No. 21-680

Lawrence Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica, California

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: consideration disability-accommodation disability-rights fair-housing-act fair-housing-amendments-act federal-common-law housing-discrimination landlord-tenant landlord-tenant-law procedural-requirements reasonable-accommodation rental-housing
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Under the FHAA, are landlords required to accommodate the disabilities of individuals who occupy rental housing, even where the rental arrangement is not supported by adequate consideration? Is the payment of rent or other consideration a pre-condition to filing a lawsuit alleging violation of the FHAA? If so, may landlords avoid their obligations under the FHAA to reasonably accommodate occupants of rental housing by refusing to accept consideration from those who occupy rental housing?

2. Should Fair Housing Act cases, including FHAA cases, be decided by applying a federal common law of landlord and tenant?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act requires landlords to accommodate the disabilities of individuals who occupy rental housing, even where the rental arrangement is not supported by adequate consideration

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-23
Waiver of right of respondent City of Santa Monica to respond filed.
2021-11-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 8, 2021)

Attorneys

City of Santa Monica
Michelle M HugardSanta Monica City Attorney's Office, Respondent
Lawrence Salisbury
Frances Miller CampbellCampbell & Farahani, LLP, Petitioner