Blanton et al v. Torrey Pines Property Management, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER Denying 99 Defendants' Motion For A Determination That Plaintiff JOA's FHA and CFEHA Causes of Action Were Frivolous, Unreasonable, and/or Without Foundation. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 10/13/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONYA BLANTON, et al.,

Case No.: 15-CV-0892 W (NLS)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION
THAT PLAINTIFF JOA’S FHA AND
CFEHA CAUSES OF ACTION
WERE FRIVOLOUS,
UNREASONABLE, AND/OR
WITHOUT FOUNDATION [DOC. 99]

TORREY PINES PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a determination that Plaintiff

18
19

Joa’s FHA and CFEHA causes of action were frivolous, unreasonable, and/or without

20

foundation. [Doc. 99.] The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and

21

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that

22

follow, the Court DENIES the motion.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
15-CV-0892 W (NLS)

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs Monya Blanton and Diane Joa brought this action

3

against Defendants Torrey Pines Property Management, Inc., Sedlack Development Co.,

4

LP, Peggy Warny, and Corinne Lampman. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) According to the Second

5

Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Torrey Pines Property Management (“TPPM”) enforced a

6

policy restricting the occupancy of its rental units to “one occupant per bedroom plus

7

one[,]” thus discriminating on the basis of familial status in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3601

8

and Cal. Gov. Code § 12927, inter alia. (SAC [Doc. 29] ¶¶ 1–37.)
On Defendants’ motion, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Joa’s first two causes of

9
10

action for lack of standing, reasoning that by the time the occupancy policy at issue was

11

enforced against Plaintiff Joa’s family, all members of her family had reached the age of

12

majority. (See April 20, 2017 Order [Doc. 83].) Defendants now move “for a

13

determination that Plaintiff Joa’s FHA and CFEHA causes of action were frivolous,

14

unreasonable, and/or without foundation.” (Defs.’ Mot. [Doc. 99].)

15
16

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

“Article III of the Constitution grants this Court authority to adjudicate legal

18

disputes only in the context of ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’ To enforce this limitation, we

19

demand that litigants demonstrate a ‘personal stake’ in the suit.” Camreta v. Greene, 563

20

U.S. 692, 701 (2011) (quoting Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493

21

(2009)). “ ‘[F]ederal courts have never been empowered to issue advisory opinions.’ ”

22

Coal. for a Healthy California v. F.C.C., 87 F.3d 383, 386 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting FCC

23

v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 734–35 (1978)).

24
25

III.

DISCUSSION

26

Defendants do not move for attorneys’ fees. (Defs.’ Mot. [Doc. 99].) Rather, they

27

propose to do so at a later date, after their motion for an advisory opinion as to the nature

28

of Joa’s claims is granted. (Id. [Doc. 99] 1:28–2:2 (“If this motion is granted, Defendants
2
15-CV-0892 W (NLS)

1

will submit attorney billing amounts pertaining specifically to Defendants’ defense of

2

Joa’s frivolous claims so that an attorney fee award may be specifically calculated.”

3

(formatting altered from original).) The issue of fees is not before the Court. Defendants

4

do not show a personal stake in the issue of whether Plaintiff Joa’s claims were frivolous,

5

unreasonable, or without foundation. The Court is not empowered to issue an opinion

6

advising Defendants. See, e.g., Coal. for a Healthy California, 87 F.3d at 386.

7
8
9

IV.

CONCLUSION & ORDER
Defendants’ motion is DENIED. [Doc. 99.]

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-CV-0892 W (NLS)