Filho v. Chinatown Community Development Center, Inc.

Background

Pro se plaintiff Roberto Filho alleged that he has physical disabilities, including traumatic brain injury, human immunodeficiency virus, chronic fibrosis, and bladder and prostate issues. He and his social worker asked a CCDC site manager to help him move to a one-bedroom apartment with a private kitchen and bathroom. Filho alleged that the site manager said the request would be sent to CCDC and then to Direct Access to Housing (DAH), a San Francisco housing program. He further alleged that CCDC had a contract with DAH and later told him it could not provide the requested accommodation.

Filho brought a claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which prohibits disability discrimination in housing and can require reasonable accommodations. He alleged that CCDC violated the FHA by failing to forward his request to DAH. CCDC moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, that it did not own the property at issue and had no basis for liability.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected CCDC’s arguments that Filho had failed to allege the need for the accommodation or that CCDC could not be a relevant housing provider. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court found it reasonable to infer that a private kitchen and bathroom could help address Filho’s stated difficulties preparing meals and experiencing uncontrolled urination.

The court identified the relationship between CCDC and DAH as the central issue. If a contract, policy, rule, or practice required or otherwise obligated CCDC to forward accommodation requests to DAH, CCDC might have violated the FHA. If no such arrangement existed, Filho would not have a claim based on CCDC’s failure to forward the request.

CCDC submitted a declaration stating that its last contract with DAH expired in 2017, that there was no current contract, and that CCDC could not refer tenants to DAH. Because this evidence went beyond the pleadings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) required the court to treat the dismissal motion as a motion for summary judgment and give the parties a reasonable opportunity to submit relevant material.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge William H. Orrick converted the motion to dismiss Filho’s claim into a motion for summary judgment. The court gave Filho until August 3, 2022, to oppose the motion and CCDC until August 10, 2022, to reply. The motion for summary judgment was set for hearing on August 31, 2022. The order did not decide the ultimate FHA claim or whether CCDC had violated the law.