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

1,469 chars

the separation requirement was fundamental to the City’s
zoning scheme.
    Although Ohio House asserted its reasonable-
accommodation claim under both the FHA and the FEHA, it
forfeited reliance on the FEHA on appeal. See Indep. Towers
of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[W]e cannot ‘manufacture arguments for an appellant’ and
therefore we will not consider any claims that were not
actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (quoting
Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th
Cir. 1994))); see also D.A.R.E. America v. Rolling Stone
Mag., 270 F.3d 793, 793 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A bare assertion
of an issue does not preserve a claim.”). Ohio House did not
provide any meaningful legal authority or argument related
to the FEHA on this claim. The only state law that Ohio
House referenced that implicates the FEHA is California
Government Code § 12955.6, which simply states that
nothing in the FEHA should be interpreted in a way that
affords less rights than the FHA. 14 Therefore, we analyze
this claim only under the FHA.
    Unlawful discrimination under the FHA includes “a
refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules [or]
policies . . . when such accommodations may be necessary
to afford [the disabled] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). We first consider
Ohio House’s argument that federal law preempts CMMC
§ 13-200.62(f)(7) as a facial matter, and then turn to whether

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text