whether there was any evidence that extension of time to move out may have been necessary for glenn our the nd issue is whether a landlord can ignore a request for an accommodation from a disabled tenant this is the interactive process know it's the thames who were offered a lease and chose not to and only use and then there month the month tenancy expired were asked to move out right so it wasn't so you they did have the opportunity to extend the tenancy just not on the exact terms they want it right yes your honor the landlord wished to increase the monthly rent to six thousand dollars and  the howards did offer that amount i believe they wish to continue their tenancy and not move up by the july and that your honor well they they didn't offer it they didn't accept it when it was offered in fact they turned it down and said we reject i can't remember the exact words but we reject your illegal terms refused to sign the lease then we were given the sixty day notice to quit or what exact whatever the exact term is in california and then they asked for an accommodation for  was that your client wanted to move to florida he didn't want to move to florida until january if i wanted an extension to accommodate his desire not to have to move to  january but there was no evidence of any kind that he couldn't move across the street or across the town town or even to san francisco but but that but that  is doctor said he couldn't undertake a long trip so how was the fact that he wanted to stay for six more months so he could move to florida how did the landlord even assuming the landlord knew that which i don't know is in the record hours that show that he was denied an equal opportunity to use and enjoy it welling because just because he could have moved across the street he just didn't want to eat just only wanted to have to move once because he wanted to end up in florida not l and twenty eight comma when mr howard is appropriately stabilized early on travel a letter doesn't say anything about needs to stay there because he can't move somewhere else it just says that if he's going for a long travel  he's not ready for a long travel and so january and there was no evidence at all that i could tell that that january to having to stay in this residence as opposed to january so he wouldn't have letters it makes it a fact question the necessity of whether an accommodation may be necessary is a question of fact and they are that the district court here was i'm sorry than it so i suppose if you could say there's no place anywhere nearby that he could stay or short of a long trip that might be another thing but that's not in the record so what we have on the record is the doctor essentially saying the accommodation i'd like you is that control his seizures the clore he could make a cross country is and i just don't see anything ambiguous about the medical testimony it doesn't suggest to me what you're saying it suggests to me good afternoon your owners may have please the court my name is andrew shad off i represent the appalachian k holdings l l c and hope i can chloe in your honors i think the court has hit the nail on the head in a few ways already today the st is there's not a rule policy practice or service that is at issue here the issue was the terminations of a tendency as a matter of law that's not a rule policy practice or service that's protected by the fair housing act and i think that was recognized by the district court in the store versus maverick case that we cited in our brief s t o r as the court noted the howards had the opportunity to counsel in order to rule in your favor we don't have to reach  question even if the lease issues had been exactly the same the medical evidence was that the person could not leave the house to another residence and all we don't have to deal with with that fact because those are the that  hypothetical because those aren't the facts here correct your honor as the court has pointed out earlier today there is absolutely no evidence in the record that mr howard at the end of the tenancy after it should be noted my client gave them an extra couple of months to get things in order could not move from the house to any other residential situation in the local area judge bennett you've noted correctly what the doctor's letters and their testimony say is that he was not yet medically stable enough to move across the country all the way to florida which is obviously a very different thing counsel pointed out in addition to the doctor's letters which i think is clear do not support any tribal issue of fact here gail howard's letter from march th and christine howard's deposition testimony about stress i think it's quite clear that neither of those pieces of evidence create any tribal issue d of fact gail howard's letter stated only that it was she thought it was but at the time that gail howard wrote that letter howard's already had rejected the proposal least they called it illegal and invalid gail howard's word and they had already decided to move to florida and that's very clear from among other places the howard council at the summary judgment hearing in referring to the rejection of the lease and gail howard's letter in march stated and i quote so they had already said no to the least and were planning to leave but that's when the problems with medication started a rising so they could they have to get him stable before they could and so that's why they asked for the for the reasonable accommodation to july so that's obviously referring to gail howard's march letter which requested that st reasonable accommodation and th appellant counsel agreed with the district judge that the stabilization she was talking to referred to going on a long trip to florida which is consistent with the court's noted with the two doctors letters that the stability issue related to a cross country trip so the only reasonable inference from the al howard's letter is that dylan howard was not yet prepared to move all the way to florida and that's why they needed to stay from april which is the existing ten is the date to july as for christina our deposition testimony the district court properly struck that testimony based on our everyday entry objection that it lacks foundation there's no evidence create a foundation for christine howard to offer the sort of medical opinion that glen howard would suffer stress extreme stress or or any other result from moving from the house to a different house in addition of all st of all the district court's ruling was correct it was not an abuse of discretion which is the standard there so it should be up  held and aware of that the appellant have now been arguing throughout their brief that christine howard was one of glen howard's caretakers respectfully there's no evidence at all in the record that christine howard was a caretaker for gwen that theory originated from an argument that the howard council made on summary judgment at the hearing and then in fact is the only citation in the appellant's brief to that argument as to the airing transcript itself but the counsel at the hearing did not cite any piece of admissible evidence suggesting that christine howard was a caretaker so for that reason as well she has zero foundation to opine on stress to go and howard from moving and independently of that is a rd reason there is no foundation for that statement  christine howard had zero experience in moving mr howard from one house to another with this condition he had developed in two thousand and sixteen of nocturnal seizures and we know that because the complaint mit's at paragraph thirteen that when the ho means is that christine howard by these admissions has no experience at all moving glen howard from one house to another so there's no foundation for her to say that moving from the subjects house across the street or to any other residential situation  in los angeles would have been stressful for glenn so for all those reasons the court as the district court correctly did should disregard that testimony so those two things in the doctor's letters are the only items that the accounts point  to with respect to creating a trial issue effect and i think it's very clear there is no tribal issue of fact based on any of that supposed evidence and as a result i don't think the court even needs to get into the interactive process issue because now we have the failure to make ultimately an accommodation there is a stand alone cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process which can lead to liability  irrespective of the statute so i think that is the argument they're making understood your honor but my point is i don't think the court needs to reach it because the lack of causation knocks out the entire claim i understand counsel's argument i think he is he is wrong there's no language in the statute the fair housing act requiring an interactive process there's nothing in the implementing regulations contrary to what's in effect under the eighty eight dollars title one requiring an interactive process there is no definitive statements from even the department of housing and urban development require an interactive process at most there's that joint statement that cited but it says only quote that it would be helpful to enter into an interactive process and my understanding is that even under even under the a d n a there's some question in at least some jurisdictions about whether there's any standalone violation i if there is no failure to accommodate i think that's correct your honor and this court does not really even need to get into the eighty eight because i think the fair housing act is clear and even under the a da there's only an interactive process under title one to try to apply it to the fair housing act in addition there are no circuit court decisions creating an independent cause of action for failure to enter into the interactive process under the fair housing act the appellant site a couple cases they simply do not hold up your strongest case from the st circuit in to analyze the interactive process issue as part of the th element of the fair housing act claim which is whether the party refused to make the request that accommodation did not hold or suggest that there is a standalone cause case from the th circuit said only if the landlord is skeptical of the tenant alleged disability or the landlord's ability to provide an accommodation it should open a dialogue but that does not suggest that there is a standalone cause of action divorced from the actual elements of a fair housing act claim and there's a unpublished th circuit opinion the jones case which was an employment case under the rehabilitation that involved the open gauging of employers to interactive process of d the eighty eight that don't exist here and in fact the case is the district court cases that address the interactive process as part of an f h a claim analyze it typically as part of that th element including the book case the rodriguez case the elliott cases didn't the braes or as part of the st element the landlords knowledge of the disability which the smith versus powdrill case i think from the central district of california that have analyzed interactive process but there's no cases suggesting there's a standalone cause of action  palin's proposal that would essentially be no need to prove either that the requested extension or accommodation actually related to the disability and no need to prove that an equal opportunity was being denied they eventually asked the court to write the causation requirement out of the statute and write out the equal opportunity requirement which i think would be very inappropriate to do it with unintended of the claim from statutory elements and it's also not necessary to create a standalone cause of action because under the existing law the landlord would be liable if the causal nexus is established and it turns out a reasonable accommodation would be granted so it's sort of the landlord's risk to not engage in the interactive process but that's not the same as creating a standalone cause of action when congress has not howard's turning to the interactive process issue briefly in our brief you made the argument from the text a canon of construction and a body of analogous case law the interactive process