N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JANE L. C REASON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. PUNEET KAUR

SINGH; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16000 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-03731-JST
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 9, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Ja ne C re a son (“ C re a son” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Appe l le e s Pune e t Ka

ur Singh, The odore Kim

ba ll, a nd Kim ba ll, Tie re y

& St. John’ s (“ Appe l le e s” ) m o tion to dism iss. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED MAY23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C re a son worke d a s a Se nior Tria l Attorne y

in thela wfirm Kim ba l l, Tire y

& St. John, LLP (“ KTS” ), whic h spe c ia liz e s in re pre se nting owners a nd m ana ge rs of
re side ntia l a

nd c om m e rc ia l prope rtie s. In 2012, KTS a ssigne d C re a s on to
re pre se nt a

la ndlord se e king to e vic t two te na nts a fte r a dom e s tic viole nc e disturba n c e took pla c e in the ir unit. At a pre -tria l se ttle m e nt c onfe re nc e , C re a son obta ine d inform ation tha

t le d he r to be lie ve the fe m a le te n ant ha d a va lid de fe nse to
e vic tion ba se d on he r status a s a dom e s tic viole nc e vic t im
. 1 Also, in C re a son’ s vie w , proc e e ding to trial c ould c onstitute disc rim ination a ga i nst thete na nt ba se d on he r se x a

nd the re fore e xpose he r c lie nt to a la w suit unde r the Fa ir Housing Ac t (“ FHA” ), 42 U.S.C . §§ 3601-3631. With thea pprova l of he r c lie nt’ s a g e nt, C re a son ne gotia

te d a se ttle m e nt tha

t te rm inat e d the unla

w ful de ta ine r proc e e ding
and a llowe d the fe m a le te na nt to re m a in in theunit. KTS fire d C re a son for fa iling to ta ke the c a se to tria l. C re a son a lle ge s tha t he r te rm inat ion c onstitute d re t a lia tion unde r the FHA a

nd se ve ra l sta

te la ws. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t C re a son c annot sta

te a c la im for
re ta lia tion on the

the ory that she “ a ide d or e n c oura ge d” the te n ant “ in the e xe rc ise

1 C a lifornia C ode of C ivil Proc e dure § 1161.3 provide s a de fe nse to e vic tion for vic tim s of dom e s tic viole nc e , with som e e xc e ptions. 2or e njoy

m e nt of” he r rights unde r the FHA. 2 It is pla u sible that C re a son be lie ve d
se ttling the

e vic tion la

wsuit to be

in thebe st inte re s ts of he r la ndlord-c lie nt, a

nd that the se ttle m e nt be n e fitte d

the te n ant by

a l lowing he r to re m a in in he r hom e . This ty pe of indire c t or inc ide nta l a ssista n c e , howe ve r, is be y o nd the sc ope of the FHA’ s re ta lia

tion provision, 42 U.S.C . § 3617, a nd is distinguisha

b le from Smith v
. Ste c he l , 510 F.2d 1162 (9th C ir. 1975). AFFIRM E D.

2 The distric t c ourt a ssum e d without de c iding tha t “ e v ic ting a

te na nt with a va lid dom e stic viole nc e de fe nse c ould c onstitute disc rim i nation on the ba s is of se x in viola tion of Se c tion 3604” of the FHA be c a use the m a

jority of dom e stic viole nc e vic tim s a

re wom e n . In light of our disposition, we have no ne e d to a ddre s s this issue
. 3