Huynh v. Sanchez et al

Filing 101

Order Regarding Questions for Summary Judgment Hearing. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 05/10/2016. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THANH HUYNH, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HEARING

v.

14
15

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK

KATHERINE HARASZ, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

The Court orders the parties to file, by May 11, 2016, at 3 p.m., a response to the following
question. The parties’ respective responses may not to exceed one page in length.


20
21
22
23
24

Do the parties agree that—as a purely legal matter—a hypothetical blanket reasonable
accommodation policy where all requests for a larger subsidy are denied without
consideration of a disabled individual’s fact-specific circumstances would violate state and
federal antidiscrimination law? In answering this question, the parties are to set aside the
question of whether, as a factual matter, HACSC actually implemented a blanket
reasonable accommodation policy.

In addition, the parties shall be prepared to address the following issues for oral argument
at the May 12, 2016 hearing on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Each side will
have a total of twenty minutes to address these issues.

25
26
27
28



The parties shall address the admissibility of Exhibit O in ECF No. 85-1, which
Defendants filed in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Court would
like to hear from the parties on (1) what evidence Defendants drew upon to produce
1

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

Exhibit O, (2) whether this evidence was produced to Plaintiffs, and (3) how Exhibit O was
created.

1
2



The Court would like clarification on the size of the Class. The Court observes that the
class certification order referred to 215 reasonable accommodation requests, while Exhibit
O documents 204 such requests. Finally, in the declaration of HACSC Housing Director
Aleli Sangalang (“Sangalang”), Sangalang asserts that the Class is comprised of 194
households. ECF No. 79-3 ¶ 17.



Third, although neither party moves for summary judgment on the issue of damages, the
Court would like to hear Plaintiffs’ damages theory and how Plaintiffs plan to prove
damages at trial as well as any response from Defendants.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs’ counsel has stated that two junior attorneys—a first year and second year
associate—will argue at the May 12, 2016 motions hearing. In the interest of providing junior
attorneys from both sides an opportunity for argument, the Court encourages Defendants to
identify junior attorneys to argue at the motions hearing. However, after reviewing Defendants’
counsel website, the Court acknowledges that finding a first or second year associate to argue may
not be feasible and that it may be necessary for Defendants’ counsel to be represented by a more
experienced associate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated: May 10, 2016
14
15
16

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK
ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING