Roman v. Bre Properties, Inc.
237 Cal. App. 4th 1040
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 2, 2009 Gabriel and Luminita Roman (self-represented) visited Villa Azure to see a $1,499 bonded two‑bedroom unit as a walk‑in; leasing staff told them showings required appointments and no $1,499 two‑bedrooms were available. They left without viewing or applying.
- Romans allege BRE discriminated by refusing a reasonable accommodation (waiving the no‑walk‑ins policy and accepting Section 8 vouchers) for Gabriel’s claimed disability (major depression and back injury); Luminita sued as his live‑in caregiver/associate.
- BRE moved for summary judgment, arguing Romans had no admissible evidence Gabriel met FEHA/DPA/Unruh definitions of “disability,” the requested accommodations were unreasonable, and undisputed rent rolls showed no available units at the price.
- Romans failed to respond to discovery or produce medical or other admissible evidence of disability; their opposition relied on allegations, their own statements that Gabriel was “disabled,” and sealed fee‑waiver/accommodation documents not before the court.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for BRE solely for plaintiffs’ failure to carry their burden with admissible evidence, and later awarded BRE costs (~$4,995); Romans appealed both the judgment and the costs award.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment (no admissible proof of disability) but reversed and remanded the costs award for reconsideration in light of Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs presented admissible evidence that Gabriel has a disability under FEHA/DPA/Unruh | Romans: plaintiff declarations and statements to BRE (and fee‑waiver filings) show Gabriel is disabled and BRE should have inquired further | BRE: plaintiffs failed to produce medical or other admissible proof; bare allegations and self‑descriptions are insufficient | Court: No triable issue — plaintiffs submitted no admissible evidence proving a disability; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether BRE unreasonably refused accommodation (showing without appointment; accepting Section 8) | Romans: waiver and voucher acceptance were reasonable/necessary accommodations | BRE: waiver was not required, BRE had policy and no units at the price; voucher accommodation not mandatory | Court: Rejected on threshold — without proof of disability plaintiffs cannot establish accommodation claim |
| Whether trial court should have continued summary judgment to permit discovery under CCP §437c(h) | Romans: discovery motion pending and needed; court should have continued | BRE: Romans did not request continuance or show facts essential and unavailable for opposition | Court: Romans forfeited continuance argument by not timely requesting it and failing to show what discovery was essential |
| Whether costs award to prevailing defendant in FEHA case must follow mandatory Code of Civil Procedure §1032(b) or be discretionary under Gov. Code §12965(b)/Christiansburg standard | Romans: Cummings supports requiring FEHA defendant to show frivolous/unreasonable suit before costs awarded; trial court erred in awarding costs as of right | BRE: section 1032(b) entitles prevailing party to costs as a matter of right; Romans brought other non‑FEHA claims too | Court: Trial court applied wrong standard; Williams requires trial courts to exercise discretion under Gov. Code §12965(b) and apply Christiansburg asymmetrical standard before awarding costs to prevailing FEHA defendant; remand for findings and consideration of plaintiffs’ financial circumstances and apportionment to non‑FEHA claims as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) (FEHA grants trial courts discretion to award costs and fees; Christiansburg standard governs awards against unsuccessful FEHA plaintiffs)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment burdens and shifting framework)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (defendant fee/cost awards against unsuccessful civil‑rights plaintiffs are appropriate only when suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (alleging a disability is insufficient; plaintiff must prove statutory disability)
- Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (historically required showing of frivolousness before awarding fees/costs to prevailing FEHA defendant — later superseded/disapproved by Williams)
- Jankey v. Lee, 55 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2012) (state fee regimes may differ from federal ADA; discussion of overlapping federal/state fee rules)
- Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges, 193 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (limits on awarding fees/costs for hours intertwined with claims for which fee shifting is not authorized)