Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Substantive rulingFiled Nov. 22, 2022

Hayer v. Liverant

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:22-cv-05420
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Preliminary InjunctionADA / DisabilityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hayer v. Liverant, Judge Chhabria granted Hayer’s preliminary injunction, barring eviction or animal removal while the case continues.

Who this affects

Hayer may keep the animal at the premises during the litigation, and Liverant may not require its removal or evict Hayer because of its presence during that period.

What happened

In Hayer v. Liverant, the court considered Hayer’s request to keep her emotional support animal in her home while the lawsuit continues. Liverant did not dispute that the harm, fairness, and public-interest factors favored Hayer.

The court found serious questions about whether Hayer has a disability requiring the animal and whether Liverant effectively denied her housing accommodation through an aggressive interactive process and a 10-day notice to cure or face eviction.

Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that Liverant may not require Hayer to remove the animal or evict her because of the animal’s presence while the litigation is pending.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hayer v. Liverant · No. 4:22-cv-05420
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
Nov. 22, 2022

Background

Hayer asked the court for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order intended to preserve a party’s position while litigation is pending. The dispute concerned whether Hayer could keep an emotional support animal at the premises.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that Liverant did not dispute that the irreparable-harm, balance-of-equities, and public-interest factors favored Hayer. The court therefore said Hayer needed to show only “serious questions” about the merits, which is a lower showing than demonstrating that she was likely to succeed.

The court found that Hayer had shown serious questions about whether she is disabled and needs an emotional support animal to cope with her disability. It also found serious questions about whether Liverant effectively denied the accommodation by handling the required interactive process in an aggressive and overbearing way and by serving Hayer with a 10-day notice to cure or face eviction.

Ruling

The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. It enjoined Liverant from requiring Hayer to remove the animal from the premises or evicting Hayer based on the animal’s presence while the litigation is pending. The order did not state a final ruling on the parties’ ultimate rights.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.