Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00189/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

– 1 –

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER LOGUE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 19-cv-189-BAS-NLS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES

[ECF No. 7]

v.

CURTIS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants Curtis Management Company, Inc. 

and The Bluffs of Fox Run Homeowners Association’s Motion to Dismiss Punitive 

Damages. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs Heather Logue, minors L.L., E.L., A.L, 

Ronald Greathouse and Lorraine Greathouse filed an opposition to the Motion, 

(“Opp’n,” ECF No. 9), and Defendants filed a reply in support of the Motion, 

(“Reply,” ECF No. 10). The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on 

the papers and without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated 

below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ronald and Lorraine Greathouse live with their two minor children 

in a complex located on Old Bridgeport Way. Plaintiff Heather Logue lives in the 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
– 2 –

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

same complex with her three children, minors L.L., E.L., and A.L. (“Compl.,” ECF 

No. 1, at ¶¶ 13–14.) The complex is referred to herein as the “Subject Property.” 

Plaintiffs allege Defendants Curtis Management Company Inc. and The Bluffs of 

Fox Run Homeowners Association manage and supervise the operation of the 

Subject Property. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants enforce certain rules at the Subject Property, 

for example:

• “It is the responsibility of each owner/resident using the pool or spa to ensure 

that persons fourteen (14) years of age or under using the pool and/or spa are

under direct supervision at all times by a designated, responsible adult 18 years 

or older.”

• “Parents or guardians are responsible for controlling loud play and/or 

screaming by their children and if noise is excessive, they will be asked to 

leave the pool area.”

• “Ball games shall be restricted to the open lawn area adjacent to the swimming 

pool facility” and are not allowed on “common area sidewalks.”

• “The use of wheeled recreational devices of any kind are not permitted in the 

common area driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, pool concrete area, and 

garage roadway.”

(Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs have received violation letters from Defendants because 

Plaintiffs’ children rode scooters on the sidewalk of the common areas of the Subject 

Property. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs have also been threatened with fines for various

violations, and several homeowners on the Bluffs board of directors have told

Plaintiffs that they and their children are violating the rules. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 19, 20.) 

Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ housing practices discriminate on the basis of familial 

status. (Id. ¶ 1.)

Plaintiffs bring claims for: violation of the Fair Housing Act; violation of 

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; violation of California’s Unruh 

Civil Rights Act; Unfair Business Practices; and Negligence. Plaintiffs pray for 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
– 3 –

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

various types of damages, including punitive damages. Defendants move to dismiss 

the request for punitive damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Whether the Present Motion is Proper

Plaintiffs first argue the present Motion is an improper means to challenge 

their prayer for relief.

In support of their request, Defendants rely heavily on the prior case Chapman 

v. Bluffs of Fox Run Homeowners Association, 16-cv-489-BAS (AGS), which was 

brought by different plaintiffs making similar discrimination claims against the same 

Defendant, the Bluffs.

1

 The Chapman plaintiffs also included a prayer for punitive 

damages, and the Bluffs moved to strike the punitive damages allegations under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Chapman v. Bluffs of Fox Run Homeowners 

Ass’n, 16-cv-489-BAS (AGS), 2016 WL 7188279 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016). The 

Court construed the Bluffs’ motion as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.

at *3. The Court found the plaintiffs did not allege any facts to support their 

conclusory claim for punitive damages and dismissed without prejudice the punitive 

damages allegations. Id. at *3–4.

Here, Defendants move to dismiss the punitive damages allegations for 

Plaintiffs’ federal and state-law claims. Plaintiffs respond by arguing Rule 12(b)(6) 

is not a basis for dismissal of punitive damages, as damages are not a “claim” that 

may be dismissed. (Opp’n 2.) See Oppenheimer v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 13-

cv-260-IEG (BGS), 2013 WL 3149483, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2013). 

But Defendants distinguish Oppenheimer, arguing they are not challenging 

“simply the prayer for punitive damages, but rather the sufficiency of the allegations 

 

1 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of the order on the Bluffs’ motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 7-1.) The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the prior order, “but not the truth 

of the facts cited therein.” See Marsh v. San Diego Cnty., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1043 (S.D. Cal. 

2006).

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
– 4 –

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

supporting Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.” (Reply 3.) The distinction 

between a motion to strike punitive damages under Rule 12(f) and a motion to 

dismiss the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6) turns on the rationale used by Defendants 

to justify the motion. Motions to strike “are commonly used to ‘strike a prayer for 

relief where the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law.’” Mat-Van, 

Inc. v. Sheldon Good & Co. Auctions, LLC No. 07-cv-912-IEG (BLM), 2007 WL 

2206946, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2007) (quoting Gay-Straight Alliance Network v. 

Visalia Unified Sch. Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1110 (E.D. Cal. 2001)). On the 

other hand, if the defendants are challenging the sufficiency of the allegations 

supporting punitive damages, then the proper means for challenging is a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion. Mat-Van, Inc., 2007 WL 2206946, at *7 n.11; see also e.g., In re 

Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1147 (N.D. 

Cal. 2018) (holding the defendant properly moved under Rule 12(b)(6) in moving to 

dismiss the plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages). 

Defendants state they are challenging the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations 

regarding punitive damages and thus the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is proper. (Reply 3.) 

The Court agrees. As analyzed below, it is undisputed that punitive damages are 

available under at least some of the laws that Plaintiffs allege Defendants have 

violated. Thus, Defendants are not arguing that punitive damages are unavailable as 

a matter of law. The Court therefore will analyze the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ 

allegations under Rule 12(b)(6).

B. Legal Standard

A complaint must plead sufficient factual allegations to “state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
– 5 –

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

Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true and must construe 

them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). To avoid a Rule 

12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, rather, 

it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may 

be based on either a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient 

facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare 

Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)).

C. Whether Plaintiff’s Allegations are Sufficient

1. Fair Housing Act

Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is brought under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 

42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (Compl. ¶ 32.) The FHA allows for punitive damages “if 

the court finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 3613(c)(1). Plaintiffs argue they have pled a violation of the FHA under sections

3604(b) and 3604(c). (Opp’n 7–10.) Section 3604(b) provides it is unlawful to 

“discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or 

rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection 

therewith, because of . . . familial status.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Section 3604(c) 

provides it is unlawful to print or publish any notice, “with respect to the sale or 

rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based 

on . . . familial status.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

Under federal law, punitive damages may be awarded for a defendant’s 

“reckless or callous disregard” of a plaintiff’s federally protected rights. Smith v. 

Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983). A finding of reckless indifference “ultimately 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
– 6 –

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

focus[es] on the actor’s state of mind,” and requires that the defendant “at least 

discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to 

be liable in punitive damages.” Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 535 

(1999). Courts have applied this standard to awards of punitive damages under the 

FHA. See So. Cal. Hous. Rights Ctr. v. Krug, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1153 (C.D. Cal. 

2007); United States v. Tropic Seas, 887 F. Supp. 1347, 1365 (D. Haw. 1995). An 

owner of housing may be liable for punitive damages if he or she “knew of or 

ratified” a discriminatory act by the owner’s agents or the corporation. Tropic Seas, 

887 F. Supp. at 1365. “[I]n general, intentional discrimination is enough to establish 

punitive damages liability.” Inland Mediation Bd. v. City of Pomona, 158 F. Supp.

2d 1120, 1159–60 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

Here, Plaintiffs plead Defendants “intentionally and recklessly violated 

Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights” and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive 

damages. (Compl. ¶ 28.) As the Court found previously, this is a conclusory 

allegation. See Chapman, 2016 WL 7188279, at *4. Like in Chapman, Plaintiffs 

include no allegations behind their “legal conclusions and a formulaic recitation of 

the ‘intentional and reckless’ standard for punitive damages.” Id. at *3. Defendants’

involvement in the Chapman litigation may show that they allegedly acted “in the 

face of a perceived risk” that their housing practices violate Plaintiffs’ federal rights. 

Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535. But Plaintiffs do not plead such an allegation. The bare 

conclusory assertion that Defendants acted “intentionally and recklessly” is 

insufficient. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the 

punitive damages allegations under the FHA.

2. Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)

Punitive damages are also available under the California’s Fair Employment 

and Housing Act (“FEHA”). See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12989.2. Defendants move to 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages under this cause of action as well.

Plaintiffs do not specifically allege they request punitive damages under state law. 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
– 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

See Compl. ¶ 28 (alleging Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages “under federal 

law”); id. at Prayer (praying for punitive damages generally without specification as

to the cause of action). Because Plaintiffs do not allege they request punitive 

damages under California law and have no factual allegations why such damages are

appropriate, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the punitive 

damages allegations under FEHA.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. (ECF 

No. 7.) Because Plaintiffs may be able to allege additional facts that will show they 

are entitled to punitive damages under the standards articulated above, they are given 

leave to amend. The scope of leave to file an amended complaint is limited to 

amending only as to punitive damages to allege additional facts that cure the defects 

identified in this order. Plaintiffs may not plead additional claims, add additional 

parties, or add allegations that are not intended to cure the specific defects the Court 

has noted. Should any amended complaint exceed the scope of leave to amend 

granted by this order, the court will strike the offending portions under Rule 12(f). 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may [act on its own to] strike from a pleading 

an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 

matter.”).

If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so no later than 

June 14, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 18 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7