Filho v. Chinatown Community Development Center, Inc. et al

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING CONVERTED 57 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/19/2022. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ROBERTO FILHO,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 21-cv-05664-WHO

v.
CHINATOWN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING CONVERTED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 57

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pro se plaintiff Roberto Filho alleges that defendant Chinatown Community Development

13

Center, Inc. (“CCDC”) violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) by failing to accommodate his

14

disability when it refused to refer his request for a new apartment to another housing agency.

15

After I converted CCDC’s latest motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment under Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), the burden shifted to Filho to show a genuine dispute of material

17

fact over whether CCDC had a contract or any sort of relationship with the other housing agency

18

obligating CCDC to forward Filho’s request. Filho has not met this burden. Accordingly,

19

CCDC’s converted motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

20
21

BACKGROUND
Filho describes himself as having a “physical disability which substantially limits his life

22

activities,” including traumatic brain injury, human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), chronic

23

fibrosis, and bladder and prostate issues. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) [Dkt. No. 54] ¶¶ 6-7. On

24

January 6, 2021, Filho and his social worker submitted a request to a CCDC site manager seeking

25

to move to a one-bedroom apartment with a private kitchen and bathroom, an accommodation that

26

Filho contends is necessary for him to use and enjoy his dwelling. Id. ¶¶ 10-11.

27
28

According to Filho, the site manager told him and his social worker that the transfer
request must be sent to CCDC, then CCDC would send his request to Direct Access to Housing

1

(“DAH”), another housing program in San Francisco. See id. ¶ 11. The SAC alleges that DAH

2

“has the authority” over the property where Filho sought to be transferred: the Derek Silva

3

Apartments, housing for people living with HIV that is located at 20 Franklin Street. See id. ¶¶

4

13, 17. The site manager allegedly told Filho that CCDC had a contract with DAH. See id. ¶ 11.

5

Filho alleges, however, that he asked CCDC for an update on his request on July 14, 2021, and

6

was told that CCDC could not provide the accommodation. Id. ¶ 18.
Filho filed this suit on July 23, 2021, alleging that CCDC and another defendant, Jason

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

Bermak, violated the FHA by not providing the requested accommodation. See Dkt. No. 1. After

9

two motions to dismiss from Bermak and one from CCDC in which CCDC argued (among other

10

things) that it did not own or operate the building where Filho sought to move, I dismissed the

11

claim against Bermak with prejudice but granted Filho leave to amend the claim against CCDC.

12

See Dkt. Nos. 34, 53. Filho filed the SAC on May 3, 2022, which CCDC moved to dismiss three

13

weeks later, again arguing that it did not own or operate the building at 20 Franklin Street. Dkt.

14

Nos. 54, 57.
Along with its second motion to dismiss, CCDC proffered a declaration from its deputy

15
16

director of portfolio, attesting that CCDC’s last contract with DAH expired in 2017, that there

17

currently is no contract between the two, and that CCDC “does not have the ability to refer tenants

18

to DAH.” Mot. [Dkt. No. 57] Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4. In submitting the declaration, CCDC invited me

19

to convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment under Rule 12(d). See id. at 8:9-

20

9:3.

21

I did so, finding that whether CCDC violated the FHA “depends on what, if any,

22

relationship it has with DAH.” Dkt. No. 63 at 4:24-25. I then directed Filho to “submit any

23

evidence of a contract between CCDC or DAH, of CCDC forwarding requests for reasonable

24

accommodations to DAH, or any other evidence that would show a dispute of material fact as to

25

the relationship between the two entities.” Id. at 5:15-19. Filho filed an opposition on July 15,

26

2022, and a declaration 10 days later, both of which were accompanied by exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 66,

27

67. After CCDC filed its reply, I heard arguments from both parties on August 31, 2022.

28
2

1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is

3

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

4

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show

5

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the non-

6

moving party’s claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of

7

persuasion at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has

8

made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to identify

9

“specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324. The party opposing

10

summary judgment must then present affirmative evidence from which a jury could return a

11

verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

12

On summary judgment, the court draws all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the

13

non-movant. Id. at 255. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[c]redibility

14

determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the

15

facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id. However, conclusory and speculative testimony

16

does not raise genuine issues of fact and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See

17

Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

18
19

DISCUSSION
As I wrote when converting this motion into one for summary judgment, the dispositive

20

question is whether CCDC has a contract or any sort of relationship with DAH under which it

21

forwards requests such as Filho’s, so that it might plausibly be liable under the FHA. Dkt. No. 63

22

at 1:15-17. “If the two entities in fact have a contract, as Filho alleges, that requires or otherwise

23

obligates CCDC to forward accommodation requests to DAH, then CCDC may have violated the

24

FHA in refusing to do so.” Id. at 4:25-27. “If there is no such contract, policy, rule, or practice

25

wherein CCDC forwards such requests to DAH, then Filho does not have a claim.” Id. at 5:1-3.

26

CCDC’s declaration confirms that it operates the William Penn Hotel located at 160 Eddy

27

Street, where Filho lives, and that it does not own or operate 20 Franklin Street, where he seeks to

28

move. See Mot., Alvarez Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. The declaration attests that CCDC has no contract with
3

1

DAH, that CCDC’s last contract with DAH expired in 2017, and that CCDC “does not have the

2

ability to refer tenants to DAH.” Id. ¶ 4. It further states that “CCDC would not have the

3

authority to grant or refuse” a request such as Filho’s. Id. ¶ 5.1

4

Filho has been on notice of CCDC’s primary argument—that it did not own or operate the

5

building at 20 Franklin Street—since CCDC’s earliest motion to dismiss. To overcome summary

6

judgment, Filho had to proffer evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact over a contract

7

or any other sort of relationship between CCDC and DAH (after 2017) obligating CCDC to

8

forward his request to DAH. He failed to do so.
Filho tried. He submitted five exhibits, none of which evidences a contract or relationship

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

between CCDC and DAH after 2017 that would obligate CCDC to forward his request to DAH.

11

The first exhibit, Exhibit 9, is a list of “money management programs” in San Francisco. See

12

Oppo. [Dkt. No. 66] Ex. 9. Although it includes a description of DAH and lists “William Penn,

13

Eddy St.” among the covered properties and states that “referral is made by the property

14

manager,” the document is undated, does not mention CCDC, and does not show that CCDC and

15

DAH had any relationship after 2017. See id. It is also unclear whether the “referral” referenced

16

relates to housing requests or to a money management program. Id. Additional documents filed

17

with Exhibit 9 include a description of DAH but make no mention of CCDC. Id. Exhibit 9 also

18

includes a business card for an employee of Lutheran Social Services of Northern California. Id.
The next exhibit, Exhibit 10, is a history of Filho’s rent payments at the William Penn

19
20

Hotel from December 2015 to July 2022. See Oppo., Ex. 10. Although the document states

21

“(DAH)” in the upper right corner, it does not explain that notation nor expressly articulate any

22

sort of relationship with CCDC. See id. Exhibit 11 is a similar list of transactions, this time

23

showing a summary of deposits of Filho’s SSI benefits and rent charges at the William Penn

24

Hotel, again dating back to December 2015. See Oppo., Ex. 11. Again, there is no mention of a

25

relationship between DAH and CCDC. See id. Instead, both exhibits are printed on Lutheran

26
27
28

1

CCDC affirmed these statements in two additional declarations submitted after oral argument,
upon my direction that counsel confer with CCDC management “to confirm that all information
presented in defense pleadings is accurate.” See Dkt. Nos. 70, 71-1, 73.
4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Social Services of Northern California letterhead. See Oppo., Exs. 10, 11. In CCDC’s

2

supplemental declarations, the organization’s site manager and deputy director of portfolio both

3

stated that DAH subsidized a portion of Filho’s monthly rent, but that “does not mean that CCDC

4

has a contract with DAH” or that “CCDC has the ability to refer tenants to DAH.” See Dkt. No.

5

71-1 ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 73 ¶ 6.

6

Filho’s Exhibit 12 is a series of emails and a letter from the San Francisco Mayor’s Office

7

that appears to show that in May 2022, Filho indeed got a referral to apply to a unit at 20 Franklin

8

Street—from the mayor’s office. See Oppo., Ex. 12. Again, there is no reference to CCDC, nor

9

any relationship between CCDC and DAH. See id.

10

Filho’s final exhibit includes descriptions and photographs of two apartment buildings in

11

San Francisco (the William Penn Hotel and the Rene Cazenave Apartments) along with the same

12

business card included in Exhibit 9. See Filho Decl. [Dkt. No. 67] Ex. 13. The description of the

13

William Penn Hotel states in part that it is managed by CCDC and “houses residents with a

14

subsidy through the Department of Public Health’s Direct Access to Housing program.” Id. It

15

further states that the William Penn Hotel “houses a Direct Access to Housing (DAH) program.”

16

Id. But this does not establish that by housing residents with a DAH subsidy or by housing a

17

DAH program, CCDC is required to refer accommodation requests to DAH. Moreover, this

18

document is not dated and does not establish that any such relationship existed after CCDC and

19

DAH’s last contract expired in 2017.

20

In sum, most of the evidence proffered by Filho does not mention CCDC, nor establish a

21

relationship between CCDC and DAH wherein CCDC must forward accommodation requests to

22

DAH. The only exhibit that mentions both agencies, the undated Exhibit 13, does not show that

23

CCDC was required or had the authority to make referrals to DAH after 2017. Filho is proceeding

24

pro se, and I have given him several opportunities to establish his claims. He has been on notice

25

of the fundamental issue raised by CCDC for more than a year. His most recent submissions

26

misunderstand their import. Meanwhile, he appears to have received the referral he wanted from

27

the mayor’s office, which apparently does have authority to do what he wanted. But he has not

28

shown a genuine dispute of material fact whether CCDC and DAH had a contract or other
5

1

relationship that would require CCDC to forward his accommodation request to DAH. Without

2

such a relationship, CCDC is not liable under the FHA for Filho’s claims.

3

CONCLUSION

4

CCDC’s converted motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be

5
6
7

entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2022

8
9
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6