Nelson Walker, and Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Municipality, 272 F.3d 1114 (2001)

Citation: Nelson Walker, and Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Municipality, 272 F.3d 1114 (2001)
Parent Document: Nelson Walker, and Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Municipality, 272 F.3d 1114 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/775731/nelson-walker-and-fair-housing-f... ↗

Full Text

1,694 chars

The City filed a third-party complaint against the FHF and Shull for breach of contract and indemnity. In response, the FHF filed this counterclaim against the City, alleging interference and retaliation, in violation of the FHA, the FEHA, and the First Amendment. Judge Tashima dismissed the complaint against Shull and the breach of contract claim against the FHF. On May 17, 1999, District Judge Tevrizian granted summary judgment for the FHF on the City’s indemnity claim and for the City on the FHF’s state and federal fair housing claims. The district court held that the FHF did not have standing to sue under the FHA because the contract between the parties governed the FHF’s legal obligations and contemplated termination of the relationship. The district court also held that the FHF did not have standing under the FEHA because that statute does not extend protection to independent contractors. On October 18, 1999, the district court also granted summary judgment for the City on the FHF’s' First Amendment retaliation claim. The district court held that, because of its confidential and policymaking position, the FHF was not entitled to First Amendment protection. The FHF now appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, but reverse the summary judgment on the FHA and FEHA retaliation claims. Standard Op Review Standing is a question of law reviewed de novo. Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan, 207 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.2000); San Pedro Hotel, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 474-74 (9th Cir.1998). A grant of summary judgment is also reviewed de novo. Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty,

Other Sections in This Document (160)

Full Text