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

1,154 chars

at 1150 (quoting Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th
Cir. 1999)).
    California’s standard under the FEHA is similar. See Cal.
Gov’t Code § 12955(c). 10 But unlike the federal housing
regulations promulgated under authority granted by the
FHA, see 24 C.F.R. § 100.75, California’s regulations
explicitly state that “[a] facially discriminatory policy or
express statement” violates the FEHA’s prohibition against
discriminatory statements, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2,
§ 12042(g).
    Ohio House contends that the City violated the FHA’s
and the FEHA’s prohibition against discriminatory
statements by enacting a facially discriminatory zoning
code. We need not decide whether a municipal regulation
can trigger discriminatory-statement liability under the FHA
because Ohio House’s discriminatory-statements claim rises
and falls with its facial disparate-treatment claim, which we
have concluded fails as a matter of law. See also Morris, 104
F.4th at 1149 (“Merely mentioning one of the protected
characteristics identified in § 3604(c), without more, does
not necessarily convey a ‘preference, limitation, or Section 12955(c) makes it unlawful:
10

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text