The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,795 chars

and the California Planning and Zoning Law, California
Government Code § 65008.
    Ohio House operates a sober-living facility in a multiple-
family residential (MFR) zone. The City notified Ohio
House that the property was subject to Ordinance 15-11,
which requires that all group homes with over six residents
located in MFR zones obtain a conditional-use permit and
satisfy a separation requirement. The City denied Ohio
House’s application for a conditional-use permit because the
property did not meet the separation requirement, and also
denied Ohio House’s request for a reasonable
accommodation or waiver of the separation requirement.
    Addressing Ohio House’s disparate treatment claim, the
panel agreed with the parties that whether the City’s zoning
code facially subjects the disabled to unlawful disparate
treatment is a question of law that should have been resolved
at summary judgment. On the merits, the panel held that
Ohio House failed to establish facial disparate treatment as a
matter of law because the differential treatment under the
City’s group-living regulations facially benefits the
protected class of disabled people. The district court’s error
in submitting this matter to the jury was harmless because
the jury correctly concluded that Ohio House failed to prove
disparate treatment.
    The panel affirmed the district court’s summary
judgment for the City on Ohio House’s disparate impact
claim, agreeing with the district court that Ohio House failed
to prove a significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect
on a protected group.
    The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment
as a matter of law on Ohio House’s discriminatory
statements claim. Ohio House’s contention that the City
4         THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text