Morrison v. Pal

TANYA MORRISON et al., Plaintiffs, v. DHARAM PAL et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00776-AWI-JLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 10, 2018

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 27)

This lawsuit is about four renters who allege that they were treated unlawfully by their landlords. The four renters are Plaintiffs Mario Tolls, Arissa Dickson Tolls, Tanya Lewis, and Tanisha Wiley. The two landlords are Defendants Dharam Pal and Vijay Pal.¹

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. See Doc. No. 27-1. The motion requests summary judgment in Defendants' favor on two of Plaintiffs' thirteen claims: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4, which is a statute that prohibits landlords from collecting or demanding rent from their tenants who live in untenantable dwelling units; and (2) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, which is a statute known as the Bane Act that prohibits a person from interfering or attempting to interfere with another person's legal rights.

On the unlawful rent collection claim, the Court will grant summary judgment against all Plaintiffs except Tanisha. On the Bane Act claim, the Court will grant summary judgment against all Plaintiffs except Mario. Accordingly, Tanisha's unlawful rent collection claim and Mario's Bane Act claim may proceed to trial.

I. Summary Judgment Framework

Summary judgment is proper when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying the portions of the declarations (if any), pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). A fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009). A dispute is "genuine" as to a material fact if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Freecycle Sunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, 626 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 2010).

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the movant. Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984. Where the non-moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may prevail by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or by merely pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-moving party's claim. See James River Ins. Co. v. Herbert Schenk, P.C., 523 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2008); Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984. If a moving party fails to carry its burden of production, then "the non-moving party has no obligation to produce anything, even if the non-moving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. The opposing party cannot "'rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading' but must instead produce evidence that 'setsforth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008).

The opposing party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). While a "justifiable inference" need not be the most likely or the most persuasive inference, a "justifiable inference" must still be rational or reasonable. See Narayan, 616 F.3d at 899. Summary judgment may not be granted "where divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts." Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Holly D. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., 339 F.3d 1158, 1175 (9th Cir. 2003). Inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Fitzgerald v. El Dorado Cnty., 94 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2015); Sanders v. City of Fresno, 551 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2008). "A genuine issue of material fact does not spring into being simply because a litigant claims that one exists or promises to produce admissible evidence at trial." Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, 299 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 2002); see Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties have the obligation to particularly identify material facts, and the court is not required to scour the record in search of a genuine disputed material fact. Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, a "motion for summary judgment may not be defeated . . . by evidence that is 'merely colorable' or 'is not significantly probative.'" Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50; Hardage v. CBS Broad. Inc., 427 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). If the nonmoving party fails to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103.

/ / /

II. Factual Background²

All four Plaintiffs lived at Terrace Way Apartments, which is an apartment complex in Bakersfield, California with 65 units. See PSAF No. 1.³ The street address of Terrace Way Apartments is 720 Terrace Way. See PSFD No. 1;⁴ Dharam Pal Depo., Vol. I, at 42:7-9. Terrace Way Apartments are jointly owned by Dharam and Vijay. See PSAF No. 2.

Mario lived in Unit 6 from approximately 2013 to July 2016. See PSFD No. 1. Arissa lived in Unit 6 from approximately May 2014 to July 2016. See id. at No. 2. Tanya lived in Unit 19 from approximately November 2015 through June 2016. See id. at No. 3. Tanisha lived in Unit 14 from approximately 2014 through April 2017. See id. at No. 4.

A. Mario Tolls

One day while Mario lived at Terrace Way Apartments, Mario saw Al Saldivar on the apartment grounds walking towards the apartment office. See PSAF No. 18; Mario Tolls Depo. at 97. Mario believed Saldivar was a maintenance worker and manager at Terrace Way Apartments. Id. at 96. Mario approached Saldivar and told Saldivar that he, Mario, needed copies of his past rental receipts. Id. at 97. On a previous occasion, Mario unsuccessfully attempted to get his rental receipts from staff workers at Terrace Way Apartments. Id. at 92-97. Saldivar and Mario walked together into the apartment office. Id. at 97. After entering the apartment office, Saldivar looked for Mario's rental receipts in the file cabinets and on the computer. Id. at 97-98. Saldivar then told Mario that he could not find the rental receipts. Id.; PSFD No. 9. During this time, Mario believed Saldivar seemed agitated and looked upset. See Mario Tolls Depo. at 97-98. Saldivar told Mario that he, Mario, would have to come back another time to get his rental receipts. Id. at 98. At the same time, Saldivar pulled out a gun and placed it on the desk in front of Mario. Id. at 97-99. Mario was shocked, and Mario asked Saldivar, "What is the gun for?" Id. at 98. Saldivar responded, "I have to carry this around. People around here has been acting up." Id. Saldivar also said, "Well, people's been threatening us" or threatening Saldivar's girlfriend, who Mariobelieved was also a manager at Terrace Way Apartments. Id. Mario responded by telling Saldivar that he, Mario, did not do anything to Saldivar. Id. Saldivar told Mario, "Well, you just have to come back later because I can't find any receipts right now." Id. Mario felt nervous and walked out of the apartment office. Id. While Saldivar never pointed the gun at Mario, Mario believed that Saldivar placed the gun on the desk in a "threatening manner." Id. at 99.⁵

B. Tanya Tolls

One day while Tanya lived at Terrace Way Apartment, Dharam came to Tanya's apartment because Tanya had not paid her rent. See Tanya Lewis Depo. at 40-41, 52-53. This was the first time Tanya met Dharam. Id. at 40-41, 52. Dharam and Tanya had a conversation, during which Dharam asked Tanya when she was going to pay her rent. Id. at 41. Tanya told Dharam that she was not going to pay her rent because there were mice, bedbugs, and roaches in her apartment and she was moving. Id. Tanya also told Dharam that there were holes in her wall and water coming through her apartment door when it rained. Id. at 53. Dharam responded by saying, "Black folks are to tear up stuff." Id. Tanya responded by saying, "I just moved here, and I haven't tore up anything. So if you saying I tore up something, well, where is the roaches and the mouses coming from?" Id. Dharam also told Tanya to "go back to where [you] come from." Id. at 54. Tanya, who is African American, interpreted this statement to mean, "go back to Africa." See TanyaLewis Decl. at ¶ 2; Tanya Lewis Depo. at 54. Tanya did not know if that is what Dharam meant by the statement. Id. at 54. Dharam then walked away. Id. at 53.

On another occasion while Tanya...