Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. City of L. A.

• Citation: 973 F.Supp.2d 1139
• Decision Date: 19 September 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 12–0551 FMO (PJWx).
• Parties: INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

973 F.Supp.2d 1139

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. CV 12–0551 FMO (PJWx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Sept. 19, 2013.

Adam R. Pulver, D. Scott Chang, Jamie L. Crook, Michael G. Allen, Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC, Washington, DC, Autumn M. Elliott, Maria Michelle Uzeta, Panchalam Seshan Srividya, Paula D. Pearlman, Disability Rights California, Los Angeles, CA, Dara L. Schur, Protection and Advocacy, Oakland Legal Office, Oakland, CA, David Grant Geffen, David Geffen Law Firm, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Andrew Byrne, Jennifer L. Derwin, Byrne and Nixon LLP, Melissa T. Daugherty, Juliet A. Antoun, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard and Smith, LLP, Roberto Lara, Lara & Ibarra LLP, Derrick S. Lowe, R. Jeffrey Neer, Phillip A. Baker, Baker Keener and Nahra LLP, John R. Benson, Law Office of John R. Benson, Dimitrios Peter Biller, Paficia Palisades, Leo D. Plotkin, Levy Small and Lallas, Los Angeles, CA, Theresa L. Kitay, Theresa L. Kitay Attorney at Law, Marina del Rey, CA, Megan Kathleen Garibaldi, Mark Jason Austin, Rutan and Tucker LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, William Jeffrey Goines, Greenberg Traurig LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, Christopher P. Warne, Law Offices of Christopher Warne, Pacific Palasades, CA, Scott Parrish Moore, Anthony Domenic Todero, Baird Holm LLP, Omaha, NE, Barry Clifford Snyder, Snyder Law LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER Re: CROSS–DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.

The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to the Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Motion”), and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7–15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).

INTRODUCTION

The Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 13, 2012, pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title II” or the “ADA”), the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and California Government Code § 11135 (“Section 11135”). ( See Plaintiffs' Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief). Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (“SAC”) on August 20, 2012, alleging that defendants CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, a public entity and successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA/LA”), and the City of Los Angeles (“City”) (collectively, the “government defendants” or “cross-claimants”) ¹ have engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.² (SAC at ¶ 2).

Plaintiffs also name as defendants 61 owners of multifamily residential properties in the City of Los Angeles (collectively, “owner defendants”), which received federal funds from or through the government defendants. ( See SAC at ¶¶ 3 & 57–116). Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmativeclaims against any of the owner defendants, but bring them into this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) as necessary parties to enforce any injunctive and/or other relief that may be granted by the court if plaintiffs prevail against the government defendants.³ ( See SAC at ¶ 3).

On December 14, 2012, the City filed a Crossclaim For Contribution, Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief against all defendants and, on December 20, 2012 filed an Amended Crossclaim (“City's Am. Crossclaim”). On January 4, 2013, the CRA/LA filed a nearly identical crossclaim against the owner defendants. ⁴ ( Compare, generally, Defendant/Cross–Defendant CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redeployment Agency of the City of Los Angeles' Cross-claim for Contribution Indemnity and Declaratory Relief (“CRA/LA's Crossclaim”), with City's Am. Crossclaim). The crossclaimants allege rights to express, implied, and contractual indemnification or contribution from the owner defendants, to the extent that they may be liable to plaintiffs. ( See City's Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 66–70; CRA/LA's Crossclaim at ¶¶ 54–59).

On February 4, 2013, 58 of the 61 owner defendants filed the instant Motion to dismiss the crossclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).⁵ The owner defendants ⁶ contend the crossclaims must be dismissed because “no ... right to indemnification or contribution exists pursuant to any of the statutory violations alleged by the Plaintiffs against the City or the CRA/LA.” (Motion at 4). On February 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Non–Opposition to Rule 19 Owner Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Non–Opposition”). “On February 28, 2013, the City filed an Opposition to Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA and Request to Strike Plaintiff[s'] Non–Opposition” (“City's Opp.”). On February 28, 2013, the CRA/LA filed an Opposition to Rule 19 Owner Defendants Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“CRA/LA's Opp.”). The owner defendants filed a reply brief on March 7, 2013 (“Reply”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND⁷

Plaintiffs are non-profit, community-based organizations that provide services to people with disabilities in the City of Los Angeles and adjoining areas. ( See SAC at ¶¶ 9–30). Plaintiffs assert that their missions have been hindered, and the effectiveness of their programs and services undermined, as a result of the government defendants' alleged failure to comply with disability anti-discrimination laws. ( See id. at ¶¶ 202–27).

Defendant CRA/LA is a public agency established as successor to the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“the Agency”), which conducted redevelopment and revitalization activities using public and private funds in designated areas of the City of Los Angeles.⁸ ( See SAC at ¶¶ 36–48). Plaintiffs allege that the City and CRA/LA have received financial assistance from the federal and state governments within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act and California Government Code § 11135. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 33–34, 49–51). The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own capacity and in its capacity as a successor to the Agency. ( See id. at ¶¶ 35, 53).

I. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY AND CRA/LA.

Plaintiffs' claims against the government defendants are as follows: (1) claims one and two allege that the government defendants “discriminated and continue[ ] to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in a manner that” results in unlawful discrimination against or “unlawfully limits people with disabilities from enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain ... housing,” ( see SAC at ¶¶ 233–38); (2) claims three and four allege that the government defendants “discriminated and continue[ ] to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA by acting or failing to act in a manner that, among other things[,]” limits or denies people with disabilities the ability to “enjoy[ ] housing or the opportunity to obtain ... housing by engaging in the [complained of] policies, practices, acts, and omissions [,]” ( see id. at ¶¶ 239–44); and (3) claim six alleges that the same acts and omissions giving rise to the federal claims violate Cal. Gov.Code § 11135, which imposes non-discrimination obligations on entities receiving financial assistance from the state of California. ( See id. at ¶¶ 250–51).

Plaintiffs allege that the government defendants have “knowingly allocated millions of dollars in federal, state and other funds to finance housing throughout Los Angeles without ensuring that their programs as a whole and the housing they developed, funded, and significantly assisted is accessible and made meaningfully available to people with disabilities.” (SAC at ¶ 2). According to plaintiffs, the government defendants “have failed, and continue to fail, to maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure” that accessible housing units are made available and are meaningfully accessible to people with disabilities. ( Id. at ¶¶ 170–72). They contend that, “[a]t all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed to monitor compliance with the Rehabilitation Act accessibility requirements [,]” ( id. at ¶ 174), and “failed to exercise oversight over developers and owners of housing in the [Program] in regards to their obligations to comply and their ongoing compliance with disability access provisions of federal law.” ( Id. at ¶ 181). “The Government Defendants have failed, and continue to fail, to require that projects within the [Program] comply with federal accessibility requirements, which has the effect of excluding people with disabilities from such developments.” ( Id. at ¶ 179).

Plaintiffs further allege that the government defendants “failed to ensure compliance with these requirements in housing where the Government Defendants were providing federal funding to the developer and/or owner for the project.” (SAC at ¶ 183). This includes funding granted to the owners of the “61 multifamily projects [of the owner defendants], comprising approximately 4,140 units, for which the [government defendants] provided [federal] funds to support new construction or substantial alteration.” ( Id. at ¶ 184). Finally, plaintiffs allege that “[n]one of the 61 federally-funded multifamily projects contains units accessible to people with mobility and/or auditory or visual impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to this program, service, or activity in...