West v. Palo Alto Housing Corporation
5:17-cv-00238
N.D. Cal.Jun 20, 2019Background
- James West (pro se) sued Palo Alto Housing Corporation and related entities/individuals for alleged race and disability discrimination, retaliation, mail interference, contract and tort claims based on tenancies at the Barker Hotel (2008–2011) and Alma Place (2011–2015).
- West filed a HUD complaint in October 2014; HUD found no reasonable cause in January 2015. He later sued in federal court (original complaint Jan. 17, 2017) and filed a third amended complaint (TAC).
- Relevant events: offer/transfer of a remodeled unit (Unit 314) in late 2014; West’s failure to pay December 2014 rent and settlement requiring him to vacate by April 10, 2015; West’s March 30, 2015 request to extend move-out to July 10, 2015 citing an unspecified disability and a recent ~21-day respiratory infection.
- Defendants offered relocation options and accommodation request forms; West did not complete medical certification or provide supporting documentation; defendants declined the extension and enforced the previously agreed move-out date.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; West filed a late, two-page opposition and late motions for additional discovery and appointment of counsel. The court denied discovery/counsel requests and took the summary-judgment motion under submission.
- Court granted summary judgment to Defendants in full: most claims time-barred; remaining claims lacked evidence (no qualifying disability shown, no state action for § 1983, no private causes of action for criminal statutes, no evidence of retaliation or threats, UCL and other statutory claims failed as pleaded).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claims arising from Barker Hotel (2008–2011) | West seeks relief for events at Barker Hotel | Defendants: statutes of limitation bar those claims | Held: All Barker Hotel claims are time-barred; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Race-discrimination and §1981/§1982 claims arising ≤ Dec 2014 | West alleges discriminatory transfer/offers and other acts | Defendants: acts occurred more than two years before filing; HUD process does not toll later events | Held: Race and §§1981–82 claims barred by two‑year limitations; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Disability discrimination / reasonable accommodation (March 2015 move-out extension) | West requested extension due to disability and recent illness | Defendants: West never identified or documented a qualifying disability; forms were provided but not completed | Held: No genuine dispute—West did not show a qualifying disability or notice to defendants; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Retaliation under FHA/FEHA (post-Jan 17, 2015) | West claims HUD complaint and other complaints prompted adverse acts (e.g., denial of extension, mail/utility interference) | Defendants: no causal link; intervening unpaid rent and settlement; lack of evidence that defendants caused mail/utility issues | Held: No evidence of causal motivation by protected activity; retaliation claims fail |
| §1983 / state action | West alleges defendants acted "under color of law" administering subsidized housing | Defendants: they are private entities; no close nexus/state action shown | Held: No state action; §1983 claim fails |
| ADA (Title III) applicability to residences | West argues ADA covers accommodation denial | Defendants: ADA public‑accommodation provision does not reach residential apartments | Held: ADA Title III does not apply to private residential complexes; claim dismissed |
| Criminal mail/theft statutes & Cal. Penal Code §530.5 | West asserts mail theft and misuse of PII | Defendants: federal criminal statutes and §530.5 do not create a private civil cause of action; no evidence of theft | Held: No private cause of action and no evidence; claim dismissed |
| UCL based on Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.73 and unfair practices | West alleges unlawful and unfair business practices | Defendants: no violation of municipal code; entities are private and not shown to receive city funding; underlying statutory claims fail | Held: UCL unlawful/unfair prongs fail; summary judgment for Defendants |
| IIED and related emotional‑distress claims | West asserts severe emotional harm from defendants’ acts | Defendants: conduct not extreme or outrageous; no supporting evidence | Held: Conduct not beyond bounds tolerated in civilized society; IIED and negligent emotional‑distress claims fail |
| Requests for more discovery and appointment of counsel | West sought stay to conduct further discovery and pro bono counsel | Defendants: undue delay and prejudice; discovery period long and plaintiff dilatory | Held: Denied—plaintiff failed to show diligence or specific needed discovery; no exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary‑judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114 (FHA and FEHA standards; retaliation elements)
- Dubois v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalalaua, 453 F.3d 1175 (causal link in retaliation and motivation analysis)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (statute of limitations borrowing rule)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (limitations for civil‑rights actions)
- Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950 (private actor/state action analysis)
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (private conduct/state action test)
- Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351 (temporary impairment not a disability under ADA)
- Family Home & Financial Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822 (standards for denying continuance for discovery in light of summary judgment)