Filho v. Chinatown Community Development Center, Inc.

Background

Roberto Filho, representing himself, alleged that Chinatown Community Development Center, Inc. (CCDC) violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to accommodate his disability. He requested a move to a one-bedroom apartment with a private kitchen and bathroom. According to his complaint, a CCDC site manager told him that the request would be transferred to Direct Access to Housing (DAH), another housing program. Filho alleged that the site manager said CCDC had a contract with DAH, but CCDC later told him it could not provide the accommodation.

Procedural History

CCDC initially moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Because CCDC submitted evidence outside the pleadings, the court converted the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) into a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court identified the central issue as whether CCDC had a contract or another relationship with DAH that required CCDC to forward accommodation requests. CCDC submitted a declaration stating that its last contract with DAH expired in 2017, that no current contract existed, and that CCDC could not refer tenants to DAH.

Court’s Analysis

The court required Filho to submit evidence showing a contract or other relationship, after 2017, that obligated CCDC to forward his request. Filho submitted five exhibits. The court found that none established such a relationship. One exhibit referred to DAH and listed the building where Filho lived, but it was undated, did not mention CCDC, and did not clearly show that its reference to referrals concerned housing requests. Other exhibits showed rent and benefit transactions but did not explain a relationship between CCDC and DAH. An exhibit concerning a referral from the mayor’s office did not mention CCDC or establish a relationship between CCDC and DAH. A description of the building managed by CCDC stated that it housed residents receiving DAH subsidies, but the court found that this did not show that CCDC was required or authorized to forward accommodation requests to DAH.

The court also noted that CCDC’s evidence stated that DAH’s subsidizing part of Filho’s rent did not mean CCDC had a contract with DAH or could refer tenants to DAH. Because Filho did not present evidence creating a genuine dispute over a relationship that required CCDC to forward his request, the court concluded that CCDC could not be liable under the Fair Housing Act on the claim presented.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted CCDC’s converted motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not describe the judgment as granted with or without prejudice.