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

1,397 chars

discrimination’ forbidden by the FHA, particularly if ‘there
are situations in which it is legitimate’ to do so.” (quoting
Soules v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 967 F.2d 817,
824 (2d Cir. 1992))).
    To the extent that Ohio House relies on comments made
by individual city employees suggesting that they had a
discriminatory purpose for adopting the challenged zoning
regulations, that alone is insufficient to overturn the jury’s
verdict. See id. (“[E]vidence of a speaker or creator’s intent
may be relevant insofar as it illuminates the likely
understanding of the message by viewers. But the scope of
§ 3604(c) liability is defined by the statement’s impact on
the reader, viewer, or listener, not by the subjective
motivations of the speaker . . . Nor is the speaker’s stated
intent dispositive.”).
               4. Interference with FHA Rights
    Ohio House also argues that it was entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on its claim that the City interfered with
Ohio House aiding or encouraging others’ exercise of their
rights under the FHA. 11 It is unlawful under the FHA “to
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person . . .
on account of his having aided or encouraged any other
person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or
protected by [the FHA].” 42 U.S.C. § 3617. We interpret this
provision broadly. Morris, 104 F.4th at 1143. It “reach[es]

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text