United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 72]
Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' first two causes of action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. 72.] Plaintiffs Monya
Blanton and Diane Joa oppose. [Doc. 73.] The Court decides
the motion on the papers submitted and without oral argument
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that
follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Blanton allegedly began renting an apartment managed by
Torrey Pines Property Management (“TPPM”) in
September of 2011. (Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”) [Doc. 13] ¶ 13.) Corinne
Lampman, an employee of TPPM, allegedly told Blanton during
the application process that she and her three children could
not rent a two-bedroom apartment, but rather would have to
rent a more expensive three-bedroom unit. (Id.)
The SAC alleges that Blanton then rented the more expensive
unit. (See id.)
to the SAC, Blanton was pregnant with her fourth child in
January of 2013. (SAC [Doc. 29] ¶ 14.) At that
time, the apartment complex's manager, Peggy Warny,
allegedly told her that her lease would not be renewed if she
exceeded the occupancy limit of four residents. (Id.
[Doc. 13] ¶¶ 7, 14.) TPPM allegedly raised the rent
for Blanton's apartment in May of 2013. (Id.
[Doc. 13] ¶ 15.) The SAC alleges that the next month,
Blanton informed Warny that for medical reasons she could not
access her bank account in order to pay her July rent on
time. (See SAC [Doc. 13] ¶ 16.) Warny told
Blanton that TPPM would accept her rent after the due date.
Blanton attempted to pay her rent after giving birth to her
fourth child on July 13, 2013, TPPM allegedly returned the
rent payment to her by taping it to her door. (SAC
[Doc. 9] ¶ 17.) TPPM thereafter informed Blanton that
the payment was deficient for lack of late fees.
(Id.) Before the end of July, TPPM evicted Blanton
and her family. (See id.) Blanton alleges that her
eviction was a result of her violating the occupancy policy.
Joa was another resident at the same property managed by
TPPM. (SAC [Doc. 29] ¶¶ 13, 18.) She and
her five children, two of whom were minors at the time, began
renting a three-bedroom apartment in 2009. (See id.
[Doc. 13] ¶ 18.) Pursuant to TPPM's occupancy
policy, the TPPM manager refused to include two of Joa's
adult sons on the lease. (Id.) In May of 2013, Joa
and her family executed a new lease with TPPM through Warny.
(Id. [Doc. 29] ¶ 19.) The lease Warny prepared
for Joa and her family also excluded two of her children,
both adults. (See Joa Depo. [Doc. 72-4, Exh. 1; Doc.
73-3, Exh. B] 12-13, 42-45; 2013 Joa Lease [Doc.
73-3, Exh. C].)
April 28, 2014, TPPM sent Joa a “Three-day Notice to
Perform Conditions and/or Covenants or Quit” as to the
number of occupants in her unit. (Three-Day Notice
[Doc. 73-3, Exh. E].) Joa received an eviction notice three
days later. (Eviction Notice [Doc. 73-3, Exh. F].)
Her adult son Michael Howard then moved out of the unit so
that the family could remain. (See Michael Howard Intent
to Vacate [Doc. 73-3, Exh. G].) Apparently Joa was
allowed to remain, as the next year, TPPM sent Joa another
notice as to the number of occupants in her unit, causing to
spend another $100 to add her adult son Douglas Howard to the
lease. (See Resident Change Addendum [Doc. 73-3,
Blanton filed this action on April 22, 2015. (Compl.
[Doc. 1].) The SAC asserts seven causes of action against
TPPM and its employees: (i) violation of the federal Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et
seq.; (ii) violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov. Code §§
12927, 12955, et seq.; (iii) violation of the Unruh Act, Cal.
Civ. Code § 51; (iv) breach of the covenant of quiet use
and enjoyment; (v) invasion of privacy; (vi) unfair business
practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
17200; and (vii) negligence. (SAC [Doc. 29]
now move to dismiss both Plaintiffs' first and second
causes of action only, on the basis that both plaintiffs lack
standing. (See Defs.' Mot. [Doc.
72-1].) Plaintiffs oppose. [Doc. 73.]