Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04888/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04888-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY GREEN, SR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCY HOUSING, INC., a Nebraska

corporation; MERCY HOUSING

MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Nebraska

corporation d/b/a East Leland Court; MERCY

HOUSING CALIFORNIA XXXVIII, a

California limited partnership; and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-04888 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this disability-discrimination action, plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint. 

For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The March 21

hearing is VACATED.

STATEMENT

The allegations in this action are set forth in a prior order (Dkt. No. 27). In brief,

plaintiff Rodney Green, Sr., an African American man, rented an apartment owned and operated

by defendants Mercy Housing, Inc., Mercy Housing Management Group, Inc., and Mercy

Housing California XXXVIII. Due to diabetes and arthritis, plaintiff depended on a walking

cane for mobility and also needed an in-home care giver. Following various incidents involving

plaintiff’s son and requests for an accessible parking space, defendants served plaintiff with a

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

sixty-day notice to terminate his tenancy. Defendants agreed to rescind the notice on the

condition that plaintiff not allow his son to come to the apartment for a year. Facing eviction,

plaintiff had no choice but to agree to defendants’ terms (Proposed Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 1–14). 

Based on these allegations, plaintiff filed the original complaint in August 2018 and an

amended complaint in October 2018. An order dated December 20 granted in part and denied

in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and gave plaintiff the opportunity

to seek leave to amend. Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend and submits a proposed second

amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 1, 14, 27, 32). 

This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds

plaintiff’s motion suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the

hearing scheduled for March 21.

ANALYSIS

FRCP 15(a)(2) advises, “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 

In ruling on a motion for leave to amend, courts consider: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3)

prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has

previously amended their complaint. Futility alone can justify denying leave to amend. Nunes

v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). For purposes of assessing futility on this

motion, the legal standard is the same as it would be on a motion to dismiss under FRCP

12(b)(6). Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). 

1. CALIFORNIA’S UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint asserts Unruh Act claims for intentional

discrimination based on race and disability. In order to establish a violation of the Unruh Act

independent of a claim under the ADA, plaintiff “must ‘plead and prove intentional

discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of Act.’” Greater Los

Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., 742 F.3d 414, 425 (9th Cir.

2014) (citation omitted). Intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act “contemplates

‘willful, affirmative misconduct on the part of those who violate the Act’ and that a plaintiff

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

must therefore allege, and show, more than the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy.’” 

Ibid. 

A. Disability Discrimination. 

The December 20 order dismissed plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim for intentional disability

discrimination on the ground that the complaint failed to allege that defendants discontinued

plaintiff’s tenancy because he needed in-home care. Rather, although the complaint alleged that

defendants served plaintiff with a sixty-day notice to terminate his tenancy because plaintiff’s

son allegedly engaged in criminal conduct and lived in plaintiff’s unit in violation of the rental

agreement, no facts in the complaint connected these allegations to willful disability

discrimination. Although plaintiff now alleges that he “explained that his son provides him inhome care” (Proposed Amd. Compl. ¶ 9), this alone is insufficient to plausibly suggest

intentional disability discrimination because the allegations in the proposed complaint suggest

only that defendants refused to allow plaintiff’s son to provide in-home care in light of (false)

allegations of criminal activity, not that plaintiff was denied the opportunity to receive any inhome care.

The December 20 order further found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding overhanging

trees and his requests for an accessible parking space failed to demonstrate intentional conduct. 

Plaintiff’s proposed compliant fails to remedy these deficiencies. Plaintiff now adds allegations

that (1) defendants violated building code standards, (2) overhanging trees blocked plaintiff’s

path of travel, and (3) plaintiff asked the manager to trim the trees only to be told that there is

nothing that could be done (id. ¶ 10–13). None of these allegations show “more than the

disparate impact of a facially neutral policy.” Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc.,

742 F.3d at 425. The proposed amended complaint accordingly lacks sufficient well-pled

allegations to plausibly suggest that defendants acted intentionally or that plaintiff’s alleged

disability was a motivating factor for defendants’ purported failures. Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend this claim is DENIED. It is worth noting, however, that an earlier order already

sustained plaintiff’s California’s Disabled Persons Act, Fair Housing Act, and California’s Fair

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Employment and Housing Act claims based on plaintiff’s allegations that defendants failed to

provide a reasonable accommodation in connection with plaintiff’s parking space.

B. Race Discrimination.

Defendants argue that leave to amend plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim for intentional race

discrimination would be futile and prejudicial because the newly-alleged factual allegations

could have been asserted earlier. This order disagrees. Plaintiff now clarifies that his Unruh

Act claim for race discrimination is based on the same allegations as his Fair Housing Act claim

for race discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that defendants banned his son from the apartment

based on false accusations of criminal conduct and of living in plaintiff’s apartment in violation

of the lease. The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s property manager remarked that African

Americans were “more problems” for the apartment complex, falsely accused plaintiff’s son of

criminal conduct, and then banned plaintiff’s son from the property (id. ¶ 34). At this early

stage, these facts are sufficient to plausibly suggest intentional discrimination based on race. 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend this claim is GRANTED. 

2. OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

The remainder of plaintiff’s proposed amendments consist of factual allegations meant

to “substantiate” claims that the December 20 order found to already be legally sufficient. 

Defendants argues that these amendments should be denied because they “should have had the

opportunity to challenge each and every allegation levied against them” in their prior motion to

dismiss (Opp. at 8). Although defendants could have identified any prejudice resulting from

these amendments in connection with the instant motion, they have failed to do so. To the

contrary, defendants concede that “[p]laintiff gains nothing by adding” these allegations. 

Because defendants have not identified any prejudice caused by these amendments, nor shown

bad faith, undue delay, or futility, plaintiff’s motion for leave to add these new allegations is

GRANTED. 

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART. The March 21 hearing is VACATED. Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint, making the changes allowed above but adding nothing more, by MARCH 26 AT

NOON. The answer is due by APRIL 9 AT NOON. There shall be no further Rule 12 practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/19/19 Page 5 of 5