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

1,777 chars

accommodation claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that the
plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or
should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap;
(3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to
afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use
and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is
reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the
requested accommodation.” Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment
Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir.
2006).
    Here, there is no dispute that Ohio House established
elements one, two, and five. Likewise, although the district
court made conflicting statements regarding element three,
it ultimately concluded that Ohio House’s requested
accommodation was necessary, and the City did not
challenge that decision. Thus, we have no occasion to
address this issue given how the case was presented to us.
See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Chino Valley
Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 896 F.3d 1132, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2018) (holding that unraised arguments are forfeited).
   That leaves the fourth element—whether Ohio House’s
requested accommodation was reasonable. The district court
concluded that in light of the evidence presented “the jury
could have concluded that granting the request could have
constituted a fundamental change in the City’s zoning
scheme and thus the accommodation was unreasonable.”
This was not error.
   Municipalities are not required “to make ‘fundamental’
or ‘substantial’ modifications to accommodate the
handicapped . . . .” Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Edmonds, 18 F.3d
56        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text