Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01239-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 07/31/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CATHY ENWERE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TERMAN APARTMENTS, L.P.,

d/b/a G & K MANAGEMENT CO.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

[re: docket no. 19]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the initial complaint in this action on March 1, 2007,

alleging racial discrimination in housing. The complaint consisted of factual allegations in

narrative form. The crux of the allegations is that Plaintiff made an appointment to see an

apartment, and that when she arrived for the appointment and Defendants became aware of her

race, Defendants refused to show her the apartment. 

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendants state that the name used by Plaintiff “TERMAN APARTMENTS, LP” is 2

erroneous.

2

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

On April 24, 2007, Defendants Terman Associates, L.P. (“Terman”) and G&K 2

Management Company, Inc. (“G&K”) moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and insufficiency of service. On May 2, 2007, Plaintiff

submitted a document entitled “Amendment to Complaint” and an accompanying, hand-written

request that the document be accepted as an amendment to the initial complaint. This one-page

amendment consisted primarily of narrative and argument. Because Plaintiff had not filed

another amendment previously, the amendment was filed as of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

The operative complaint in this action is now the initial complaint as amended by this subsequent 

filing. Because the complaint had been amended, Defendants’s motion to dismiss was denied as

moot on May 7, 2007.

On May 29, 2007 Defendants refiled their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Defendants assert that considering the amendment, Plaintiff has failed to include “the basis for

federal court jurisdiction, the statutory basis for her complaint, the identification of any specific

cause of action, and the basic background facts that would explain how she allegedly was

discriminated against.” Motion 1. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument

on July 27, 2007. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the

court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) 

B. Failure to State a Claim

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and the

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiff’s citation to FHA Sec. 803(a), (d), & (e) [42 U.S.C. §§ 3603(a), (d), & (e)]

3

appears to be mistaken because FHA Sec. 803 pertains to the effective dates of certain

prohibitions. The Court assumes that Plaintiff meant to cite to FHA Sec. 804 [42 U.S.C. §

3604], which lists housing violations. 

3

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The pleading of a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent

standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to be afforded the benefit of any doubt. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend unless

it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas

v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

As discussed below, Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains a number of technical

deficiencies. While it appears likely that Plaintiff will be able to state a claim, she must comply

with the relevant procedural rules. To satisfy this requirement, Plaintiff should address the

deficiencies identified below in a second amended complaint. 

A. Claims Under Federal Law

It appears that Plaintiff believes that her case presents a federal question because she

bases her claims in part on the Fair Housing Act, a federal law. However, Rule 8 requires that

Plaintiff make an explicit jurisdictional allegation in her complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint should identify the statutory basis for federal jurisdiction, e.g., 28

U.S.C. § 1331. 

Ninth Circuit case law provides that “the vitality of a fair housing complaint should be

judged by the statutory elements of an FHA claim rather than the structure of the prima facie

case.” Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

Plaintiff must allege an injury that fits within the FHA framework. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (d), &

(e) make the following actions illegal: 3

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to

negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s request for relief submitted July 24, 2007, as well as 4

Defendants’s response dated July 25, 2007. Because Plaintiff must file a second amended

complaint, the Court does not consider these filings at this time. 

4

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or

national origin.

. . .

(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,

familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection,

sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any

dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the

neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex,

handicap, familial status, or national origin. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (d), & (e). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should identify

specifically which of these statutory provisions she believes has been violated and allege how

that violation occurred. 

The amended complaint does not allege which Defendants are responsible for the harm

Plaintiff has alleged. While Plaintiff alleges that a person named Ms. Mendhuk discriminated

against her, Ms. Mendhuk is not named as a defendant, and Plaintiff does not allege any

connection between Ms. Mendhuk and the named Defendants, or any discriminatory act by the

named Defendants themselves. Plaintiff alleges that G&K has played a role in creating racial

disparity in Palo Alto, but she does not identify a specific violation it allegedly has committed. 

While Terman is listed as a defendant, nothing in the allegations explains why. A second

amended complaint should identify the appropriate Defendants and allege which role each

Defendant played in the alleged harm suffered by Plaintiff. 

In addition, the amended complaint does not include a demand for judgment for the relief

Plaintiff seeks as required by Rule 8. A second amended complaint should contain such a 4

demand. 

B. Claims Under California Law

Plaintiff also appears to seek to assert a claim under Cal. Gov’t. Code §§ 12955(f), (g), &

(h). Under these statute, it is illegal:

(f) For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations

when the owner's dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has

opposed practices unlawful under this section, informed law enforcement agencies

of practices believed unlawful under this section, has testified or assisted in any

proceeding under this part, or has aided or encouraged a person to exercise or

enjoy the rights secured by this part. Nothing herein is intended to cause or permit

the delay of an unlawful detainer action.

(g) For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the

acts or practices declared unlawful in this section, or to attempt to do so.

(h) For any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by

representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a

person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,

marital status, ancestry, disability, source of income, familial status, or national

origin.

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12955(f), (g), & (h) (2007). While Plaintiff alleges that she was a victim of

racial discrimination, she does not indicate which section she believes was violated and what

actions by which Defendants constitute the violation. Plaintiff should include such allegations in

her second amended complaint. 

C. Service of Process

Defendants object to the sufficiency of the service of the complaint upon them. This

Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which included

service of the summons and complaint by the United States Marshal. Defendants apparently

received sufficient notice of this action to allow them to file two motions to dismiss, and they did

not indicate that they were making a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may continue to serve by first-class mail those Defendants who already

have appeared. Any new defendants may be served by the Marshal as provided by the Court’s

Local Rules. 

D. Re-Referral to the Pro Bono Project

On April 20, 2007 the Court referred this action to the Federal Pro Bono Project. That

organization was unable to locate an attorney willing to represent Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff

likely will be able to state a claim once she remedies the technical errors in her previous

complaint, the Court concludes that good cause continues to exist for appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case will be referred for a second time to the Federal Pro Bono Project,

which again will endeavor to locate an attorney willing to represent Plaintiff. The Clerk of the

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 As discussed above, Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint complying with all 5

applicable procedural rules. To summarize the discussion above, Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, which should consist of a single document, must include the following: 

(1) The identities of the parties who she alleges harmed her;

(2) A statement explaining why this Court has jurisdiction over this action;

(3) A separate statement of each claim Plaintiff wishes to assert; 

(4) For each claim, allegations identifying which Defendants have violated the applicable statute;

(5) A demand for relief. 

6

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

Court is directed to send a copy of the file to the Federal Pro Bono Project, attention Irene

Cortez, 4 North Second Street, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95113. Plaintiff is advised that she

remains responsible for litigating this action and complying with all court orders until such time

as the Federal Pro Bono Project locates an attorney to represent her. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before 5

August 31, 2007. 

DATED: July 31, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Case No. C 07-1239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Eve Helayne Lewin Wagner , Esq ewagner@swattys.com 

Notice has been delivered by other means to:

Cathy Enwere

1263 Madera Ave.

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Laurie Beth Hiller 

Sauer & Wagner LLP

1801 Century Park East

Suite 1150

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Case 5:07-cv-01239-JF Document 41 Filed 07/31/07 Page 7 of 7