Wilson v. Liu

Background

A Marie Wilson filed a form complaint alleging claims under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619 and 3631, and California Civil Code § 1942.5. Her complaint generally alleged that harassment and retaliation by her landlord made her living conditions uninhabitable. Her civil cover sheet described the case as involving racial discrimination and retaliation.

In a motion for a preliminary injunction, Wilson provided more detail. She alleged that, on April 13, 2019, Sofie Liu’s boyfriend made race-based comments during a visit to the property and then told a property manager to issue Wilson a notice to pay or quit. Wilson also alleged that Liu’s boyfriend later threatened to terminate her lease and evict her. After Wilson emailed Liu about the racial slur, Wilson received eviction-related papers, including a 60-day notice ending her tenancy. Wilson alleged that the notice was retaliation for her email.

Wilson appeared on her own behalf. Liu appeared through counsel.

Motion and legal standard

Liu moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s legal authority to hear a case. The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of showing that it exists.

The court explained that a jurisdictional challenge can be based either on the face of the complaint or on factual disputes. When resolving a factual challenge, the court may consider evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

The court found that Wilson had provided enough facts to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court relied on her allegations of a specific incident involving racially disparaging comments, a notice ending her tenancy shortly afterward, and follow-up calls threatening eviction. The court concluded that these facts made Wilson’s claim under section 3604 of the Fair Housing Act non-frivolous.

Liu argued that the Fair Housing Act’s exemption for certain single-family-home owners, 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1), eliminated federal jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument. It held that such exemptions are affirmative defenses—defenses that may defeat a claim but generally do not remove the court’s authority to hear it—and therefore do not limit federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also stated that, even if the exemption could affect jurisdiction, Liu had not shown that it applied. The statute includes conditions concerning the owner’s properties and whether the home was rented without using the services of a real-estate broker, agent, or another person in the business of selling or renting dwellings. Wilson repeatedly identified Mr. Wong as a property manager and attached a letter describing his role. Liu did not offer evidence disputing his role or showing that the property did not use such services.

Disposition

The court denied Liu’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether Wilson will ultimately prevail on her Fair Housing Act or California-law claims. It decided only that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The order noted that Liu could file a motion for summary judgment before the scheduled case-management conference, in which event the court might vacate that conference.