Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 20SMCV00339, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00339    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  St. James v. Bills, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Zandra St. James   

RESP. PARTY:         None as of 2-3-23.  Plaintiff filed notice of non-opposition on 2-2-23.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of her 1^st cause of action for violation of FEHA, 3^rd cause of action for violation of SMMC §4.28.030 and 6^th cause of action for unfair business practice under B&PC 17200 is GRANTED.  Based on the undisputed facts, Defendants discriminated against St. James based on source of income in violation of Gov. C. §§12955 and 12955.7, S.M.M.C. §4.28.030 and B&PC §17200.  See Plaintiff’s SSUMF Nos. 3-24.

I.  Applicable Law

A.  FEHA, Gov. C. §§12955(a), (c), (k) and (p), 12955.7

            Pursuant to Gov. C. §12955, “[i]t shall be unlawful:  (a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of…source of income…that person…(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on… source of income…or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination…(k) To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of…source of income...”  Gov. C. §12955(a), (c) and (k). 

            Pursuant to Gov. C. §12955(p)(1), “For the purposes of this section, ‘source of income’ means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f).” 

            Pursuant to Gov. C. §12955.7, “It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by Section 12955 or 12955.1.” 

            B.  S.M.M.C. §4.28.030

            Pursuant to 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….”

            Pursuant to 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.”

            Pursuant to 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). 

            C.  Unlawful business practice under B&PC 17200

            “As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.”  Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.  “By prohibiting unlawful business practices, section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.”  De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5^th 966, 980 (plaintiffs stated a UCL cause of action based on high interest rate consumer loans; such loans violated Financial Code §22302 and UCL claim could be stated based on that violation even though Financial Code §22302 did not itself create a separate right of action).   

II.  Plaintiff’s undisputed evidence establishes Defendants’ liability under the 1^st cause of action for violation of FEHA, 3^rd cause of action for violation of S.M.M.C. §4.28.030 and 6^th cause of action for unfair competition under B&PC 17200

            Plaintiff St. James establishes each element of her 1^st cause of action for violation of FEHA based on source income discrimination, 3^rd cause of action for Housing Discrimination based on Source of Income and 6^th cause of action for unfair competition under B&PC 17200.  Plaintiff establishes that she was an existing tenant of Defendants, that St. James receive a Section 8 voucher on 11-5-18.  See Dec. of Z. St. James, ¶¶4-5.  Plaintiff establishes that she submitted the necessary paperwork for the voucher and forwarded it to Defendant Bills for completion on 11-20-28.  Id. at ¶9. Bills did not respond and to this day, she has not accepted the voucher or completed the necessary paperwork.  See Plaintiff’s SSUMF Nos. 9-23.  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 Gov. C. §§12955 and 12955.7 and S.M.M.C. 4.28.030.  As such, unfair competition under B&PC 17200, which may be based on violation of other laws, is also established. 

            The burden therefore shifts to Defendants to raise a triable issue of material fact with admissible evidence.  Defendants did not file any response to St. James’ MSA.