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

822 chars

9
  Ohio House could have alternatively argued that the City’s zoning code
is either (1) facially discriminatory or (2) facially neutral but
discriminatory in its impact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2), but that is not
how it presented its disparate-impact claim. Ohio House expressly
argued in support of its disparate-impact claim that it does not need to
present evidence to prove “a significant, adverse and disproportionate
impact,” S.W. Fair Hous., 17 F.4th at 962, because the City’s challenged
regulations expressly “defined the affected classes.” Ohio House’s
theory, which attempted to prove the second disparate-impact element
with a facial discrimination allegation, defeated itself by therefore failing
to allege the first element of a disparate-impact claim.
32        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text