Vargas v. Monitor Management
Filed 9/13/06 Vargas v. Monitor Management CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| JOSE M. VARGAS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MONITOR MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B186087 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC327131) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dunn, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Law Offices of Odion Leslie Okojie and Odion L. Okojie for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Corin L. Kahn for Defendants and Respondents.
_______________________
In their second amended complaint, tenants and a fair housing group alleged housing discrimination on account of familial status by the landlord. The trial court dismissed the action after sustaining the landlord's demurrer without leave to amend. We reverse and remand.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs and appellants Jose and Maria Vargas and their two minor children are tenants in a Los Angeles apartment complex. Plaintiff and appellant Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) is a non-profit corporation that, among other things, promotes the enforcement of fair housing laws and investigates allegations of housing discrimination.
Defendants and respondents are Monitor Management Company, owner and manager of the subject property, and Maria Miguel and Norberto Garcia, Monitor's apartment managers (jointly Monitor).
Plaintiffs filed an action against Monitor claiming housing discrimination on the basis of familial status. Their second amended complaint alleged that Monitor unlawfully enforced a rule that prevented the use and enjoyment of the apartment complex's common areas by children. When the Vargases complained about the policy, Monitor allegedly retaliated by, among other things, ordering their children indoors, refusing to accept rent, issuing notices, threatening eviction, entering their unit without notice, and telephoning them throughout the night. FHF attempted to resolve and mediate the dispute with Monitor, counseled the Vargases on fair housing rights, investigated the matter, and provided outreach and education to other tenants at the subject property and prospective tenants in the surrounding community. The second amended complaint additionally pleaded for the first time that Monitor had also refused to rent available units to prospective tenants with children.
Plaintiffs claimed Monitor's conduct violated: 1) 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(c) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (the FHA) (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) as to all plaintiffs; 2) Government Code section 12955, subdivisions (b)-(c) and (k), of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) as to the Vargases; and 3) the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) as to the Vargases.[1]
Monitor specially demurred to all causes of action in the second amended complaint on the ground it was uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) It generally demurred to the first and second causes of action for failure to state facts to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) At the hearing on the demurrer to the second amended complaint, the court explained that it did not view Monitor's policy barring children from common areas to be a civil rights violation or a form of familial discrimination. After ascertaining that plaintiffs had pleaded all known facts, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground of uncertainty as to all causes of action. It sustained the demurrer for failure to state facts to constitute a cause of action. The court attached to the order its prior tentative ruling on the general demurrer to the first amended complaint, which had been sustained with leave to amend.[2] The court later dismissed the action.
The Vargases and FHF filed a premature notice of appeal, which we deemed filed immediately after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(e).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint when they pleaded facts sufficient to support all claims of housing discrimination on account of familial status.
I. Standard of Review
â€
