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

1,800 chars

F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we confine
our analysis to Ohio House’s argument that it would have
been less restrictive for the City to enforce its nuisance laws
to limit the “secondary effects” arising from group homes
than to adopt its revised group-living regulations. It is
unclear whether Ohio House envisions nuisance law as an
alternative to all zoning laws pertaining to group and sober-
living homes, or just some subset. Would nuisance
enforcement replace the separation requirement? The
permitting scheme? Both?
    Regardless, nuisance laws alone could not accomplish
the full array of objectives that the City sought to achieve.
Take, for example, the City’s desire to avoid
institutionalization and “ensure that handicapped persons
have the opportunity to live in normal residential
surroundings and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the
way a dwelling is enjoyed by the non-handicapped.”
Nuisance laws may help combat excessive noise and second-
hand smoke, but they would do little to prevent
overconcentration of group-living facilities in residential
areas. Nuisance laws simply are not an alternative means for
ensuring that individuals recovering from substance abuse
have an equal opportunity to live in residential rather than
institutionalized neighborhoods.
    For these reasons, we conclude that the City has rebutted
Ohio House’s prima facie case of discriminatory intent under
the FEHA. And although the district court erred by not
deciding Ohio House’s disparate-treatment claim under both
federal and state law at summary judgment, this was
harmless because the jury correctly concluded that Ohio
House failed to prove disparate treatment. See Minneapolis
& Saint Louis Ry. Co., 119 U.S. at 152.
28        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text