974 F. Supp. 2d 1282
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Laren Salisbury, a long‑time resident of Arrowhead Mobile Home Park, alleges on‑site manager Umberto Crimi made persistent sexual advances in March 2012, including cornering her outside and entering her home uninvited.
- Salisbury obtained a three‑year civil harassment restraining order against Crimi after a full hearing in Kern County Superior Court.
- Salisbury sued defendants (Crimi; property manager Termini; owners Arthur and Jacqueline Hickman) asserting claims under the FHA, FEHA, California Civil Code §51.9 (Unruh/§51.9), negligence, breach of quiet enjoyment, and unlawful entry.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Salisbury moved for partial summary judgment seeking collateral estoppel against Crimi on certain factual issues already decided in the restraining‑order proceeding.
- The court granted Salisbury’s partial motion applying collateral estoppel to three specific findings from the restraining‑order decision (course of conduct that harassed, would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, and did cause Salisbury substantial emotional distress).
- The court denied summary judgment to defendants on most claims, holding that a reasonable factfinder could find Crimi’s conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile housing environment under the FHA and analogous state laws; it granted limited judgment for defendants on certain statutory theories (Unruh to the extent not §51.9; unlawful entry under Cal. Civ. Code §1940.2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel from state restraining order | Restraining order necessarily decided that Crimi engaged in a course of harassing conduct that caused substantial emotional distress and would do so to a reasonable person | State court made limited findings; should not preclude re‑litigation here | Granted as to three issues: course of conduct; would cause reasonable person substantial emotional distress; did cause Salisbury substantial emotional distress (as to Crimi only) |
| FHA hostile‑housing environment | Crimi’s advances, physical intimidation, and uninvited entry into Salisbury’s home created a hostile housing environment | Incidents were isolated, nonviolent, and insufficiently severe or pervasive (analogous to DiCenso, Honce) | Denied summary judgment to defendants on FHA claim — disputed issues remain for jury (conduct could be severe/pervasive given home entry, intimidation, manager status) |
| FEHA / §51.9 (Unruh‑type) / Negligence | State harassment statutes and negligence theories mirror FHA analysis; landlord may owe duty to protect tenants | Conduct not severe/pervasive; no actionable discrimination | Defendants not entitled to summary judgment on FEHA and §51.9; negligence claim survives summary judgment because defendants did not meaningfully contest landlord duty or evidence |
| Unlawful entry (Cal. Civ. Code §§1940.2, 1954) | Entry into Salisbury’s home was unlawful; no statutory exception applies | Entry was justified by emergency-like observations (truck in driveway, backdoor unlocked) or falls under §1940.2 exception | Summary judgment granted to defendants as to §1940.2 (no showing entry aimed to force vacancy); denied as to §1954 — triable issue whether entry was reasonable/emergency |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1995) (defining collateral estoppel/issue preclusion standards)
- McInnes v. California, 943 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts apply state preclusion law in determining preclusive effect of state judgments)
- Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizing hostile housing environment theory under FHA and significance of harassment occurring in the home)
- DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1996) (single nonviolent incident by landlord insufficient for hostile environment under FHA analogue)
- Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 1993) (refusing to find actionable harassment where conduct lacked sexual remarks, touching, or threats)
- Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991) (contextual, gender‑sensitive analysis of harassment severity and the reasonable woman standard)