Birdwell v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.

Background

Sarah Birdwell alleged that she has a medical condition causing weakness in her extremities, uses a power wheelchair, has limited use of her arms and hands, and needs a home health aide for at least 15 hours per day. She lived in a below-market rental unit at Avalon Walnut Creek, an apartment complex developed, owned, and managed by AvalonBay Communities, Inc.

Birdwell alleged that she requested a wheelchair-accessible unit and a two-bedroom unit to accommodate an overnight health aide. She alleged that AvalonBay later threatened to evict her unless she moved to a one-bedroom unit, required her to submit another accommodation request, and denied her request to pay the one-bedroom rent rate while living in the two-bedroom unit. She also alleged that AvalonBay denied her requests for help leaving her second-floor apartment during power outages when the elevators were not working.

Birdwell further alleged that her unit and the complex’s common areas contained numerous accessibility problems, including heavy or quickly closing doors, inadequate bathroom clearance, inaccessible parking and swimming-pool features, and barriers in paths of travel and restrooms.

Her second amended complaint asserted claims under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. AvalonBay moved to dismiss.

Timeliness and Standard

Because AvalonBay had already answered earlier complaints, the court held that its motion was properly directed only at new claims or new matters in the second amended complaint. The court also considered AvalonBay’s challenges to previously pleaded claims as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true, the claims must contain enough facts to make liability plausible.

Fair Housing Amendments Act Claims

The Fair Housing Amendments Act requires reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services when an accommodation may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The court denied AvalonBay’s motion to dismiss Birdwell’s claim that charging her the two-bedroom rent rate violated that law, to the extent the claim concerned denials within the applicable filing period. The court held that Birdwell plausibly alleged that the two-bedroom unit was necessary for her overnight home health aide and that waiving the additional rent could be a necessary and reasonable accommodation. The court rejected dismissal based on AvalonBay’s argument that the law does not require landlords to subsidize rent.

The court granted AvalonBay’s motion to dismiss Birdwell’s claim concerning assistance leaving her apartment during the rotating power outages. Birdwell alleged that she requested assistance but did not explain how AvalonBay could reasonably have provided it. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

The court also granted AvalonBay’s motion as to Birdwell’s allegations about inaccessible design and construction and as to rent-rate denials outside the applicable limitations period. Birdwell alleged only a few denials of the rent accommodation and made a conclusory allegation of an ongoing policy of failing to maintain accessibility features. The court held that these allegations did not establish a widespread pattern or practice that would extend the filing period. Because the complex was developed between 2006 and 2009, the court concluded that the design-and-construction allegations were outside the two-year limitations period as pleaded. The court denied the motion as to timely rent-rate denials and granted leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The Americans with Disabilities Act generally does not treat apartments and condominiums as public accommodations, but areas made available to the general public for rental or use may be covered.

The court denied AvalonBay’s standing argument. Birdwell alleged that she had encountered most of the barriers and was deterred from using the others, which was sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court held, however, that Birdwell had adequately alleged a public accommodation only as to the leasing office. It granted AvalonBay’s motion to dismiss claims concerning barriers in other areas, including paths of travel, parts of the garages, and other common areas, because the complaint did not sufficiently allege that those areas were open to the general public rather than primarily used by residents and their guests. The dismissal was with leave to amend. The court directed any amended complaint to identify which common areas were part of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and which were part of the housing claims.

State-Law Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court dismissed Birdwell’s state-law claims to the extent they relied on the same legal standards as the dismissed portions of her housing and disability-access claims. The court granted leave to amend those claims. It declined AvalonBay’s request to give up supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because AvalonBay did not explain why any statutory exception applied, and the state and federal claims arose from the same underlying facts.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part AvalonBay’s motion. Birdwell’s claims based on the allegedly unreasonable power-outage accommodation, the alleged pattern or practice of discrimination, and public-accommodation barriers outside the leasing office were dismissed with leave to amend. Related state-law claims were also dismissed with leave to amend. The court granted leave to amend solely to cure the deficiencies identified in the order, and required any amended complaint to be filed within 21 days.