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

1,766 chars

GOULD, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part with respect to
Part II.A.4:
    Rather than reach the merits by holding that Plaintiff did
not demonstrate discriminatory intent, I would have
dismissed the plaintiff’s interference claim under the FHA as
waived for lack of adequate briefing. Greenwood v. Fed.
Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994). I believe
the majority misconstrues the existing law with respect to the
interference claim by instead holding that the plaintiff must
demonstrate intentional discrimination or discriminatory
animus to prove the third element of the McDonnell Douglas
framework: causation. Op. at 37, 40.
     The majority relies on Morris, which held that plaintiffs
succeeded on an interference claim where statements by the
Homeowners’ Association Board “sufficiently support[ed]
an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was
at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct.” Morris
v. W. Hayden Ests. First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, 104
F.4th 1128, 1145 (9th Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original).
However, the plaintiffs in Morris did not use the McDonnell
Douglas framework to prove their interference claim; rather,
the plaintiffs produced circumstantial evidence that a
discriminatory purpose motivated the defendant as an
alternative to the McDonnell Douglass framework. Id. at
1140 (“The McDonnell Douglas framework, however, is
only one way of establishing a disparate treatment
claim…the Morrises may prevail by otherwise producing
direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a
discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the
defendant and that the defendant’s actions adversely affected
them in some way.”) (cleaned up).
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA        69

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text