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

1,583 chars

all practices which have the effect of interfering with the
exercise of rights under the federal fair housing laws.” Id.
(quoting United States v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3d 832, 835,
836 (9th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original)); see also Smith v.
Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 1975) (explaining that
§ 3617 is implicated when a “would-be tenant has been
discouraged from asserting his rights, . . . rights have actually
been respected by persons who suffer consequent
retaliation,” or “the fundamental inequity of a discriminatory
housing practice is compounded by coercion, intimidation,
threat or interference”). Despite its breadth, to prove an
interference claim, the “plaintiff must show that the
defendant’s actions affected the ‘exercise or enjoyment
of . . . any right granted or protected’” by the FHA. Morris,
104 F.4th at 1143 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3617).
    We apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
framework to FHA-interference claims and first “require[]
the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing that
(1) he was engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered an
adverse action; and (3) there was a causal link between the
two.” Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir.
2003) (citing Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114,
1128 (9th Cir. 2001)). We address each of these elements in
turn.
    First, Ohio House established that it engaged in protected
activity. The district court instructed the jury to accept as
true that Ohio House engaged in protected activity by
providing housing for the disabled. 12 The court also

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text