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

928 chars

matter of law on Ohio House’s § 65008 claim because it was
time-barred.
    Specially concurring, Judge Ikuta would hold that to
establish a facial disparate treatment claim under the FHA
and FEHA, a plaintiff must show that the protected group
suffered unfavorable treatment compared to the unprotected
group and not merely show that the protected group has been
treated differently than the unprotected group.
    Concurring, Judge Forrest agreed with Judge Ikuta that a
plaintiff should be required to prove adverse facially
differential treatment as part of its prima facie case, but
disagreed that a prima facie showing of unfavorable
treatment is required under Ninth Circuit precedent.
    Dissenting in part, Judge Gould would have dismissed
Ohio House’s interference claim under the FHA as waived
for lack of adequate briefing, instead of reaching the merits.
6        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA COUNSEL

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text