Wallace v. John Stewart Co. & Redwood Gardens
3:25-cv-04433
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 15, 2025Background:
- David Wallace, a disabled applicant, alleges he was wrongfully removed from a one-bedroom apartment waitlist at Redwood Gardens, a subsidized senior housing facility managed by John Stewart Company (JSC).
- Wallace seeks a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop JSC from filling one-bedroom units during this litigation and requests production of certain application-related documents.
- JSC contends Wallace never applied for or was placed on a one-bedroom waitlist, and that his application for a studio apartment remains incomplete due to missing information.
- Wallace asserts violations of the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that his removal disproportionately burdens him as a disabled individual.
- There is a factual dispute: Wallace claims he won a one-bedroom lottery and was improperly removed; JSC denies both, stating no evidence supports Wallace's version.
- The case came before Judge Orrick on Wallace's renewed TRO request; after a hearing and review of evidence, the court denied the TRO due to lack of likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO to stop filling one-bedroom units | Wallace is entitled to a one-bedroom and risk losing it | Wallace was never on waitlist; units not available | TRO Denied—No likelihood of success |
| Proof of discrimination or unfair treatment | Actions show FHA/ADA violations against disabled applicant | Delay and removal due to incomplete application | TRO Denied—Insufficient evidence |
| Risk of irreparable harm | Will lose opportunity for accommodation if units filled | No immediate risk; application not complete | TRO Denied—No irreparable harm shown |
| Production of housing application documents | Needed to prove improper removal and discrimination | Information withheld due to litigation, incomplete application | Can proceed via discovery, not emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets preliminary injunction standard; requires clear showing of entitlement).
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO and preliminary injunction standards are the same).
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (modified test allows for 'serious questions' if hardship tips sharply).
- Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden of proof on plaintiff for extraordinary remedy).