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

1,863 chars

the discrimination.” 499 U.S. at 199. We adopted the
following burden-shifting framework: The plaintiff has the
initial burden to make a prima facie “showing that a
protected group has been subjected to explicitly
differential—i.e., discriminatory—treatment,” and then the
burden shifts to the defendant to “show either: (1) that the
[challenged] restriction benefits the protected class or
(2) that it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by
the individuals affected, rather than being based on
stereotypes.” Community House, 490 F.3d at 1050.
         b. Ohio House’s Procedural Argument
    We agree 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. See In re York, 78 F.4th 1074, 1088
(9th Cir. 2023) (“Given Rule 56’s mandatory language, if
there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court lacks
‘discretion’ to insist that, in defiance of Rule 56, a trial will
be held anyway.”); see also Courage to Change Ranches
Holding Co. v. El Paso Cnty., 73 F.4th 1175, 1191 (10th Cir.
2023) (“[W]hether a zoning ordinance is facially
discriminatory is a legal issue that can be discerned from the
face of the ordinance[.]”).
    The district court held that Ohio House established a
prima facie case of facially differential treatment as a matter
of law. But under Community House’s burden-shifting
framework, it reserved the question of benefit as a factual
issue to be resolved by the jury. That was error. Where, as
here, the parties do not dispute any material facts, whether a
law facially benefits the protected class is a question of law.
See Caruso v. Yamhill Cnty., 422 F.3d 848, 859 (9th Cir.
20        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text