Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01946/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01946-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

15CV1946 BEN (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVELYN MCCASLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL HERZOG,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV1946 BEN (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

[Docket No. 22]

On June 13, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Daniel Herzog’s Motion to 

Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Evelyn Mccasland’s Complaint as time-barred by the applicable 

statutes of limitation. (Docket No. 20.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint by July 15, 2016. Plaintiff filed a document titled “First Amended 

Complaint,” however it is not a complaint. It lacks any claims and minimal factual 

allegations. It is more comparable to a motion for reconsideration. Defendant has filed a 

Motion to Dismiss the case based on the above deficiency as well as any claims being 

barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and for failing to state a claim. (Docket 

No. 22.) Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion. For numerous reasons 

outlined below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

///

Case 3:15-cv-01946-BEN-MDD Document 26 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15CV1946 BEN (MDD)

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

BACKGROUND

The Court will not repeat the allegations of the Complaint summarized in detail in 

the Court’s June 13, 2016 Order, but provides the following brief overview. Plaintiff’s 

original Complaint alleged housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) 

and a violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). She alleged her unit 

was wrongfully accessed, her monthly food service costs increased, and she was 

wrongfully denied use of a disabled parking space at the property Defendant managed —

Friendship Manor. Following unlawful detainer proceedings against her in 2011 and 

settlement in those proceedings, Plaintiff vacated her unit on August 15, 2012, although 

some of her possessions remained in a storage closet at the property until August 27, 

2012. Plaintiff pursued a housing discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that was referred to the California 

Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) for resolution. On July 2, 2013, 

DFEH closed the complaint and indicated it was investigated but dismissed for

insufficient evidence. Each correspondence Plaintiff received from HUD or DFEH noted 

the applicable two-year statute of limitations, her right to pursue a private action, and that 

the time her claim was pending before DFEH would not be included in the two-year 

period. 

DISCUSSION

The Motion to Dismiss is granted. First, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to 

the Motion to Dismiss.1 Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “[i]f an opposing party fails to 

file the papers in a manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” 

 

1 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline set by the Court. There is no 

operative pleading on file, only the dismissed initial Complaint. This alone is a basis to 

dismiss the case. 

Case 3:15-cv-01946-BEN-MDD Document 26 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15CV1946 BEN (MDD)

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

The Motion to Dismiss was noticed for hearing on September 6, 2016. Under Civil Local 

Rule 7.1.e.2, any opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on August 23, 2016.

None was filed. The Court considers the lack of any opposition consent to the granting 

of the motion and grants the motion to dismiss.

Second, if the case were not subject to dismissal based on these grounds, the Court 

would still find dismissal appropriate for the same reasons outlined in the Court’s June 

13, 2016 Order. As the Court explained in more detail, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by 

the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiff’s only possible claims based on the 

allegations of the initial Complaint and her additional clarifications in the document titled 

First Amended Complaint are for housing discrimination and an ADA violation. Both 

are subject to two-year statutes of limitation. The statute of limitations on the housing 

discrimination claim began to run no later than July 2, 2013 when DFEH closed the 

administrative proceeding. Any discrimination had ceased by that time. She did not file 

her Complaint until August 30, 2015, more than two years later. As to the ADA claim, 

even if the Court assumed Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination through the date she 

removed the last of her possessions from the property, August 27, 2012, the statute of 

limitations ran on August 27, 2014, more than a year before she filed this action. And 

Plaintiff has alleged no basis for equitable tolling.

Based on the foregoing and the Court’s analysis in the June 13, 2016 Order, the 

Court finds the running of the statutes of limitation is apparent from Plaintiff’s 

allegations as stated in the initial Complaint and the document titled First Amended 

Complaint and the deficiency could not be cured by any amendment. See Von Saher v. 

Norton Simon of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

To the extent the document Plaintiff titled “First Amended Complaint” was 

intended as a motion for reconsideration, it would also be unsuccessful. Plaintiff argues 

she should receive a longer statute of limitations for her ADA claim. She primarily 

argues that the Court should extend the applicable statute of limitations because of the 

Case 3:15-cv-01946-BEN-MDD Document 26 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15CV1946 BEN (MDD)

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

importance of the claim and that the claim should be subject to the three-year statute of 

limitations applicable to an ADA claim against a public entity rather than a private entity. 

As explained in the Court’s prior order, Title III ADA claims — claims against private 

entities — are subject to a two-year statute of limitations borrowed from California’s 

personal injury statute. See Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(explaining that courts “borrow the statute of limitations applicable to the most analogous 

state-law claim”); see also Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc, 293 F.3d 1133, 1137 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that most district courts have applied California’s statute of 

limitations for personal injury actions to disability discrimination claims); Razavi v. Regis 

Corp., 2016 WL 97438, at *5 (Jan. 8, 2016) (collecting cases). As explained in Sharkey 

v. O’Neal, Title II claims — claims against a public entity — are subject to a three-year 

statute of limitations. 778 F.3d at 771-73. However, there is no basis to apply that 

statute of limitations to Plaintiff’s claim against this Defendant, the manager of a private 

senior housing facility. Plaintiff has attached exhibits indicating that some of the 

facilities’ residents may qualify for governmental housing assistance, but nothing 

suggesting this facility or the defendant is a public entity. Additionally, as noted above, 

Plaintiff waited more than three years after the date she or her possessions were no longer 

at the property to pursue the claim. The Court did not err in finding Plaintiff’s claims 

barred by the statutes of limitation. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the 

applicable statutes of limitation and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk 

shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01946-BEN-MDD Document 26 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 4