Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV00390, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00390    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  City of Santa Monica v. Bills, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff City of Santa Monica  

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant WIB Holdings LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff City of Santa Monica’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of its 2^nd cause of action for Housing Discrimination based on Income is GRANTED.  Undisputed facts establish that Defendants violated S.M.M.C. §4.28.030 by discriminating against St. James based on source of income.  See Defendants’ SSUMF Nos. 3-9.

            Under S.M.M.C §4.28.030(a), “It shall be unlawful for any person offering for rent or lease, renting, leasing, or listing any housing accommodation, or any authorized agent or employee of such person, to do or attempt to do any of the following:… (a)   Refuse to rent or lease a housing accommodation, or access to or use of the common areas and facilities of the housing accommodation, serve a notice of termination of tenancy, commence an unlawful detainer action, or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or persons, a housing accommodation on the basis of…source of income….”

            Under S.M.M.C §4.28.030(k), “[f]or purposes of this part, ‘source of income” includes any lawful source of income or rental assistance from any Federal, State, local or non-profit-administered benefit or subsidy program, including, but not limited to, the Section 8 voucher program, for an existing tenant or prospective tenant.”

            Under S.M.M.C §4.28.060(a), “Any person, including the City, may enforce the provision of the Chapter by means of a civil action.  The burden of proof in such cases shall be preponderance of the evidence.”  Remedies for a violation of S.M.M.C. §4.28.030 include injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs and any other remedies provided by law.  See S.M.M.C. §4.28.060(b)-(d). 

            Plaintiff City establishes each element of its 2^nd cause of action for Housing Discrimination based on Source of Income.  Plaintiff establishes that St. James was an existing tenant of Defendants, that St. James receive a Section 8 voucher on 11-5-18.  See Dec. of Z. St. James, ¶¶2-5.  Plaintiff establishes that St. James submitted the necessary paperwork for the voucher and forwarded it to Defendant Bills for completion on 11-20-28.  Id. at ¶¶6-7 . Bills did not respond and to this day, she has not accepted the voucher or completed the necessary paperwork.  Id. at ¶12; Dec. of Kemper, ¶12; Dec. of McGranahan, ¶4.  Plaintiff submits evidence that Bills knowingly refused to accept the voucher, because she did not want to participate the Section 8 program by accepting the voucher.  Id.  These facts establish a prima facie case of “source of income” discrimination in violation of S.M.M.C. 4.28.030. 

            The burden therefore shifts to Defendants to raise a triable issue of material fact with admissible evidence.  Defendants did not file an opposition to the merits of City’s 2^nd causes of action.  Defendants only filed a request for continuance based on pending settlement negotiations.  However, pending settlement negotiations are not grounds to continue the MSA and deprive the City of a legitimately obtained hearing date on its MSA.  The request for continuance is denied and City’s motion is substantively unopposed. 

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED