submitted in support of their cross-motions; the individual families' memoranda in response to Defendants' separate motions for summary judgment contained additional, specific citations to that evidence. Plaintiffs' opposing papers also made many general references to their evidence.

The district court granted all of Defendants' motions for summary judgment. In its orders, the court stated:

Plaintiffs have not submitted any admissible evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' opposition contains statements in their points and authorities of discriminatory behavior on the part of defendants. These recitations, however, merely repeat the unsworn factual allegations contained in their unverified complaint and are not supported by any admissible evidence.

The court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It then entered a separate order denying Plaintiffs'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
851 practice notes
  • Western Land Exchange Proj. v. U.S. Bureau of Land, No. CVN02-0343-DWH(RAM).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 19, 2004
    ...must evaluate the evidence offered in support of each cross-motion. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2001). NEPA cases, which generally involve review of agency action based on a "complete and voluminous" administrative record,......
  • Katzman v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., Case No.: 13–CV–00438–LHK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • November 4, 2014
    ...must consider the evidence submitted with both motions before ruling. Fair Hous. Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1135–36 (9th Cir.2001). At the summary judgment stage, the Court “does not assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whet......
  • Rabinovitz v. City of L. A., Case No. CV 16–8087 DMG (JPRx)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 2, 2018
    ...the Rule 56 summary-judgment standard is satisfied. 287 F.Supp.3d 946 Fair Housing Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two , 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the issues before the Court are questions of law, the case is particularly "well suited" for summary judgment. Del......
  • Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, CV 01-04842 SVW (RCx) (C.D. Cal. 6/23/2003), CV 01-04842 SVW (RCx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 23, 2003
    ...issues of fact exist, despite the parties' assurances to that effect. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2001); see Chevron USA, Inc. v. Cayetano, 224 F.3d 1030, 1038 n.6 (9th Cir. III. DISCUSSION — STATUTORY APPLICATION A. Back......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
845 cases
  • Western Land Exchange Proj. v. U.S. Bureau of Land, No. CVN02-0343-DWH(RAM).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 19, 2004
    ...must evaluate the evidence offered in support of each cross-motion. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2001). NEPA cases, which generally involve review of agency action based on a "complete and voluminous" administrative record,......
  • Katzman v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., Case No.: 13–CV–00438–LHK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • November 4, 2014
    ...must consider the evidence submitted with both motions before ruling. Fair Hous. Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1135–36 (9th Cir.2001). At the summary judgment stage, the Court “does not assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whet......
  • Rabinovitz v. City of L. A., Case No. CV 16–8087 DMG (JPRx)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 2, 2018
    ...the Rule 56 summary-judgment standard is satisfied. 287 F.Supp.3d 946 Fair Housing Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two , 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the issues before the Court are questions of law, the case is particularly "well suited" for summary judgment. Del......
  • Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, CV 01-04842 SVW (RCx) (C.D. Cal. 6/23/2003), CV 01-04842 SVW (RCx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 23, 2003
    ...issues of fact exist, despite the parties' assurances to that effect. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2001); see Chevron USA, Inc. v. Cayetano, 224 F.3d 1030, 1038 n.6 (9th Cir. III. DISCUSSION — STATUTORY APPLICATION A. Back......
  • 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