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

1,830 chars

2005) (“Because the material facts are not in dispute, ‘the
character and extent of the statute’s burden involves a
question of law’ . . . .” (quoting Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d
851, 859 (7th Cir. 2000))). Nonetheless, the district court’s
error in not resolving this legal issue and submitting the
disparate-treatment claim to the jury was harmless if the
jury’s verdict is consistent with the required legal outcome.
See Minneapolis & Saint Louis Ry. Co. v. Columbus Rolling-
Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 152 (1886) (“The submission of a
question of law to the jury is no ground of exception, if they
decide it aright.”); Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1468–
69 (9th Cir. 1994) (where “the factual findings the jury must
have made . . . would require the district court to deny [a
defendant] qualified immunity” then “even if the court erred
in sending the qualified immunity determination to the jury,
the error was harmless”). Thus, we consider whether Ohio
House established facial disparate treatment as a matter of
law.
           c. Ohio House’s Merits Argument
   As discussed, we apply a burden-shifting framework to
evaluate claims of facial discrimination. Community House,
490 F.3d at 1050. Accordingly, we consider whether Ohio
House established a prima facie case, whether the City
rebutted that case by showing its regulations provide a
benefit to the disabled, and—relevant to California law—
whether the City employed the least-restrictive means of
achieving that benefit.
                              i.
   At summary judgment, the district court concluded that
Ohio House established a prima facie showing that the City’s
zoning regulations facially impose differential treatment
because they “treat Group Homes and Sober Living Homes
            THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA                   21

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text