Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1 1 2 3 4 5 Margaret A. Elder (SBN 177424) Chandra Gehri Spencer (SBN 184010) ELDER & SPENCER, LLP 17011 Beach Bd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Tel: (213) 631-8331 Fax: (888) 422-8027 E-mail: info@elderspencer.com 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) COACHELLA HOUSING INVESTORS, ) ) LP, a limited liability partnership; ) CONAM MANAGEMENT ) CORPORATION, a California ) Corporation; and TELACU HOMES, ) INC., a California Corporation, ) Defendants. ) OLGA CASTANEDA, an individual; VANESSA SALINAS CASTANEDA, an individual; ROSEMARY MENDIA, an individual; FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, a Nonprofit Corporation, 25 26 27 I. 1. Case No: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 1. 2. 3. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955 et seq.; and Negligence INTRODUCTION This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against COACHELLA HOUSING INVESTORS, 28 COMPLAINT -1- LP, CONAM MANAGEMENT Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2 1 CORPORATION and TELACU HOMES, INC., for discrimination based on familial 2 status and retaliation in connection with the rental of residential property. Defendants 3 and their employees and agents have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct with 4 the purpose and the effect of discriminating against families with minor children by, 5 among other things, discriminating in the terms and privileges of a rental because of a 6 person’s familial status and otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling 7 because of a person’s familial status. This action arises under the Fair Housing Act of 8 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq., related state laws, and California 9 Government Code §12940 et seq. 10 11 II. 2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action is 12 predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the claims alleged herein arise under the laws of 13 the United States, specifically the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619 14 (“FHA”). The state law claims form the same case and controversy as the federal law 15 claims. Thus, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to 16 hear and determine Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 17 3. Defendants reside in this district and in California, do business in this 18 district and all events giving rise to this complaint occurred in this district. Thus venue 19 is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 20 4. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief as well 21 as actual and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o)(3), and 42 U.S.C. § 22 3613(c)(1). 23 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2). 24 25 The Court also has the authority to award Plaintiffs their reasonable III. 5. PARTIES At all times relevant herein Defendants, were and are the owners, 26 developers, and managers of a multi-family residential property (“subject property”) of 27 more than 4 units, located at 84711 Avenue 51, Coachella, California. 28 COMPLAINT -2- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:3 1 6. Defendant COACHELLA HOUSING INVESORS, LP, is a business entity 2 doing business in California as a residential rental property landlord and management 3 company and is responsible for the maintenance, operation and supervision of 4 employees at the subject property. 5 7. Defendant TELACU HOMES, INC., is a business entity doing business in 6 California as a residential rental property landlord and management company and is 7 responsible for the maintenance, operation and supervision of employees at the subject 8 property. 9 8. Defendant CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION is a business 10 entity doing business in California as a residential rental property landlord and 11 management company and is responsible for the maintenance, operation and 12 supervision of employees at the subject property. 13 9. Plaintiff Olga Castaneda was and is a tenant at the subject property from 14 2003, to present. Ms. Castaneda resides at the subject property with her adult child and 15 four minor children. She resides in unit B102. 16 10. Plaintiff Vanessa Salinas Castaneda was and is a tenant at the subject 17 property from 2003, to present. Miss Castaneda resides at the subject property with her 18 mother and four minor siblings. She resides in unit B102. 19 20 21 11. Plaintiff Rosemary Mendia was a tenant at the subject property from October 2010 to March 2014. She resided in unit B202 with her five minor children. 12. Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (“FHC”) is a private 22 non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of California with its 23 principal place of business at 3933 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, California 92501. 24 IV. 25 26 27 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. 13. Introduction Defendants, acting individually or in concert, directly or through agents, have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on familial status in the 28 COMPLAINT -3- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:4 1 operation of the subject property. Defendants continue to engage in such a pattern or 2 practice of discrimination so as to constitute a continuing violation. 3 4 14. Defendants’ unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to, commission of the following discriminatory housing practices: 5 a. Imposing differential terms, treatment, conditions, or privileges 6 associated with a rental unit on prospective tenants because of 7 familial status 42 U.S.C. § 3604; and 8 b. 9 10 Otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any person because of familial status. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. 15. Defendants have negligently failed to hire, train, supervise, and discipline 11 its agents and employees, and itself, to conform its operation of the subject property to 12 the standard of care for the multi-family residential housing industry. 13 16. Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to engage in rental 14 practices that discriminate against, and provide differential treatment to families with 15 children, so as to constitute a continuing violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and 16 the State of California Fair Employment and Housing Act. 17 18 C. 17. Discrimination Based on Familial Status Defendants through their agents established rules prohibiting children from 19 being outside in common areas of the subject property and from being outside in 20 common areas of the subject property without parental supervision and enforced a 21 curfew requiring children, but not adults, to be inside by a certain hour. The illegal 22 rules were conveyed to Plaintiffs. 23 attempted to enforce the illegal rules. 24 18. Several incidents occurred when Defendants Ms. Castaneda and Vanessa Castaneda were told that the minor children 25 could not play in a grassy area that was a common area of the property even though 26 adults could be in the area. On various occasions within the past two years, Ms. 27 Castaneda was told that her children could not be in the common areas unless she was 28 physically present with them. On one occasion, the manager of the subject property COMPLAINT -4- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:5 1 told Ms. Castaneda that her children could not play on their own patio (not a common 2 area) because “they might leave a mess.” 3 19. On other occasions within the past two years Ms. Castaneda was told that 4 her children had to be in their unit by 10:00 p.m. even though there was no curfew for 5 adults at the subject property. The managers constantly threatened Ms. Castaneda and 6 Vanessa Castaneda with eviction if they did not comply with the discriminatory rules. 7 20. When Ms. Mendia went to pay the rent, the manager told her that her 8 children were not allowed to play outside. When a second property manager came to the 9 property, the new manager told Ms. Mendia’s children that they could not play outside. 10 The managers threatened harassed the children regularly. 11 stopped playing outside because they feared their family would be evicted. 12 21. Ms. Mendia’s children Ms. Mendia filed a complaint with the FHC. When the Defendants found 13 out about Ms. Mendia’s complaint, they served her with a 60 day notice to vacate the 14 subject property. 15 22. Ms. Mendia and her family were forced to move as a result of Defendants’ 16 insistence upon enforcing discriminatory rules and retaliation when Ms. Mendia 17 complained to FHC. 18 19 C. 23. FHC’s Standing The FHC is a private non-profit organization that actively supports and 20 promotes fair housing through education and advocacy. Its mission is to ensure that all 21 persons have the opportunity to secure the housing they desire and can afford, without 22 discrimination based on their race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national 23 origin, familial status, marital status, disability, ancestry, age, source of income, or other 24 characteristics protected by law. 25 discriminatory housing practices. Among other things, the FHC’s activities include: (1) 26 outreach and educate the community regarding fair housing; (2) investigating 27 allegations of discrimination; (3) conducting tests of housing facilities to determine 28 whether freedom of residence and equal opportunity are provided; and (4) taking other The FHC works to counteract and eliminate COMPLAINT -5- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:6 1 necessary steps to ensure equal housing opportunities and eliminate discriminatory 2 housing practices. 3 24. The FHC is contracted by the City of Coachella to comply with funding 4 requirements for Community Development Block Grant funds the City receives through 5 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 6 contract requires the FHC to counteract and eliminate discriminatory housing practices 7 through whatever means necessary as outlined above. 8 include interviewing potential victims of discrimination, analyzing housing-related 9 issues, conducting mediation, litigation or referral to administrative enforcement 10 agencies, and disseminating information about fair housing laws. All activities must 11 address housing discrimination on at least one of the following bases: race, color, 12 religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. Failure to complete the 13 activities set forth in the contract with the City may result in the termination of the grant 14 agreement and/or negatively impact FHC’s ability to receive CDBG funding the next 15 grant year. 16 25. The CDBG These counteract activities In accordance with the CDBG contract, the FHC conducts investigations at 17 residential properties throughout the City and County of Riverside, including the City of 18 Coachella. Sometimes these tests are conducted in response to a complaint or when the 19 FHC, on its own, discovers evidence that indicates an unlawful preference for certain 20 groups of individuals. 21 26. The additional investigation, time, and resources spent at the subject 22 properties the FHC would not have otherwise spent inflicted an “injury in fact” on the 23 FHC. The FHC was forced to divert scarce resources from other activities not funded 24 under the CDBG grant and pay expenses out-of-pocket for the additional investigations 25 and outreach to redress the discrimination and its impact on the community. These 26 resources came from areas committed to investigating other forms of discrimination and 27 conducting outreach and education unrelated to redressing defendants’ discrimination. 28 Due to defendants’ discriminatory acts, the FHC diverted resources away from opening COMPLAINT -6- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:7 1 an office in Murrietta to set up and conduct presentations and workshops with residents 2 in that area. Moreover, the additional investigation that the FHC conducted constituted 3 lost opportunities under the CDBG contract to investigate other properties and other 4 forms of discrimination in the County of Riverside. 5 27. Furthermore, the FHC’s mission was frustrated when it was forced to 6 undertake additional targeted outreach and education to counteract the impact of 7 housing discrimination on the local housing market. As described in Section V below, 8 because the FHC suffers an “injury in fact” when it uncovers housing discrimination, it 9 is an “aggrieved party” and has standing to sue under the FHA. 10 D. 11 28. FHC’s Investigation The FHC received a complaint that Defendants refused to permit children 12 to be outside in common areas at a rental property located in the City of Coachella. The 13 FHC investigated the complaint by visiting the subject properties and speaking to 14 former employees and tenants and conducting outreach and education at subject 15 properties. The FHC through its investigation was able to determine that discrimination 16 on the basis of familial status was occurring at the property. 17 18 V. 29. INJURY As a result of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Mendia and her family suffered 19 emotional distress, anxiety, depression, frustration, fear and anger. She also suffered 20 loss of sleep, headaches and nausea. 21 30. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Olga Castaneda, Vanessa Castaneda 22 and their family suffered emotional distress, anxiety, depression, frustration, fear and 23 anger. They also suffered loss of sleep, headaches and nausea. 24 31. As a result of Defendants’ housing discrimination, Plaintiff FHC has 25 suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including the frustration of its mission to 26 achieve equal housing opportunities for all and the diversion of its resources to identify 27 and counteract Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory practices. Specifically, the FHC 28 was required to divert its scarce resources from its other fair housing obligations. Based COMPLAINT -7- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:8 1 on its mission to actively promote fair housing, the FHC could not ignore the 2 discriminatory results of the initial test. The FHC was, therefore, forced to perform 3 eleven additional tests to identify Defendants’ pattern or practice of race discrimination 4 and conduct an educational workshop. These activities depleted resources from other 5 obligations such as investigating other allegations of discrimination and outreach and 6 education. Due to Defendants’ discriminatory acts, the FHC diverted resources away 7 from necessary goals. The FHC intended to open new walk-in locations to provide 8 education and outreach for fair housing rights in Murrietta, Indio and Mecca. FHC was 9 unable to open these new locations because the staff time and money needed to 10 complete the projects was necessarily diverted to investigate the claims which give rise 11 to this Complaint. 12 32. Furthermore, Defendants’ housing discrimination frustrated the FHC’s 13 mission to eliminate housing discrimination and actively promote fair housing in the 14 County of Riverside. Defendants’ discrimination required the FHC to redress the 15 effects of the discrimination on the community surrounding the subject property, 16 including but not limited to, distributing flyers containing information about civil rights 17 in housing and conducting workshops regarding fair housing rights. 18 33. Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices also deprived Plaintiff FHC, 19 its agents and employees of the statutory right to truthful information about the 20 availability of housing because of race. The FHC brings this case on its own and as a 21 representative of its agents and employees whose right to truthful information about the 22 availability of housing was undermined. Accordingly, FHC is an “aggrieved party” 23 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §3602(i) and Cal. Gov’t Code §12927(g), and seeks 24 monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief for housing discrimination by and through 25 this action. 26 27 34. Defendants’ unlawful rental practices, as described above, were wanton, willful, malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive; were intended to cause injury; and/or 28 COMPLAINT -8- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:9 1 were done in conscious, callous, reckless, or deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff’s 2 federally protected rights. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. 3 35. An actual case or controversy exists between the parties regarding 4 Defendants’ duties under federal and state fair housing laws. Accordingly, Plaintiff is 5 entitled to declaratory relief. 6 36. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to engage in unlawful 7 discrimination, and the pattern or practice of discrimination described above. Plaintiff 8 has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. 9 VI. 10 11 12 13 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim - Fair Housing Amendments Act 37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 38. Defendants, by and through a pattern or practice of purposeful 14 discrimination on the basis of familial status, has violated the federal Fair Housing Act, 15 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. (“FHAA”), in that Defendant has injured Plaintiffs by 16 engaging in the following discriminatory housing practices: 17 a. Making unavailable or denying a dwelling to a person because of familial 18 status, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(a); 19 b. Imposing differential terms, treatment, conditions, or privileges associated 20 with a rental unit on prospective tenants because of familial status in 21 violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and 22 c. Otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any person 23 24 25 26 because of familial status in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 39. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions herein alleged, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer injury. 40. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1) and (2), Defendants are liable to 27 Plaintiffs for compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ 28 fees and costs. COMPLAINT -9- Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:10 Second Claim – California Fair Employment and Housing Act 1 2 3 4 41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 42. Defendants, by and through a pattern or practice of discrimination on the 5 basis of familial status, violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. 6 Gov’t Code § 12955 et seq., (“FEHA”), by engaging in the following discriminatory 7 housing practices: 8 a. Discriminating against individuals on the basis of familial status in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955(a); 9 10 b. Otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any person because of familial status in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code §12955(k); 11 12 c. Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing the doing of any 13 of the unlawful acts or practices, or attempted to do so, in violation 14 of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955(g); and 15 d. Implementing and enforcing a policy or practice that has a 16 discriminatory effect on families with children in violation of Cal. 17 Gov’t Code § 12955.8. 18 19 20 21 43. suffered, and continue to suffer injury. 44. 24 25 Pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 12989.2, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. 22 23 As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have Third Claim - Negligence 45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 46. Defendants owed, and continue to owe Plaintiffs a non-delegable duty to 26 operate the subject property in a manner that is free from unlawful discrimination and to 27 employ, train, and supervise their directors, employees, agents, and themselves to fulfill 28 COMPLAINT - 10 - Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:11 1 that duty. Defendants breached that duty by engaging in a pattern or practice of 2 discrimination on the basis of familial status as herein alleged. 3 47. 4 Defendants’ negligence includes but is not limited to: a. Defendants’ negligent failure to supervise itself regarding 5 compliance with the requirements of federal and state fair housing 6 laws; and 7 b. Defendants’ negligent failure to supervise agents and employees 8 regarding compliance with the requirements of federal and state 9 fair housing laws; and 10 c. 11 12 13 Defendants’ negligent failure to operate the subject property in conformity with accepted industry custom and standards. 48. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer injury. 14 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15 Plaintiffs pray this Court enter judgment as follows: 16 1. Declare that the discriminatory practices of the Defendants as set forth 17 above, violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the 18 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955 et seq. 19 2. Enjoin Defendants from discriminating on the basis of familial status. 20 3. Order Defendants to engage in comprehensive fair housing training. 21 4. Order Defendants to submit to monitoring of their practices and records in 22 order to ensure compliance with the fair housing laws. 23 5. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs. 24 6. Award punitive damages to Plaintiffs. 25 7. Award any other such damages as may be allowed by federal and state law. 26 8. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 27 9. Additional and further relief which the Court deems just and proper. 28 VIII. JURY DEMAND COMPLAINT - 11 - Case 5:16-cv-00184-JGB-DTB Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:12 1 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues. 3 4 Dated: February 1, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 5 6 7 8 MARGARET ELDER Attorney for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 12 -