EL DORADO ESTATES, a California Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant,
CITY OF FILLMORE, a California Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California November 7, 2013.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07562-SJO-RZ.
Fair Housing Act / Standing
The panel reversed the dismissal, for lack of Article III standing, of a seniors-only mobile home park owner's action claiming violations of the Fair Housing Act when the City of Fillmore, California, allegedly interfered with an application for a subdivision of the mobile home park by causing unreasonable delays and imposing extralegal conditions because of a fear that subdivision would lead to the opening of the park to families.
The panel held that, under the facts alleged in the complaint, the mobile home park owner suffered a concrete and particularized, actual injury, in the form of added expenses caused by the city's interference with the subdivision application, and therefore had Article III standing to prosecute the action. The panel reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.
Robert S. Coldren and Mark D. Alpert (argued), Hart, King & Coldren, Santa Ana, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey Malawy (argued), Aleshire & Wynder, LLP, Irvine, California; J. Roger Myers and Charmaine Hilton Buehner, Myers, Widders, Gibson & Jones, LLP, Ventura, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Raymond C. Fisher, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:
Fair housing is the topic of the day, as we are presented with a case involving the Fair Housing Act (" FHA" ). El Dorado Estates (" El Dorado" ), is a mobile home park owner located in the City of Fillmore (" City" ), California. Litigation between El Dorado and the City arose out of El Dorado's application for a subdivision of its seniors-only mobile home park, the El Dorado Estates Mobile Home Park (the " Park" ). In its complaint, El Dorado alleges that the City interfered with the application by causing unreasonable delays and imposing extralegal conditions because of a fear that subdivision would lead to El Dorado opening the Park to families.
Protracted state court proceedings surrounding the legality of various conditions the City imposed on El Dorado when processing its subdivision application eventually led to El Dorado bringing this action in federal court, alleging that the City's actions violated various provisions of the FHA. El Dorado's complaint was dismissed by the district court for lack of standing under Article III.
We disagree that El Dorado lacks Article III standing. When the injury suffered by El Dorado is construed as alleged in El Dorado's complaint, it becomes ...