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

2,478 chars

instruction identifying the elements of this claim was correct. Ohio
House also argues that the verdict form repeated the court’s initial
instructional error because it “focus[ed] on the rights of the disabled” by
asking whether the City “interfered with the rights of the disabled to a
housing opportunity of their choice,” rather than asking whether the City
“interfered with Ohio House . . . because Ohio House was engaged in
providing housing for persons with disabilities [or protected activity as
defined by the Court].” (emphasis added.) “We review for abuse of
discretion the district court’s formulation of the instructions and review
de novo whether the instructions accurately state the law.” Unicolors, 52
F.4th at 1063–64 (quoting Skidmore ex rel. Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led
Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc)). “[T]he panel
must ‘consider the issued instructions as a whole,’ such that ‘reversal is
not warranted if the error is more probably than not harmless.’” Id. at
1064 (quoting Randy Craig Wolfe, 952 F.3d at 1065). Jury instruction
No. 33 accurately stated the law for Ohio House’s “interference with fair
housing rights” claim. And “taking the verdict form and instructions
together” the FHA-interference claim “was fairly presented to the jury”
and it was “clear which theory the jury was applying.” Mangold v. Cal.
Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1476 (9th Cir. 1995); see also
Carvalho v. Raybestos-Manhattan Inc., 794 F.2d 454, 455 (9th Cir.
1986) (“If the issues are fairly presented, the district court has broad
discretion regarding the precise wording of the instructions and
interrogatories.”). To the extent Ohio House claims that it was error to
allow the City to reference the verdict form in arguing at closing that it
had not “interfered with the rights of the disabled to a housing
opportunity,” this argument was forfeited because Ohio House did not
object during the City’s closing argument. See Swinton v. Potomac
Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that failure to make a
contemporaneous objection “subject[s] the error alleged only to the
highly deferential ‘plain or fundamental error’ standard of review, where
we will reverse only ‘where the integrity or fundamental fairness of the
proceedings in the trial court is called into serious question’” (quoting
Bird v. Glacier Elec. Coop., Inc., 255 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001))).
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA        37

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text