Putnam Family Partnership v. CITY OF YUCAIPA, CAL.
673 F.3d 920
9th Cir.2012Background
- In 2009, Yucaipa adopted Ordinance 289 creating a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay District prohibiting conversion to all-age housing for parks already operating as senior housing.
- Ordinance 289 requires 80% of spaces to be occupied by or intended for persons 55+, and mandates public designation of the district as senior housing with age-specific rules and disclosures.
- Putnam Family Partnership and other mobilehome park owners allege FHAA violations (familial-status discrimination and interference with rights) and preemption, plus state-law claims.
- The City argued the FHAA senior exemption (as amended by HOPA) allows exclusion of families when housing for older persons is provided, and that intent to provide senior housing can reside with the city.
- The district court dismissed, holding the Ordinance fell within the FHAA senior exemption and was not preempted; it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- On appeal, Putnam contends HUD regulations are inconsistent or beyond agency authority; the Ninth Circuit defers to HUD's reasonable interpretation and affirms the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Ordinance violate FHAA by discriminating on familial status? | Putnam: senior exemption does not apply; owner’s intent required. | City: city-intent via zoning can satisfy exemption; other requirements met. | Yes, ordinance falls within senior exemption via HUD interpretation; FHAA not violated. |
| Is HUD's interpretation of 'housing facility or community' and city-intent reasonable under Chevron? | Putnam challenges HUD authority and interpretation as inconsistent with statute. | City/Defendant: HUD's interpretation reasonable; agency delegated authority governs. | HUD interpretation is reasonable; deferential Chevron analysis applied. |
| Can the FHAA preempt the Ordinance either expressly or by implied conflict? | Putnam: FHAA preempts local law that enforces discriminatory practices. | Ordinance permits senior housing; no express or implied preemption. | No preemption; FHAA permits municipally zoned senior housing compatible with exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass'n, 642 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2011) (defers to HUD interpretation of senior exemption and requires showing eligibility)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretation when statute ambiguity exists)
- City of Hayward, 805 F. Supp. 810 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (pre-HOPA FHAA senior-exemption interpretations (distinguishable under later amendments))
- Massaro v. Mainland's Section 1 & 2 Civic Ass'n, 3 F.3d 1472 (11th Cir. 1993) (owner/manager intent requirement historically applied to senior exemption)