79 F. Supp. 3d 1120
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Hector Montano has a mobility disability including quadriplegia and uses a motorized wheelchair.
- Montano cannot transfer independently and requires assistance with daily living activities.
- Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital operates a 60-bed skilled nursing facility in Los Angeles and accepts Medicare/Medicaid funds.
- Montano has resided at Bonnie Brae since 2009, primarily in Room 20, which had accessibility issues (bathroom door, sink, and door hardware).
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested accommodations (space for wheelchair, widened doors, lever handles, accessible fixtures, temperature control) but the facility allegedly failed to provide them or engage in an interactive process.
- Several relocations occurred (Room 20 to Room 2, then Room 7, then Room 8) with ongoing access problems, including hot rooms and inappropriate bathroom configurations; some changes were made later (e.g., lever handles in Room 8).
- The bench trial found the FHA/FEHA, ADA/Unruh Act, Rehabilitation Act, CDPA, and Section 17200 violations, and ordered damages and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonnie Brae violated the FHA/FEHA by failing to reasonably accommodate Montano. | Montano argues accommodations were necessary to enable equal housing opportunity. | Bonnie Brae contends accommodations were not required or are not readily achievable. | Yes; court found failure to reasonably accommodate violated FHA/FEHA. |
| Whether the ADA/Unruh Act claims are supported by failure to remove barriers and to engage in interactive process. | Plaintiff alleges denial of equal access and lack of interactive process. | Defendant argues barriers removal and process issues were not proven or waived. | Yes; court held ADA/Unruh Act violations supported. |
| Whether the Rehabilitation Act and CDPA claims follow from ADA violation given federal funding. | Discrimination under ADA translates to Rehabilitation Act violations; CDPA also violated. | Defendant disputes applicability or proof." | Yes; court found Rehabilitation Act and CDPA violations. |
| Whether damages and injunctive relief are appropriate and what form they should take. | Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing issues. | Defendant disputes amount and continued violations. | Damages awarded: $65,000; punitive damages awarded: $10,000; injunctive relief ordered. |
| Whether California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 relief is proper and whether duplicative remedies exist. | 17200 claims support injunctive relief for unfair practices. | Damages under CDPA/Unruh collide with §17200 limits. | Yes; 17200 injunctive relief granted; damages align with FHA/FEHA/Unruh. |
Key Cases Cited
- California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co. v. California Mobile Home Park, 29 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirmative duty to accommodate in housing for the disabled; barriers removals readily achievable)
- Giebeler v. M&B Assoc., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasonable accommodations must be necessary and enable equal opportunity to use dwelling)
- Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096 (3d Cir. 1996) (housing-related disability discrimination under FHA)
- Jankowski v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1996) (interactive process requirement under FHA)
- Rodriguez v. Barrita, 2012 WL 3538014 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (readiness of alternative accommodations and barrier removal)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (readily achievable barrier removal standard and burden considerations)
- Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc., 439 F.Supp.2d 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (evidence of readily achievable modifications and impact on liability)
- Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp., 992 F.Supp.2d 998 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (burden of production on barrier removal in ADA cases (context discussion))