Ismael Jimenez et al v. David Y Tsai et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying 67 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part motion to strike; denying 89 Motion for administrative relief. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/30/2017. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
ISMAEL JIMENEZ, et al.,

8

Case No. 5:16-cv-04434-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
DAVID Y TSAI, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO STRIKE;
DENYING MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

RE: DKT. NO. 67, 89

13

I. INTRODUCTION

14

Plaintiffs1 are four low-income Latino families residing at apartment complexes in Gilroy,

15

California. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and their minor children, against

16

the property owner, David Tsai, and property managers, Undine Tsai and Shang Shen

17

(collectively, “Defendants”), for damages arising from the poor living conditions at the apartment

18

complexes. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ continued failure to properly maintain or make

19

necessary repairs to the property violates the Federal and California Fair Housing Act (“FHA”)

20

and gives rise to related state law claims. Presently before the court is Defendants’ motion to

21

dismiss Project Sentinel’s claims for lack of standing and to strike certain allegations in the

22

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under

23

submission for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs include individuals Ismael Jimenez, Yolanda Jimenez, Angeles Jimenez, Antonio
Jimenez, Carmentina Herrera, Luis Alvarez, Ebaristo Alavez, Josefa Jimenez, Jesucita Ortiz, and
Rodolfo Robles, as well as Project Sentinel, a California non-profit corporation, that joins in
bringing this action on behalf of itself and the general public.
1
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04434-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied and the motion to strike is

2

denied.

3
4

II. BACKGROUND
The individual Plaintiffs are self-described “low income Latino residents” of apartment

5

complexes located at either 611 E. 7th Street or 590 Stoney Court in Gilroy, California

6

(collectively “the Gilroy Complexes”). Project Sentinel is a non-profit California corporation with

7

its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California. SAC ¶ 12 “Project Sentinel’s

8

organizational mission includes the promotion of equal opportunity in rental housing and the

9

elimination of all forms of housing discrimination.” Id. Project Sentinel engages in several
different activities to further its mission, including “providing community education and outreach

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

programs regarding fair housing, conducting training programs for housing industry professionals,

12

and providing fair housing counseling and referral services.” Id.

13

Plaintiffs allege that residents at the Gilroy Complexes have long endured unsanitary and

14

unsafe living conditions including, inter alia, infestations of rats, mice, roaches, and bedbugs;

15

serious sewage back-ups and plumbing leaks; lack of operating heaters; pervasive mold, especially

16

in bathrooms; dangerous electrical problems; unsecured locks on the doors; inadequate lighting,

17

and loose railings and rotting second floor walkways. SAC ¶¶37, 45, 54, 58. Plaintiffs allege that

18

despite knowing of these persistent unhealthy and unsafe conditions, Defendant owner David Tsai

19

and Defendant property managers Undine Tsai and Shang Shen largely ignored Plaintiffs’

20

numerous requests for repairs and complaints regarding the habitability of their apartment units.

21

Id. at ¶38.

22

Apart from their concerns regarding the conditions of the property, Plaintiffs also contend

23

that Defendants maintain a hostile environment for children. Id. at ¶¶33, 65-68. Defendant Shang

24

Shen allegedly regularly tells children not to play outside in the common areas of the complex. Id.

25

at ¶33. Plaintiffs have allegedly witnessed Shang Shen telling children playing outside not to play

26

ball or ride bikes or scooters. Id. Plaintiffs have also allegedly witnessed Shang Shen taking away

27

the balls of children playing in the common areas of the complex. Id. The children of the

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

individual Plaintiffs are allegedly afraid of Shang Shen and usually retreat indoors with their toys

2

when they see him approach. Id. at ¶34. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants maintain signs at

3

611 E. 7th Street that read, “NO SKATEBOADING[,] BICYCLE RIDING[,]

4

ROLLERSKATING[,] ROLLERBLADING[,] BALL PLAYING” in order to discourage children

5

from playing outdoors. Id. at ¶35. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants only enforce these rules

6

against children. Id.
In approximately September 2015, the owners of the Gilroy Complexes issued a notice of

8

rent increase to all residents at 590 Stoney Court. Sometime after they received the rent increase

9

notices, a group of Stoney Court residents organized and met with Defendant David Tsai who

10

allegedly promised to begin making repairs in January 2016. Id. at ¶42. As of the filing of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Second Amended Complaint, however, the allegedly promised repairs have not been made or have

12

been made inadequately. Id.

13

In approximately March of 2016, Project Sentinel received reports of possible

14

discrimination at the Gilroy complexes. Id. at ¶73. As a result of those reports, Project Sentinel

15

opened an investigation into Defendants’ business practices. Id. In March 2016, Project Sentinel

16

surveyed tenants at the complex located at 611 E. 7th Street in Gilroy. Id. at ¶74. Trained fair

17

housing surveyors walked door-to-door in the complex to speak with adult tenants. Id. Tenants

18

allegedly reported that Defendants, particularly Defendant Shang Shen, regularly told parents not

19

to let their children play outside. Id. at ¶75. Tenants also allegedly told Project Sentinel that

20

Defendants failed to make repairs in a timely manner, if repairs were made at all. Id. at ¶76.

21

Tenants also allegedly complained of vermin in their units, including roaches, spiders, and

22

bedbugs. Id. Many tenants allegedly stated that they did not have heat in their units. Id. After

23

the survey, Defendants allegedly questioned tenants of the Gilroy Complexes whether they had

24

opened their doors to lawyers asking about the conditions of their units. Id. at ¶77.

25

A couple months later, Project Sentinel surveyed another apartment complex owned and

26

operated by Defendant Undine Tsai located in Cupertino, California. Id. at ¶78. The wide

27

majority of tenants at the Cupertino complex allegedly reported that there were no maintenance

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

issues in their units. Id. at ¶79. In the course of the survey at the Cupertino apartment complex,

2

“Project Sentinel found East Asian, Indian and White households,” but no Latino households. Id.

3

at ¶80.

4

III. STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead each claim with sufficient

6

specificity to “give the defendant fair notice of what the… claim is and the grounds upon which it

7

rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although particular detail is not

8

generally necessary, the factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

9

speculative level” such that the claim “is plausible on its face.” Id. at 556-57. A complaint which

10

falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based

12

on a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

13

legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); see

14

Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

15

At the motion to dismiss stage, the court must read and construe the complaint in the light

16

most favorable to the non-moving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th

17

Cir. 1996). The court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

18

556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). However, “courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion

19

couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “In all cases, evaluating a

20

complaint’s plausibility is a context-specific endeavor that requires courts to draw on ... judicial

21

experience and common sense.” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014)

22

(quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)).

23

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), a court may strike from the complaint any “redundant,

24

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The function of a motion to strike is “to avoid the

25

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with

26

those issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.

27

2010). A motion to strike will only be granted if “it is clear that the matter to be stricken could

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nordic

2

PCL Const., Inc., 870 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1040 (D. Hi 2012); see also Oracle v. Micron Tech., Inc.,

3

817 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“A court must deny the motion to strike if there is

4

any doubt whether the allegations in the pleadings might be relevant in the action.”).

5
6
7

IV. DISCUSSION
A. Project Sentinel
Project Sentinel is named as a plaintiff in connection with the First, Second, Third, and
Fourth claims. The Court granted Defendants’ earlier-filed motion to dismiss Project Sentinel’s

9

claims for lack of standing under Article III with leave to amend. The Court finds that the

10

additional allegations in the Second Amended Complaint now provide a sufficient basis to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

establish standing at the pleading stage.

12

In Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 370 (1982), the Supreme Court

13

stated that a fair housing organization establishes standing when it suffers “a concrete and

14

demonstrable injury with a consequent drain on the organization’s resources.” The Ninth Circuit

15

has held that damages to a fair housing organization may be sufficient to satisfy the injury in fact

16

requirement and thus confer organizational standing where it can demonstrate: “(1) frustration of

17

its organizational mission; and (2) diversion of its resources to combat the particular housing

18

discrimination in question.” Smith v. Pac. Properties & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir.

19

2004) (citing and reaffirming its decision in Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905

20

(9th Cir. 2002)). “Frustration of mission” damages are the costs that a fair housing organization

21

will be required to expend in order to rectify or counterbalance the negative impact of a

22

defendant’s discriminatory actions on the organization’s non-economic interests – for example, its

23

interest in ensuring fair and equal treatment of tenants. Southern California Housing Rights

24

Center v. Krug, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Havens, 455 U.S. at 379, n. 20.

25

“Diversion of resources” damages are cognizable where an organization is forced to divert

26

time and resources away from its regular – or “core” – programs in order to undertake the

27

particular case. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, No. C 97-1247 MJJ, 2000 WL 365029, at

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2000), aff’d, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (diversion of resources damages

2

awarded to compensate organization for time investigating and litigating; for tester training,

3

recruitment, and conducting tests at site of alleged housing law violation; and cost associated with

4

formation of and participation in the Marin County Board of Supervisors’ Task Force on Housing

5

Discrimination).

6

A. Frustration of Mission Damages

7

Citing Project Sentinel v. Evergreen Ridge Apartments, 40 F.Supp.2d 1136 (N.D. Cal.

8

1999), Defendants contend that Project Sentinel has failed to allege frustration of mission

9

damages. More specifically, Defendants argue that Project Sentinel has failed to allege an injury
independent of its decision “to divert resources away from the pursuit of its abstract goals to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

support this suit.” Id. at 1140. Defendants reason that because Project Sentinel’s mission is to

12

investigate housing violations and provide counseling, the organization cannot claim it was injured

13

by choosing to expend resources on these standard day-to-day activities. In other words,

14

Defendants contend that Project Sentinel cannot recover frustration of mission damages because

15

the expenditure of resources it seeks to claim as injury is “precisely what its resources are

16

earmarked for.” Defendants’ Reply Brief at p. 3. Defendants contend that Project Sentinel can

17

only recover frustration of mission damages for resources expended on activities that are “outside

18

the scope” of its mission. Id.

19

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Project Sentinel can only recover frustration

20

of mission damages for resources expended on activities that are outside the scope of its mission.

21

In Havens, supra, a fair housing organization called Housing Opportunities made Equal

22

(“HOME”), whose purpose was to make equal opportunity in housing a reality in the Richmond

23

Metropolitan Area, asserted a claim for violation of the Fair Housing Act. HOME’s regular

24

activities included “the operation of a housing counseling service, and the investigation and

25

referral of complaints concerning housing discrimination.” Havens, 455 U.S. at 368. HOME

26

alleged the following claims of injury to the organization:

27
28

Plaintiff HOME has been frustrated by defendants’ racial steering
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1
2
3
4

practices in its efforts to assist equal access to housing through
counseling and other referral services. Plaintiff HOME has had to
devote significant resources to identify and counteract the
defendant’s [sic] racially discriminatory steering practices.
Havens, 455 U.S. at 379. The Supreme Court reasoned, “[i]f, as broadly alleged, [defendant’s]
steering practices have perceptibly impaired HOME’s ability to provide counseling and referral

5
services for low-and moderate-income homeseekers, there can be no question that the organization
6
7
8
9
10

has suffered injury in fact.” Id. The Havens Court further reasoned, “[s]uch a concrete and
demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities – with the consequent drain on the
organization’s resources – constitutes far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract
social interests.” Id. (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972)). Thus, HOMES’
frustration of mission injuries were directly related to and fell within the scope of HOMES’

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

regular activities: counseling and referral.
12
In Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, supra, the Ninth Circuit held that the Fair Housing of
13
14

Marin (“FHOM”), a non-profit organization, had standing to assert claims for illegal housing
discrimination on the basis of race. The organization’s stated mission was to promote equal

15
housing opportunities. To further this mission, the organization provided outreach and education
16
to the community regarding fair housing, investigated allegations of discrimination, conducted
17
testing of housing facilities, and took such steps as it deemed necessary to assure equal
18
opportunity in housing and to counteract and eliminate unlawful discriminatory housing practices.
19
Upon receiving complaints that defendant Combs was discriminating, the organization conducted
20
two sets of controlled tests, which showed that Combs discriminated against black applicants.
21
22
23
24

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s award of “frustration of mission damages” for “design,
printing, and dissemination of literature aimed at redressing the impact Combs’ discrimination had
on the Marin housing market.” Id. Thus, FHOM’s frustration of mission injuries were directly
related to and fell within the scope of FHOM’s regular activities: outreach and education.

25
Although frustration of mission damages may be awarded to compensate a housing
26
organization for resources expended on activities that are within the scope of its mission, the
27
28

organization must show that that the alleged unlawful acts “increased the resources the group must
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

devote to programs independent of its suit challenging the unlawful action.” Project Sentinel v.

2

Evergreen Ridge Apartments, 40 F.Supp.2d at 1138. Project Sentinel’s Second Amended

3

Complaint now includes allegations to establish that Defendants’ conduct caused such an increase

4

in resources that it must devote to programs independent of its suit.

5

Like the HOME and FHOM organizations, Project Sentinel alleges that Defendants’

6

discrimination harmed its organizational mission. More specifically, the Second Amended

7

Complaint includes an allegation that Defendants’ conduct harmed Project Sentinel “by impairing

8

and frustrating its mission of identifying and eliminating discriminatory practices against people in

9

protected classes.” SAC at ¶83. Further, like FHOM, Project Sentinel alleges it incurred
frustration of mission damages “through disseminating literature aimed at redressing the impact of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants’ discrimination on the Gilroy housing market.” Id. Project Sentinel also allegedly

12

“conducted a renters rights and fair housing presentation in Spanish to community members and

13

tenants in Gilroy on May 18, 2016 where it distributed educational brochures and flyers to provide

14

fair housing education to families with children and Latino tenants most likely to be affected by

15

Defendants’ discriminatory conduct.” Id. Project Sentinel also allegedly “distributed educational

16

brochures (on fair housing law, familial status discrimination, and right to live in a habitable

17

home) to several locations in Gilroy including the public library, a school district office, City Hall,

18

and several community churches.” Id. Critical to establishing standing, Project Sentinel alleges

19

that it would not have undertaken these specific activities but for Defendants’ discriminatory

20

conduct. Id.

21

Further, Project Sentinel alleges that “in order to curtail Defendants’ discriminatory

22

practices and counteract the effects of these practices in the community, Project Sentinel will need

23

to invest significant resources into monitoring the properties owned by Defendants, as well as

24

undertaking additional education and outreach efforts in Gilroy.” SAC at ¶84. Project Sentinel

25

allegedly “must conduct regular tests to monitor the property and ensure that Defendants no longer

26

discriminate against families with children or people of Mexican descent and/or who identify as

27

Latino.” Id. Project Sentinel alleges that it “must monitor the property by conducting a site

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

survey to interview tenants to determine the demographic composition of the complex, assess

2

whether Defendants have rectified pervasive habitability violations suffered by Latino tenants, and

3

identify whether any families with children have experienced discrimination at the complex.” Id.

4

Project Sentinel also alleges that it must train Defendants on fair housing laws. Id.

5

Accepting the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint as true and drawing all

6

reasonable inferences in its favor, the Court finds that Project Sentinel has adequately alleged

7

frustration of mission damages based upon the expenditure of resources described above that

8

Project Sentinel undertook or will be required to undertake because of Defendants’ allegedly

9

discriminatory conduct.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B. Diversion of Resources
Project Sentinel’s allegations are also sufficient at the pleading stage to show a significant

12

diversion of resources. In Smith v. Pacific Properties, supra, the Ninth Circuit held that the

13

Disabled Rights Action Committee (“DRAC”), a non-profit organization promoting the rights of

14

disabled persons in Utah and Nevada, had adequately alleged standing to assert claims for

15

violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act based on the following: “in order to monitor the

16

violations and educate the public regarding the discrimination at issue, DRAC has had (and, until

17

the discrimination is corrected, will continue) to divert its scarce resources from other efforts to

18

promote awareness of – and compliance with – federal and state accessibility laws and to benefit

19

the disabled community in other ways (for example, DRAC’s efforts to free disabled persons from

20

nursing homes.).” Smith, 358 F.3d at 1105.

21

Here, Project Sentinel similarly alleges that it has experienced a “drain on its scarce

22

resources.” SAC at ¶81. Project Sentinel alleges that “[a]s a result of Defendants’ discriminatory

23

activities, Project Sentinel was forced to invest significant financial and staff resources into

24

investigating the subject property, including conducting three separate trips to survey the Gilroy

25

properties, and surveying the Cupertino property to assess the extent and pervasiveness of

26

Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and to compare their treatment of non-Latino tenants and

27

tenants without children.” Id. Project Sentinel alleges that “[t]he time and money invested in

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

surveying and otherwise investigating the subject property resulted in a diversion of resources

2

from Project Sentinel’s regular activities.” Id. at ¶82. Project Sentinel also alleges that “[t]he

3

time spent investigating Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was almost four times the amount of

4

time Project Sentinel spends counseling and resolving a complaint of discrimination.” Id.

5

Defendants’ discriminatory conduct allegedly “forced Project Sentinel to divert its scarce

6

resources away from other programs and activities it would have undertaken, such as counseling

7

and referral, education programs, and outreach, to instead identify and counteract Defendants’

8

unlawful housing practices.” Id. Unlike the First Amended Complaint, the Second Amended

9

Complaint now includes allegations explaining how Defendants’ conduct allegedly caused an

10

expenditure of resources beyond the day-to-day work regularly undertaken by Project Sentinel.
Defendants contend that Project Sentinel is required, but has failed to allege concrete

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

details regarding the resources that were diverted or will be diverted as a result of Defendants’

13

conduct. In Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, supra, the FHOM itemized its claim for diversion of

14

resources, specifying a dollar amount for four separate categories of expenses, namely the cost of

15

investigating and litigating, the expenses incurred by FHOM employees in testing, tester

16

recruitment and training costs, and costs associated with the formation of and participation in the

17

Marin County Board of Supervisors’ Task Force on Housing Discrimination. FHOM’s itemized

18

financial information was submitted, however, not at the pleading stage but in the context of a

19

motion for default judgment. At the pleading stage, Project Sentinel is not required to provide

20

detailed financial information.

21

B. Allegations re Discriminatory Policy
Defendants move to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint that refer to rules

22
23

barring children from playing in common areas2 in light of the Court’s earlier ruling granting

24

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First and Third Causes of action for discrimination on

25

the basis of family status to the extent those claims were predicated on an allegedly discriminatory

26

policy. The portions of the SAC that refer to rules do not contain redundant, immaterial,

27
28

2

See SAC at ¶18, pp. 5:26-6:61, ¶93, and ¶3 under “Relief.”
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

impertinent, or scandalous matter. Further, Defendants have not carried their burden of showing

2

that those portions of the SAC have “no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.”

3

See Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Const., Inc., 870 F.Supp.2d at 1040. Therefore,

4

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint referring to rules is

5

denied.
Defendants also move to strike paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint, which

6
7

sets forth Plaintiffs’ analysis of caselaw regarding predatory or exploitive business practices in

8

contexts other than housing. The Court agrees that paragraph 20 is immaterial to Plaintiffs’ claims

9

and accordingly is deemed stricken from the Second Amended Complaint.
V. CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ motion

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

to strike allegations is GRANTED with respect to paragraph 20 of the Second Amended

13

Complaint, and DENIED in all other respects.
Finally, Defendants’ motion for administrative relief, which essentially requests that the

14
15

Court vacate the Order granting the National Fair Housing Alliance (“NFHA”) leave to file an

16

amicus curiae brief, is DENIED. NFHA filed is motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief on

17

September 8, 2017. It was Defendants’ responsibility to refer to the Local Rules to determine

18

when their response was due, regardless of the erroneous information NFHA included in Docket

19

Entry No. 85.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Defendants’ opposition was due four days later. The

20
21

NFHA’s notice of errata filed on September 13, 2017, which corrected formatting errors and

22

otherwise made no substantive changes to the amicus curiae brief, did not extend the deadline for

23

filing an opposition.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

Having received no opposition, the Court granted the NFHA’s request for leave to file its

2

brief on September 21, 2017. The Court rejects as baseless Defendants’ assertion that they have

3

been prejudiced by the Court’s order granting NFHA leave to file its amicus curiae brief,

4

especially in light of Defendants’ admission that the brief provides no new argument.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

9
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO STRIKE; DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF