Valentine v. Granville Realty, Inc.
1:25-cv-00798
| E.D. Cal. | Jul 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Valentine (a disabled veteran) and Amanda Hubbard jointly sued Granville Realty, Inc. and related parties, alleging racketeering, housing fraud, and disability discrimination connected to their tenancy in Fresno, California.
- They sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt their scheduled eviction, freeze assets, compel repairs, and preserve evidence.
- Plaintiffs claimed that the property lacks a Certificate of Occupancy—which allegedly voids the lease—and that their eviction was retaliatory and discriminatory, timed with Valentine’s emotional support animal’s terminal illness.
- Plaintiffs’ IFP applications showed incomes that, even individually, far exceed federal poverty guidelines for a two-person household.
- The TRO application was filed nearly ten weeks after the eviction notice, without proper notice to defendants or adequate justification for emergency relief.
- The court reviewed the filings for both procedural sufficiency and the substantive merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP Status | Plaintiffs cannot afford court fees due to expenses and debts | Plaintiffs' incomes exceed poverty threshold | Denied; applicants must pay fee or submit full IFP application |
| TRO – Procedural Compliance | Emergency situation warrants ex parte relief | Plaintiffs failed to give notice or justify lack of notice | Denied; procedural deficiencies under Rule 65, Local Rule 231 |
| TRO – Merits of Housing and Disability Claims | Lease void due to lack of Certificate of Occupancy; eviction is retaliation/discrimination | No binding authority that lack of occupancy certificate voids lease; no evidence of retaliatory motive | Denied; no likelihood of success on the merits, insufficient evidence |
| TRO – Irreparable Harm | Imminent eviction will cause homelessness and health risks | Delay in seeking relief defeats claim of irreparability; other remedies available | Denied; harm not imminent or irreparable |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (IFP applicants must show genuine financial hardship)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (TROs aimed at preserving status quo only)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (sets four-prong standard for injunctive relief)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (plaintiff bears burden on all TRO factors)
- Gruzen v. Henry, 84 Cal. App. 3d 515 (lack of occupancy certificate does not necessarily void a lease or bar eviction)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention doctrine; federal courts generally avoid landlord-tenant disputes pending in state court)