Case ID: f-appx_650/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jane L. CREASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Puneet Kaur SINGH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16000.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 9, 2016.
    Filed May 23, 2016.
    Verne Alfred Perry, Attorney at Law, Hayward, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Fred Michael Plevin, Corrie Klekowski, Paul Plevin Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jane Creason (“Creason”) appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees Puneet Kaur Singh, Theodore Kimball, and Kimball, Tierey & St. John’s (“Appel-lees”) motion to dismiss. We affirm.

Creason worked as a Senior Trial Attorney in the law firm Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP (“KTS”), which specializes in representing owners and managers of residential and commercial properties. In 2012, KTS assigned Creason to represent a landlord seeking to evict two tenants after a domestic violence disturbance took place in their unit. At a pre-trial settlement conference, Creason obtained information that led her to believe the female tenant had a valid defense to eviction based on her status as a domestic violence victim. Also, in Creason’s view, proceeding to trial could constitute discrimination against the tenant based on her sex and therefore expose her client to a lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3681. With the approval of her client’s agent, Creason negotiated a settlement that terminated the unlawful detainer proceeding and allowed the female tenant to remain in the unit. KTS fired Creason for failing to take the case to trial. Creason alleges that her termination constituted retaliation under the FHA and several state laws.

We agree with the district court that Creason cannot state a claim for retaliation on the theory that she “aided or encouraged” the tenant “in the exercise or enjoyment of’ her rights under the FHA. It is plausible that Creason believed settling the eviction lawsuit to be in the best interests of her landlord-client, and that the settlement benefitted the tenant by allowing her to remain in her home. This type of indirect or incidental assistance, however, is beyond the scope of the FHA’s retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, and is distinguishable from Smith v. Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1975).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.3 provides a defense to eviction for victims of domestic violence, with some exceptions.
     
      
      . The district court assumed without deciding that "evicting a tenant with a valid domestic violence defense could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Section 3604” of the FHA because the majority of domestic violence victims are women. In light of our disposition, we have no need to address this issue.