Adams v. Community Housing Partnership

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06073
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AMY ADAMS, Case No. 23-cv-06073-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Re: Dkt. No. 29 (d/b/a “HomeRise”), 11 Defendant.

13 This case arises from plaintiff Amy Adams’s complaint that defendant Community 14 Housing Partnership (d/b/a and hereafter, “HomeRise”) failed to accommodate her disability and 15 her daughter’s disabilities and negligently failed to maintain a habitable living space for Adams 16 and her family, causing her distress. HomeRise moves to dismiss all eight of Adams’s claims, 17 arguing that some are time-barred, and that the rest fail to plead sufficient facts. All of her claims 18 are plausibly alleged and none is time-barred based on the pleadings. The motion to dismiss is 19 DENIED. 1 20 BACKGROUND 21 Adams entered into a lease with HomeRise for 1413 Flounder Court, Unit E, San 22 Francisco, 94130 (“Unit E”) in 2013, under a contract with the San Francisco Housing Authority 23 (“SFHA”). Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 3. She rented the apartment through a Project- 24 Based Voucher (“PBV”) program. Pursuant to the PBV program, HomeRise received monthly 25 payments of federal funds (called Housing Assistance Payments, or “HAP”) from SFHA so that it 26 27 1 could subsidize rental units to low-income tenants. Id. ¶¶ 16-18, 32. 2 Taking the allegations of the Complaint as true, Adams experienced numerous habitability 3 issues while living in Unit E until she evacuated it in November 2021. She claims that she 4 reported these issues to HomeRise and that HomeRise failed to remedy them. Id. ¶¶ 44-49. For 5 example, in 2018, Adams noticed what appeared to be mold growing on her living room ceiling. 6 Id. ¶ 44. Also in 2018, Adams noticed that the carpet in Unit E was torn; at one point, she tripped 7 on the carpet and broke her tooth. Id. ¶¶ 46-47. In 2020 the heater in her unit stopped working, 8 causing Adams to purchase and use a space heater through 2021. Id. ¶ 48. Then in November 9 2021, the water heater in Unit E exploded. Id. ¶ 49. In 2022, the SFHA and the San Francisco 10 Department of Building Inspection conducted separate, independent reviews of Unit E and 11 confirmed many of the habitability issues that Adams had flagged to HomeRise. Id. ¶¶ 50-54. 12 According to Adams, none of these issues was adequately fixed. Id. 13 Adams also asserts that HomeRise “harassed or threatened” her through the actions of its 14 agents and representatives. Id. ¶¶ 61-84. She claims that HomeRise employees entered her home 15 without warning, causing her distress, that HomeRise forced her to return to an uninhabitable 16 apartment, and that it caused Adams to lose her PBV assistance in 2022 by falsely stating that she 17 abandoned her apartment. Id. ¶¶ 63-65, 68, 73, 81-84. 18 Adams repeatedly requested accommodations for her disability and for her daughter’s 19 disabilities. Id. ¶¶ 88-96. HomeRise represented to her that SFHA had denied her requests, even 20 though SFHA had not issued any denial notice. Id. ¶¶ 92-93. Adams filed this lawsuit on 21 November 22, 2023, asserting: (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the 22 implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; (4) intentional infliction of emotional 23 distress (“IIED”); (5) violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”); (6) violation of the California 24 Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (7) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the 25 “Unruh Act”); and (8) violation of California Government Code § 11135. HomeRise moves to 26 dismiss all claims. 27 LEGAL STANDARD 1 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 2 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when 4 the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant 5 is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation 6 omitted). This standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but there must be “more than a 7 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. While courts do not require 8 “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to 9 relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. 10 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the 11 court accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the 12 plaintiff. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court 13 is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 14 fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 15 2008). 16 If the court dismisses the complaint, it “should grant leave to amend even if no request to 17 amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured 18 by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). In making 19 this determination, the court should consider factors such as “the presence or absence of undue 20 delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, 21 undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the proposed amendment.” Moore v. Kayport 22 Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 DISCUSSION 24 I. ADAMS’S BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, AND IIED CLAIMS ARE TIMELY 25

26 A. Claims 1 and 2: Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 27 Claims 1 and 2 assert breach of the implied warranty of habitability and implied covenant 1 of quiet enjoyment. Both claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Hjelm v. 2 Prometheus Real Est. Grp., Inc., 3 Cal. App. 5th 1155, 1169 (2016) (explaining that claims for 3 breach of the implied warranty of habitability and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment are both 4 breach of contract claims); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (contract claims are subject to a 5 four-year statute of limitations). Adams filed her complaint on November 22, 2023. 6 As a preliminary matter, Adams complains of some habitability issues that occurred after 7 November 22, 2019, placing them within the four-year statute of limitations for Claims 1 and 2. 8 See e.g., Compl. ¶ 48 (alleging that the heater in Unit E was broken for “several months in 2020- 9 2021”); see also id. ¶¶ 5, 49 (alleging that on or around November 27, 2021, the water heater in 10 Unit E exploded, causing Adams and her family to evacuate). Claims arising from those problems 11 are timely raised. 12 HomeRise argues that Adams knew about many of the habitability issues in Unit E before 13 November 22, 2019, rendering them time-barred, but this is speculation that finds no traction in 14 the facts as pleaded. See Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 29] 4-5. Nowhere in the 15 Complaint does Adams suggest that she knew about the habitability issues that the defendant 16 identifies (e.g., holes in the walls and the peeling tub finish) prior to November 22, 2019. See 17 generally Compl. Taking the facts alleged in the Complaint to be true, as I must, HomeRise’s 18 argument is unpersuasive. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1998) 19 (holding that a dismissal on the pleadings for failure to state a claim is only proper if the movant 20 “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved”) (internal citations 21 omitted). 22 Moreover, even if some conditions did begin prior to November 22, 2019, and Adams was 23 aware of them, the continuing violation doctrine could prevent the statute of limitations from 24 running on claims based on earlier instances of the same continued violation. See e.g., Ghazaryan 25 v. Shabazian, 2018 WL 6190347, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018) (where the court refused to 26 dismiss an implied warranty of habitability claim as untimely because the injury was ongoing). 27 For example, even if Adams discovered the dark spots on her ceiling in Unit E in 2018, before the 1 continued in Unit E until well into the period covered by the statute of limitations. See Compl. ¶¶ 2 50, 53. This could bring claims arising from those issues within the four-year period depending 3 on the facts developed in discovery. See Ghazaryan, at *6. The motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 2 4 is DENIED. 5 B. Claim 3: Negligence 6 Claim 3 asserts negligence. The statute of limitations is two years. See Cal. Civ. P. Code 7 § 335.1. In California, the default rule for accrual is that “an action accrues on the date of injury.” 8 Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 (1988). Where appropriate, this default rule is 9 modified by the discovery rule, which “provides that the accrual date of a cause of action is 10 delayed until the plaintiff is aware of her injury and its negligent cause.” Id. In applying the 11 discovery rule, “[a] plaintiff is held to her actual knowledge as well as knowledge that could 12 reasonably be discovered through investigation of sources open to her.” Id. In effect, the 13 discovery rule provides that a limitations period “does not commence until a plaintiff discovers, or 14 reasonably could have discovered, his claim.” O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139, 15 1147 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 Adams’s negligence claim, as pleaded, is based in part on events that occurred on or after 17 November 22, 2021, within two years of filing the Complaint. See e.g., Compl. ¶ 49 (stating that 18 the water heater in Unit E exploded on or about November 27, 2021); see also id. ¶¶ 50, 53 19 (stating that HomeRise continued to be negligent in repairing the unit). Adams claims that these 20 incidents and HomeRise’s failure to remedy them caused her significant emotional distress, 21 physical discomfort, and other damages. See id. ¶¶ 67-79, 113-119. Adams’s negligence claim, 22 filed on November 22, 2023, is timely. The motion to dismiss Claim 3 is DENIED. 23 C. Claim 4: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 24 Claim 4 asserts intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Such claims are subject 25 to a two-year statute of limitations. See Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; Pugliese v. Superior Court, 146 26 Cal. App. 4th 1444, 1450 (2007). “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional 27 distress accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, once the plaintiff suffers severe 1 Orange Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 24 Cal. App. 5th 825, 852–53 (2018) (internal quotations 2 omitted).2 3 Adams’s IIED claim, as pleaded, is based at least in part on events that occurred on or after 4 November 22, 2021. See e.g., Compl. ¶ 121 (stating that on November 27, 2021, the water heater 5 in Unit E exploded, making it necessary for Adams and her family to evacuate); see also id. ¶¶ 82- 6 85 (stating that starting in December 2021, HomeRise employees harassed Adams by pressuring 7 her into moving back into Unit E before repairs were complete, and by falsely reporting to SFHA 8 that she had abandoned the unit). These events occurred within two years of Adams filing her 9 complaint. Adams’s IIED claim, filed on November 22, 2023, is timely. The motion to dismiss 10 Claim 4 is DENIED. 11 II. ADAMS’S FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIMS ARE WELL-PLEADED AND TIMELY 12 A. Claims 5 and 6: Violation of the FHA and FEHA 13 Claims 5 and 6 of the Complaint assert that HomeRise violated the FHA and FEHA by 14 failing to reasonably accommodate the disabilities of Adams and her daughter. The Ninth Circuit 15 has repeatedly held that FHA and FEHA claims are both “highly fact-specific,” and thus 16 “require[e] case-by-case determination,” making them inappropriate for dismissal ‘solely on the 17 pleadings.’” See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1264 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 18 United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1419 (9th Cir. 1994)). 19 Adams alleges, and HomeRise does not dispute, that both she and her daughter suffer from 20 disabilities. See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 22-26. She claims that she made reasonable accommodation 21 requests, that those requests were necessary to her enjoyment of Unit E, and that HomeRise denied 22 each request. Id. ¶¶ 87-93. 23 HomeRise argues the merits of Adams’s claims by challenging their factual bases. See 24 25 2 The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) the 26 defendant engages in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffers severe or 27 extreme emotional distress; and (3) the defendant's outrageous conduct is the actual and proximate 1 Mot. 9-11. It contends that Adams’s PBV was terminated by SFHA because of the death of her 2 grandson, and not by any action of HomeRise. See id. 9:25-10:4; see also Defendant’s Request 3 for Judicial Notice (“Def’s RJN”) [Dkt. No. 29-2]. In support, HomeRise asks that I take judicial 4 notice of—and dismiss Adams’s FHA and FEHA claims on the basis of—a document seemingly 5 showing that Adams’s housing assistance payment contract was terminated because of the “death 6 of a single member house-hold.” See Def’s RJN, Ex. D. Adams opposes judicial notice and points 7 out that the document incorrectly refers to Adams’s own death rather than the death of her 8 grandson. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s RJN [Dkt. No. 31-1] 4. Where administrative 9 records are incomplete or discuss disputed facts, as here, those records cannot be judicially noticed 10 “without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.” Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health 11 Plan, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2018). As the document is seemingly incorrect, 12 has not been authenticated, and is offered for its truth, I will not take judicial notice of it now. 13 HomeRise also argues that Adams’s request for accommodation was unreasonable because 14 it contends that there were “three individuals” living in Unit E, not six as alleged in the Complaint. 15 See Mot. 8:27-9:16. To support this argument, it points me toward a statement that Adams 16 appears to have made to the SFHA in March 2016 indicating that her older children moved out in 17 2015, and she wished for them to be removed from her lease. See Def’s RJN, Ex. C. Again, the 18 document is not authenticated and HomeRise clearly offers it for the truth of the matter it asserts. 19 I will not take judicial notice of it now. 20 HomeRise’s factual assertions must await a later stage in this case; Adams has pleaded that 21 her requests for accommodation were reasonable. See Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 22 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an accommodation is reasonable if it “imposes no fundamental 23 alteration on the nature of the program or undue financial or administrative burdens”); see also 24 Compl. ¶¶ 136, 144 (alleging that the request for a larger unit was reasonable because HomeRise 25 had other, larger units available at the time of the request and could have relocated her with 26 relative ease). The motion to dismiss Claims 5 and 6 is DENIED. 27 B. Claim 7: Unruh Civil Rights Act Violation 1 reasonable accommodations upon Adams’s requests. The Unruh Act provides, in relevant part: All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and 2 no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual 3 orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business 4 establishments of every kind whatsoever. 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). Adams claims that she made requests for reasonable accommodations on 6 several occasions, but that HomeRise repeatedly failed to accommodate her disabilities and her 7 daughter’s disabilities. See Compl. ¶¶ 90-95, 147-154. 8 The Unruh Civil Rights Act does not contain an express statute of limitations. See Kramer 9 v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 81 F. Supp. 2d 972, 976-77 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 1999) (holding that 10 because the Unruh Act does not have its own statute of limitations, courts must determine which 11 statute of limitations is appropriate). To determine the applicable statute of limitations, courts in 12 this circuit determine whether the underlying claim is statutory or derived from the common law. 13 If it is statutory, then California’s three-year limitations period for statutory claims applies. If it is 14 derived from common law, then California’s two-year limitations period for personal injury claims 15 applies. See Hernandez v. Sutter West Capital, 2010 WL 3385046, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 16 2010) (citing Kemp v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C–09–4687 PJH, 2010 WL 2889224, at *6 17 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2010)). 18 Courts in this circuit have found that claims for violation of statutes that protect against 19 discrimination in provision of services by public entities do not derive from common law and are 20 therefore subject to the three-year statute of limitations. See e.g., Kemp, 2010 WL 2889224, at *7 21 (finding that claims under ADA Title II, which covers nondiscrimination in provision of services 22 by public entities, are not derived from common law). Claim 7 is based in a violation of a statute 23 (the Unruh Act) that protects against discrimination in provision of services by a public entity 24 (HomeRise, as discussed in the next section). A three-year statute of limitations applies. 25 Adams requested reasonable accommodations for the first time on or around June 30, 26 2021. See Compl. ¶ 92. She did not receive those accommodations and was told by HomeRise 27 agents that SFHA denied her request. See id. ¶ 90. As alleged, her Unruh Act claims fall within 1 Claim 7 is DENIED. 2 III. HOMERISE IS SUBJECT TO CAL. GOV. CODE § 11135 LIABILITY 3 Claim 8 asserts that HomeRise violated California Government Code section 11135. 4 Section 11135 provides, in relevant part, that: No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of sex, race, 5 color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic 6 information, marital status, or sexual orientation, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully 7 subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state 8 agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. 9 Cal. Gov. Code § 11135. As indicated above, Section 11135 applies to any program or activity 10 administered “by the state or by any state agency, [that] is funded directly by the state, or [that] 11 receives any financial assistance from the state.” Id. “State financial assistance” is defined as 12 including any contract “by which a State agency provides or otherwise makes available aid to 13 recipients in the form of . . . funds.” See Cal. Code. Regs. Tit. 2, § 11150. As relevant here, SFHA 14 is “a separate state agency.” McLemore v Marin Hous. Auth., No. 20-CV-5431-JD, 2021 WL 15 4124210 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021). Because it provides the housing assistance payments for 16 the PBV program in which Adams participated, HomeRise is subject to Section 11135. 17 HomeRise argues that because the source of the PBV funds is the federal government, not 18 the State of California, Section 11135 does not apply to it. See Mot. 8. But Section 11135 does 19 not require that funding originate in the State, only that it come from a program conducted, 20 operated, or administered by the State. The SFHA is a state agency that provided the PBV funds 21 to HomeRise. The implementing regulation of Section 11135, quoted in the preceding paragraph, 22 defines “[s]tate financial assistance” in a way that clearly encompasses HomeRise’s conduct. See 23 Cal. Code. Regs. Tit. 2, § 11150. The motion to dismiss Claim 8 is DENIED. 24

27 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons provided above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED as to all claims. 3 Defendant shall answer the Complaint within fourteen days. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 15, 2024 . 6 lliam H. Orrick 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28