Wolf v. City of Millbrae

Background

Richard Wolf owned a condominium unit at Millbrae Heights. T-Mobile had installed a cell site on the condominium complex's roof under a lease negotiated with the Millbrae Heights Homeowners Association and a use permit issued by the City of Millbrae. Wolf alleged that radiofrequency emissions from the site caused electromagnetic hypersensitivity and related symptoms, and that he moved out of the residence in September 2020 after his condition worsened. He did not allege that the emissions exceeded the Federal Communications Commission's maximum exposure limits.

Wolf requested accommodations from the City, T-Mobile, and the homeowners association. He sought to have the cell site turned off, removed, or relocated, or to have different radiofrequency standards applied. His amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and California law claims for nuisance, trespass, constructive eviction, and breach of fiduciary duty.

City of Millbrae

Wolf voluntarily dismissed his § 1983 claim concerning fundamental rights to self-defense, safety, personal security, and bodily integrity. The court dismissed the City's Title II ADA claim because the requested accommodation was unreasonable: granting it would require the City to regulate the cell site based on radiofrequency effects in a way the court concluded would violate the Telecommunications Act. The court did not decide whether that federal law independently barred the ADA or FHA claims.

The court dismissed Wolf's FHA and FEHA claims against the City for the same reason. It also dismissed his Fifth Amendment takings claim. The City did not own, operate, or physically occupy the cell site, and Wolf did not identify a City ordinance or regulation that could support a regulatory-taking theory. The court reasoned that the Telecommunications Act and related federal guidelines prevented the City from adopting regulations that could give rise to a taking in this setting.

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Wolf voluntarily dismissed his Title II ADA, Fifth Amendment takings, and trespass claims against T-Mobile. The court dismissed his FHA and FEHA claims because T-Mobile provided telecommunications services rather than housing-related services and had no sale or rental relationship with Wolf.

The court dismissed Wolf's § 1983 claim because he did not allege a federal constitutional right to be free from radiofrequency emissions. It also found that T-Mobile's permit from the City and status as a public utility did not make T-Mobile a state actor, meaning a private party whose conduct can be treated as government action for purposes of § 1983. Finally, the court dismissed the private-nuisance claim because Wolf did not allege that the emissions were objectively unreasonable to a person of normal health and sensibility.

Homeowners Association and Individual Defendants

Wolf voluntarily dismissed his § 1983 and California constitutional claim and his trespass claim against the homeowners association and individual defendants. The court dismissed his Title III ADA claim because a residential condominium complex, and the inaccessible roof area at issue, was not a public accommodation under the statute.

The court dismissed the FHA and FEHA claims because Wolf did not allege facts showing that moving the cell site was necessary to allow him to use and enjoy his residence. The complaint identified numerous other radiofrequency sources near the residence and did not allege that removing this particular cell site would improve his condition. The court also concluded that the requested action could expose the homeowners association to liability under its lease with T-Mobile.

The court dismissed the private-nuisance claim because the alleged emissions were not shown to be objectively unreasonable. It dismissed the constructive-eviction claim because Wolf did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship with the homeowners association or a breached promise of quiet enjoyment. It dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim because Wolf did not establish that the homeowners association or its directors owed him a fiduciary duty or identify conduct breaching such a duty. The court also stated that the claims against the individual directors failed because the complaint did not identify independent conduct by them.

Disposition

Judge Hamilton's conclusion states that the court granted all three motions to dismiss. The court granted leave to amend the City's § 1983 Fifth Amendment takings claim, the private-nuisance claim against all defendants, and all claims against the homeowners association and individual defendants except the Title III ADA claim. Wolf could file a second amended complaint within 30 days, limited to those claims. The remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice, and no additional parties or claims could be added without court permission or the defendants' agreement.