Dumay v. WinnResidential California L.P.

Background

Dorothy Dumay sued WinnResidential California L.P. and Menlo Westridge Affordable Partners, LP. She alleged that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of disabilities by failing to provide requested reasonable accommodations. The complaint asserted claims under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Unruh Civil Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Disabled Persons Act.

The defendants’ answer asserted 21 affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a legal reason a defendant gives for avoiding liability even if the complaint’s allegations are accepted. Dumay moved to strike the defenses, asking the court to remove 15 without permission to amend and the rest with permission to amend. The defendants filed a late statement of non-opposition that appeared to request permission to amend the answer in its entirety.

Ruling on the affirmative defenses

The court granted Dumay’s motion to strike in part. It held that the defendants had not shown why they should be allowed to amend defenses that were plainly inapplicable or that merely argued Dumay had not proven an element of her claims.

The court struck Defenses 3 and 18 without leave to amend because they applied to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a law that Dumay did not claim the defendants violated. It struck Defenses 4 and 5 without leave to amend because they asserted contributory and third-party negligence even though Dumay had not alleged that the defendants acted negligently.

The court also struck Defenses 1, 2, 16, and 19 without leave to amend because they challenged alleged defects in Dumay’s initial showing of her claims rather than stating true affirmative defenses.

The court struck the remaining affirmative defenses with leave to amend. Those defenses were identified as Defenses 6 through 15, including both listed Eighth Affirmative Defenses, as well as Defenses 17 and 20. The parties were ordered to meet and confer by December 13, 2024, and file a status report by December 20, 2024, identifying which defenses, if any, the defendants agreed to withdraw. The defendants were ordered to file an amended answer by December 27, 2024. Dumay could move to strike remaining defenses by January 10, 2025.

Case-management schedule

The court vacated the hearing that had been set for December 17, 2024. It continued the case-management conference scheduled for December 5, 2024, to January 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and file a revised joint case-management statement and proposed order by January 16, 2025, because their proposed schedule included dates that had already passed.

Effect of the order

The order addressed the defendants’ pleaded defenses and case-management deadlines. It did not decide the merits of Dumay’s disability-discrimination allegations or determine whether the defendants violated any law.