Bischoff v. Brittain

183 F.Supp.3d 1080

Scott Bischoff, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Sandra Brittain, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01970-KJM-CKD

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed April 29, 2016

Filed May 2, 2016

Todd Isaac Espinosa, Law Office of Todd Espinosa, Kristine Keala Meredith, Danko Meredith, Redwood City, CA, for Plaintiff.

David D. MacMillan, Ryan Edward Abernethy, The Costa Law Firm, Gold River, CA, Richard M. Watts, Jr., Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP, Roseville, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs Scott Bischoff, Leron Dempsey, and Project Sentinel, Inc. ("Project Sentinel") filed this action against defendants RZM Investment Enterprise, LLC ("RZM"), J.A. Brittain, Limited ("Brittain Commercial"), Keith Johnson, and Sandra Brittain, alleging that their housing practices discriminate based on familial status. Before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment as to RZM's and Brittain Commercial's liability under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), brought by Project Sentinel, ECF No. 47, and a motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint by plaintiffs Bischoff, Dempsey, and Project Sentinel, ECF No. 75. The court held a hearing on Project Sentinel's motion for partial summary judgment on November 20, 2015, at which Todd Espinosa appeared for Project Sentinel and David MacMillan appeared for RZM and Brittain Commercial. The court submitted plaintiffs' later-filed motion for leave to amend as provided by Local Rule 230(g). As explained below, the court GRANTS Project Sentinel's motion for partial summary judgment and GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint.

The court first addresses the motion for partial summary judgment and then turns to the motion for leave to amend.

I. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Evidentiary Objections

In resolving a motion for summary judgment, a court may consider evidence as long as it is "admissible at trial." Fraser v. Goodale , 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2003). "Admissibility at trial" depends not on the evidence's form, but on its content. Block v. City of L.A. , 253 F.3d 410, 418–19 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). The party seeking admission of evidence "bears the burden of proof of admissibility." Pfingston v. Ronan Eng'g Co. , 284 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir.2002). If the opposing party objects to the proposed evidence, the party seeking admission must direct the district court to "authenticating documents, deposition testimony bearing on attribution, hearsay exceptions and exemptions, or other evidentiary principles under which the evidence in question could be deemed admissible...." In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig. , 627 F.3d 376, 385–86 (9th Cir.2010). However, courts are sometimes "much more lenient" with the affidavits and documents of the party opposing summary judgment. Scharf v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 597 F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1979).

1. Defendants' Objections

Defendants object to portions of Project Sentinel's evidence as assuming facts not in evidence, lacking foundation, misstating the evidence, and being irrelevant. ECF No. 61-2. To the extent defendants object on the basis of relevance, such objections "are all duplicative of the summary judgment standard itself...[The court] cannot rely on irrelevant facts, and thus relevance objections are redundant." Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D.Cal.2006). In addition, the court will not consider defendants' objections aimed at the characterization or purported misstatement of the evidence as represented in Project Sentinel's Statement of Disputed Facts. The court's decision relies on the evidence submitted rather than how that evidence is characterized in the statements. See Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Inc. , No. 10–2799, 2014 WL 3891933, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) ("Defendant's evidentiary objections to [plaintiff's] separate statements of...disputed facts are not considered because such objections should be directed at the evidence supporting those statements rather than the statements themselves." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

2. Project Sentinel's Objections

Project Sentinel objects to portions of Sandra Brittain's declaration, EFC No. 61-3, because it was not properly signed electronically as provided by Local Rule 131(f), contained statements not made within her personal knowledge, and included an exhibit that did not properly redact Leron Dempsey's date of birth information. ECF No. 63-1. Defendants' counsel corrected the first error by submitting the original signed copy of the declaration. ECF No. 64. The court need not consider the second objection regarding Brittain's personal knowledge, because this order does not rely on the challenged statements. The court sustains the third objection. Defendants are ORDERED to partially redact Dempsey's date of birth information contained in Exhibit 4 to the Brittain Declaration as required by Local Rule 140(a) within fourteen (14) days of the date this order is filed.

In addition, Project Sentinel objects to defendants' request for judicial notice of the proposition that, "[a]s a matter of public and social policy, it is reasonable to require adult supervision of YOUNG children living in rented housing," Opp'n at 10 (emphasis in original; providing no definition of "young"). Defendants argue this proposition is a proper matter for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(1) as an adjudicative fact that "is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction." The court finds that such a vague and unsubstantiated assertion is not a proper subject of judicial notice under Rule 201(b) and cannot be used to create a genuine dispute of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1).

B. Undisputed Facts

1. Background

The court has examined the record to determine whether the submitted facts are supported and whether there exists a genuine dispute as to material facts. The following facts are undisputed. The Birchwood Gardens apartment complex is located at 1225 Bell Street, Sacramento, California. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") no. 2, ECF Nos. 47-2 & 61-1. The complex contains approximately thirty apartments that surround a common area with a fenced swimming pool. Id. ; Brittain Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Defendant RZM owns Birchwood Gardens. UMF no. 1. Defendant Brittain Commercial manages Birchwood Gardens on RZM's behalf under a written property management agreement. UMF no. 4.

1. "Brief Recap of Notes" Document

Brittain Commercial's resident on-site managers receive training, including "Resident Relations Training," at seminars provided by independent experts. Brittain Decl. ¶¶ 11–13; Espinosa Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 47-4. Brittain Commercial's "Brief Recap of Notes" document summarizes several managers' training meetings and was distributed to the managers for their reference. Brittain Decl. ¶ 15. The document states in relevant part:

Handling unsupervised children:

1. If you have a young child not being supervised, walk the child home and speak with whoever is in charge.

2. Have your supervisor write a letter after you speak with the person in the apartment, which will alert whoever opens the mail, that you are worried over the child's safety—you are now showing safety concerns and are not attacking their parenting skills or being discriminatory.

3. If nothing changes and the child is once again outside unsupervised, notify your supervisor who will now contact social services and/or the police.

4. If nothing still changes, we will then consider eviction and note the reasoning on their notice.

Espinosa Decl., Ex. D.

Defendant Sandra Brittain, the Property Director of Brittain Commercial, states in her declaration that the "Brief Recap of Notes" document is "simply a statement of suggested guidelines for the managers' reference and discretionary application to unsupervised young children." Brittain Decl. ¶ 10.

She explains the reasoning behind the policy in her declaration:

It is our understanding and belief that young children require regular adult supervision....In managing Birchwood Gardens, we believe that it is within the scope of our management role to encourage...parents and guardians to exercise such supervision for the safety of their young children and for the benefit of other residents. We believe that such supervision is necessary so that young children who are tenant residents of Birchwood Gardens will not be at risk of injuring themselves or other residents, or engaging in disruptive or destructive activities. In an effort to promote such supervision and discourage parent-guardian neglect, we developed internal suggested guidelines for managers to use in their discretion as circumstances might warrant.

Id. ¶ 9.

The primary goals of these guidelines are to protect the safety and well-being of young children in need of supervision, to encourage such young children's parents or guardians to provide that needed supervision, and to limit disturbances to other residents by such children. They also serve the concomitant business purpose of protecting against liability that might arise from injuries to such young children.

Id. ¶ 16.

2. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs Bischoff and Dempsey each rented apartments at the Birchwood Gardens apartment complex at the time this action was filed. UMF no. 13. Bischoff and Dempsey are single fathers of minor children. UMF no. 14. In July 2014, defendant Brittain Commercial notified Bischoff and Dempsey of the termination of their tenancies at the Birchwood Gardens apartment complex, effective August 31, 2014. UMF no. 15.

After learning of the impending termination of his tenancy, Dempsey requested assistance from Project Sentinel because he believed that he was the victim of housing discrimination. UMF no. 16. Project Sentinel is a non-profit fair housing organization whose...