McAlister v. Essex Property Trust

• Decision Date: 24 August 2007
• Docket Number: No. CV070240SJOSHX.,CV070240SJOSHX.
• Citation: 504 F.Supp.2d 903
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: David MCALISTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST et al., Defendants.

504 F.Supp.2d 903

David MCALISTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST et al., Defendants.

No. CV070240SJOSHX.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

August 24, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Connie Y. Chung, Liam J. Garland, Nisha N. Vyas, Southern California Housing Rights Center, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Thomas B. Cummings, Thomas B. Cummings Law Offices, Anaheim, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

OTERO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed May 14, 2007. Defendants filed an Opposition, to which Plaintiffs replied. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for June 4, 2007. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

Since September of 2002, Plaintiff David McAlister, his minor son, and sometimes his minor daughter have lived at 741 Paseo Camarillo, Unit # 89, Camarillo, California, part of a community referred to as "Camarillo Oaks." ESSEX MGMT. CORP. v. McALISTER, No. 245572, at 2007 WL 811093, *1 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Feb. 14, 2007) [hereinafter McALISTER Ruling]. During the summer and early autumn of 2006, neighbors complained that the McAlister family sloud and disruptive behavior made them feel threatened. Id. at *2. Mr. McAlister has since sent his daughter to live at a residential treatment facility, but not before a disturbance in late September of 2006. Id. at *2-3. This disturbance prompted Essex Management Corporation ("Management") to serve Mr. McAlister with notice to terminate his tenancy. Id. at *2.

Mr. McAlister requested withdrawal of the notice of eviction as a reasonable accommodation of both his son's and his own disabilities under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"). Id. In, a letter to the property manager, a case analyst at the Housing Rights Center identified Mr. McAlister as a person with a disability and requested withdrawal as a reasonable accommodation. (Arriola Decl. Ex. H.) In a letter to Management's attorney, Mr. McAlister's attorney asked for withdrawal as a reasonable accommodation of the son's disability, explaining that unless the son continues to live within a qualifying area, he cannot receive necessary mental health services provided by the city. (Duringer Decl. Ex. N.)

On December 28, 2006, Management, acting as authorized agent, sued Mr. McAlister in the Superior Court of California for unlawful detainer (the "UD Action") relating to the apartment. Mr. McAlister raised as an affirmative defense reasonable accommodation of both his and his son's disabilities. Commissioner Mark S. Borrell issued a ten-page ruling in favor of Mr. McAlister. See McALISTER Ruling. In the ruling, the Commissioner found that rescission of the termination notice would not be a reasonable accommodation of Mr. McAlister's personal disability. Id. at *6 n. 4. However, the Commissioner found that rescission was a reasonable accommodation of the son's disability and therefore allowed the McAlister family to retain tenancy of their apartment: "The resolution of this unlawful detainer case turns on whether [Management] lawfully refused to provide the accommodation requested by McAlister[;] .... the court determines that it did not." Id. at *4. At the Commissioner's request, Mr. McAlister's attorney drafted a judgment. Id. at *10; See Essex Mgmt. Corp. v. McAlister, No. 245572, at 1 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Mar. 12, 2007) [hereinafter McAlister Judgment]. The Commissioner filed the proposed judgment, but not before he struck out the only sentence referencing reasonable accommodation: "Finding this case turned on whether [Management] lawfully refused to provide Mr. McAllister's [sic] request for accommodation pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws, this Court held that Essex unlawfully refused Mr. McAlister's request for accommodation." McAlister Judgment, at 1.

On January 9, 2007, Mr. McAlister and the Housing Rights Center (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated this action against Essex Property Trust ("Property Trust"), Essex Portfolio ("Portfolio"), Essex Camarillo Oaks 789 ("Camarillo 789"), and Management (collectively, "Defendants") for failure to provide reasonable accommodation of his and his children's disabilities under federal and state fair housing laws.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs Seek Summary Adjudication Based on Collateral Estoppel Regarding the Issue of Reasonable Accommodation

Plaintiffs seek summary adjudication on the issue of Defendants' liability under federal and state fair housing law. Plaintiffs assert that the issue of reasonable accommodation was decided in favor of the McAlister family during the UD Action and that Defendants should be collaterally estopped from relitigating it. Where an issue has been actually litigated and was necessary to the judgment in a prior litigation between the same parties or their privies, collateral estoppel prevents that issue from being relitigated. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). The objective of collateral estoppel, and of res judicata in general, is to cut down on expense to and effort by litigants and courts by eliminating redundant litigation. Wood v. Herson, 39 Cal.App.3d 737, 114 Cal.Rptr. 365, 369 (Ct.App.1974); 7 Witkin, California Procedure, Judgment §§ 280, 354 (4th ed.1997).

1. An Unlawful Detainer Judgment May Have Collateral Estoppel Effects on Issues That Were Properly Raised.

Defendants assert that "an unlawful detainer proceeding is not a basis for [collateral estoppel] as it is summary in nature." (Opp'n 16.) It is true that an unlawful detainer action is summary in the sense that "only claims bearing directly upon the right of immediate possession are cognizable." Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal.3d 251, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d 28, 30 (1977). Claims extrinsic to the right of immediate possession cannot be raised in an unlawful detainer action. Id. But issues necessary to resolve the right of immediate possession, such as the affirmative defense of reasonable accommodation, may be raised and conclusively resolved in an unlawful detainer action. See Wood, 114 Cal.Rptr. at 369 ("[A] party can have a full adversary hearing in an unlawful detainer action where all issues involved in a subsequent proceeding are determined.") (emphasis in original). The potential of an unlawful detainer judgment to collaterally estop subsequent litigation has been recognized by the California Supreme Court: "Applying the traditional rule that a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive to any issues necessarily determined in that action, the courts have held that subsequent [suits] are barred by the prior unlawful detainer judgment." Vella, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d at 31.

Here, the summary nature of unlawful detainer actions does not bar Plaintiffs' assertion of collateral estoppel because Mr. McAlister's claim of reasonable accommodation was heard. In fact, because the parties had narrowed the issues through the use of stipulations regarding facts and exhibits, reasonable accommodation was the sole issue before the Commissioner. (Statement of Genuine Issues in Opp'n ¶ 15.)

2. The Issue of Reasonable Accommodation Was Fully and Fairly Litigated.

Only full and fair litigation of an issue can bring about collateral estoppel. Vella, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d at 31 ("`[F]ull and fair' litigation of an affirmative defense ... will result in a judgment conclusive upon issues material to that defense."). If the issue of reasonable accommodation was fully and fairly litigated in the UD Action, the resulting judgment can have collateral estoppel force.

Defendants argue that the UD Action was too brief to produce collateral estoppel, but the short length of the action does not preclude the conclusion that the issue of reasonable accommodation was fully and fairly litigated. Although testimony at trial lasted only four hours, Defendants do not specify any evidence that they lacked opportunity to introduce. At trial, Management called five of the eight witnesses who testified. (Statement of Genuine Issues in Opp'n ¶ 17.) The motion for summary judgment that Management filed, id. ¶ 12, was another opportunity to be heard by the Commissioner. Management had an opportunity to present its case on the . issue of reasonable accommodation, the sole issue to be tried. As Plaintiffs relate, the Commissioner offered his opinion during trial that the parties were "very effectively represented by their respective counsel," that counsel was "competent [and] well-prepared," and that the case was "very well tried." (Garland Reply Decl. ¶ 3.)

a. The UD Action Provided Management with an Opportunity to Litigate All Issues Regarding Reasonable Accommodation.

The most persuasive evidence of the fullness and fairness of the litigation are the attacks Defendants wage on the validity of Mr. McAlister's request for a reasonable accommodation. Defendants argue that, given the opportunity, they would show that Mr. McAlister's son did not qualify as disabled and that his son did not require a reasonable accommodation because he was posing a "direct threat" to the health and safety of others, an exception to the duty to provide reasonable accommodations. (Opp'n 8-9.) Yet, Commissioner Borrell addressed both of these issues McAlister. Ruling, at 6 ("The evidence establishes that McAlister is a person qualifying for protection under the FHAA, either as a person with a disability or as someone associated with a person with a disability."), 10 ("Essex has not met its burden to show that McAlister [or] his son are, at this time, a `direct threat' to other residents ....")....