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) 3.
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

1,897 chars

3. Discriminatory Statements
    Ohio House contends that it was entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on its discriminatory-statements claim
despite the jury’s finding that the City did not make any
unlawful discriminatory statements. We review the district
court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de
novo. Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 52
F.4th 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2022). Ohio House is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law only if the evidence, construed
in light most favorable to the City, “permits only one
reasonable conclusion that is contrary to the jury’s verdict.”
Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Newman, 51 F.4th
1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2022); EEOC v. Go Daddy Software,
Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009).
    It is unlawful under the FHA “[t]o make, print, or
publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any
notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale
or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference,
limitation, or discrimination based on . . . handicap . . . , or
an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or
discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c); see also 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.75(b). We have adopted “[a]n ‘objective ordinary’
reader” standard for determining whether a statement
violates § 3604(c). Morris, 104 F.4th at 1148. The plaintiff
must prove that “an ordinary listener would believe that [the
challenged statement] suggests a preference, limitation, or
discrimination based on a protected status.” Id. (quoting
Corey v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev. ex rel.
Walker, 719 F.3d 322, 326 (4th Cir. 2013)). While proof of
“facially discriminatory messages” is not required, id. at
1149, “[a] ‘stray remark . . . unrelated to the decisional
process’ is insufficient to establish a § 3604(c) violation,” id.
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA                 33

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text