Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Citation: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Parent Document: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810131/morrison-v-vineyard-creek-lp/ ↗

Full Text

1,937 chars

*1265Second, as to injunctive relief, it is unclear that the antiretaliation and FEHA causes of action contributed substantially to Vineyard Creek’s agreement to take or not to take certain actions. Vineyard Creek did agree to refrain from discriminating against Morrison, to comply with “all Fair Housing laws,” and to refrain from any and all retaliatory actions against Morrison. This bears some similarity to the injunctive relief Morrison requested in the prayer of her complaint, albeit in much more general terms than the specific requests to enjoin Vineyard Creek from “[discriminating against Ms. Morrison on account of her source of income”; and “[retaliating against Ms. Morrison for asserting her rights under the rental agreement and the law.” It is highly questionable, however, that Vineyard Creek’s general promises to comply with housing laws and to refrain from discriminating and retaliating against Morrison in the future are really traceable to the antiretaliation or FEHA claims themselves. The antiretaliation and FEHA claims explicitly sought relief for actions that had already occurred, they did not explicitly seek injunctive relief, and the antiretaliation statute does not even provide specifically for injunctive relief.6 Moreover, Vineyard Creek’s agreement not to discriminate or retaliate in the future would stem naturally from its recognition of Morrison’s rights under the Child Day Care Act alone. Indeed, according to paragraph 38 of Morrison’s complaint, Vineyard Creek’s violation of the Child Day Care Act had resulted in the “threat of litigation against her for breaching her lease,” suggesting that Vineyard Creek’s agreement not to retaliate against Morrison stemmed from the merits of the claim under the Child Day Care Act. Morrison has not established that inclusion of the antiretaliation or FEHA claims in her lawsuit contributed substantially to the injunctive-type relief she obtained.

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text