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

1,325 chars

dwelling somewhere within a city’s boundaries is irrelevant
to a municipality’s duty to make reasonable
accommodations.”
    In Giebeler v. M & B Associates, we stated that the
“specific goals” of the FHA’s reasonable-accommodation
provisions were “to protect the right of handicapped persons
to live in the residence of their choice in the community,”
and “to end the unnecessary exclusion of persons with
handicaps from the American mainstream.” 343 F.3d 1143,
1149 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting City of
Edmonds v. Wash. State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802,
806 (9th Cir. 1994)). Although subsection 13-200.62(f)(7)
uses more permissive language than the other subsections
describing the findings that the City must make, 16 the City is
nevertheless “required” to resolve requests for
accommodations in part “on . . . the existing supply of
facilities of a similar nature and operation in the
community.” CMMC § 13-200.62(f)(7). Thus, Ohio House
is correct that the City’s reasonable-accommodation
regulation requires it to consider the availability of
alternative housing.
   However, Ohio House’s facial challenge to subsection
13-200.62(f)(7) fails. It is not clear that the finding the City
is required to make under subsection 13-200.62(f)(7)
conflicts with the FHA’s “specific goal” of “protect[ing] the

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text