Goddard v. Sares-Regis Group

Background

Thomas Joseph Goddard lived in an apartment owned by Apartments Capital LLC and managed by Sares Regis Group Residential, Inc. In early March 2025, he requested extra time to pay rent as a disability accommodation. The defendants granted the request, allowing payment by the seventh day of the month without a late fee or pay-or-quit notice. The defendants stated that a late fee and three-day notice would apply if rent was not paid by then.

Goddard later failed to pay rent within the extended period and continued not to pay. The defendants served him with a pay-or-quit notice on July 10. The opinion states that Goddard then requested another accommodation, which the defendants refused.

Claims and Procedural History

Goddard filed suit seeking an emergency order to prevent eviction. The court temporarily barred the defendants from starting an unlawful-detainer action for 28 days, but later denied a preliminary injunction because Goddard had not shown likely irreparable harm, that the hardship balance strongly favored him, or likely success on the merits. The court also denied his motion for reconsideration.

Goddard then filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for disability and religious discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, Fair Housing Act retaliation, violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of an agreed reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, and discrimination.

The defendants moved to dismiss. Goddard did not file an opposition by the original deadline or by the court’s later extended deadline. The court had denied his request to file a Second Amended Complaint. The opinion also states that Goddard made additional filings despite an order requiring him to seek permission before filing most further documents, and that he did not attend a scheduled case-management conference.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that it could grant the motion because Goddard failed to oppose it, citing the Northern District of California’s local rules. The court separately considered the substance of the allegations. It found that the First Amended Complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of a claim. The court noted that the complaint included extensive material about nonparties, other proceedings, and statistical theories that did not clearly support the claims against these defendants.

The court understood the central allegation to be that the defendants failed to accommodate Goddard’s disability and medical issues. It noted that the defendants had granted the requested rent-payment grace period, while Goddard failed to pay rent afterward and had not paid rent since. The court also stated that inability to meet a financial condition is not, on the cited facts, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It found that the pay-or-quit notice followed nonpayment of rent and therefore had a clear non-retaliatory basis. The court further found that the religious-discrimination allegations concerned people unaffiliated with the defendants and that the cited exhibits did not support Goddard’s claim that his former girlfriend was affiliated with the defendants.

Disposition

The court considered whether to allow another amendment and concluded that amendment would be futile. It noted that Goddard had already amended his complaint after the ruling on his preliminary-injunction request, and that his proposed second amendment was more than 150 pages and would not cure the Rule 8 problem. The court also cited bad faith, prejudice to the defendants, and the excessive and allegedly unsupported or contradicted filings as reasons supporting dismissal with prejudice.

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and directed the clerk to enter a final judgment. The court stated that, because of Goddard’s self-represented and fee-waiver status, it would not issue a show-cause order under Rule 11 at that time.