Chavez v. Aber
122 F. Supp. 3d 581
W.D. Tex.2015Background
- Chavez rented a duplex in El Paso; her minor son M.C. has mental-health disabilities and a psychiatrist recommended an emotional support animal. Chavez adopted a mixed-breed pit bull, "Chato."
- The lease contained a no-pets policy. Landlord/manager Dick Aber (and owner Fairview Court, LLC) repeatedly demanded removal of Chato, issued notices to vacate, threatened animal-control removal, and filed two eviction actions after Chavez sought reasonable accommodation.
- Chavez supplied medical letters, a veterinarian report, and a canine behaviorist evaluation showing Chato was not aggressive; HUD and state administrative complaints were filed and later withdrawn to pursue federal suit.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleging disability discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)), retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 3617), parallel Texas Fair Housing Act claims, and retaliation under Texas Property Code § 92.331; defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The district court considered jurisdictional and pleading challenges: defendants argued mootness, lack of Chavez’s individual standing, failure to state FHA claims (knowledge, reasonableness, refusal), no individual liability for Aber, and the state-law retaliation claim lacked a lease basis.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs alleged (1) cognizable damages (avoiding mootness), (2) Chavez’s individual standing (out-of-pocket moving/rent increase), (3) sufficient facts that Aber knew of M.C.’s disability, that the requested accommodation could be reasonable (no direct-threat shown), and that defendants refused/constructively denied accommodation; it also allowed individual liability against Aber and the Texas-law claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of claims | Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief; changed conduct (fence) does not eliminate live controversy | Construction of fence moots claims because it gave requested relief | Denied mootness; damages and other relief keep case live |
| Standing of Chavez individually | Chavez suffered distinct pecuniary injuries (moving, higher rent) traceable to discrimination | Chavez lacks personal injury and thus standing | Chavez has Article III standing for individual FHA claims |
| Individual liability of Aber | Aber personally participated in discriminatory acts and can be individually liable | FHA liability runs to corporation, not officers personally (Meyer v. Holley) | Aber plausibly liable individually for his own wrongful conduct |
| FHA accommodation claim (knowledge, reasonableness, refusal) | Plaintiffs pleaded notice to landlord, medical/support letters, non-aggression reports — accommodation reasonable and was denied or constructively denied | Defendants lacked knowledge, accommodation unreasonable (danger/breed), or they offered alternatives/engaged in interactive process | Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded knowledge, that accommodation could be reasonable (no direct threat alleged), and that defendants refused or constructively denied request; claim survives 12(b)(6) |
| Retaliation under § 3617 (FHA) | Requesting accommodation is protected; eviction filings, calls to animal control, and lease terms shortly after request show adverse actions and proximate causation | Defendants accommodated and dismissed eviction once aware of disability; no coercion/retaliation | Retaliation claim adequately pleaded given protected activity, adverse actions, and temporal/causal allegations |
| State-law TFHA and Texas Property Code retaliation | State statutes mirror FHA; same facts support state claims; lease in effect through 12/31/2012 | No remedy under lease (no valid/ongoing lease after 2010) so claim fails | TFHA and § 92.331 claims plausibly pleaded; alleged lease and oral acceptance suffice at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (application of Twombly plausibility at pleading stage)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2003) (limits on vicarious liability under FHA)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (injury-in-fact for standing under FHA)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (defendant’s changed conduct does not moot claims for damages)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prima facie standards vs. pleading requirements)
- Dillon v. AFBIC Dev. Corp., 597 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1979) (individual liability for officers participating in discriminatory acts)