Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laura Saitta is a tenant at the One Paseo Village apartment complex in San Diego. Acting without counsel, she sued the building’s owner Kilroy Realty, the management companies (Greystar entities), and several of their executives, alleging a wide range of landlord-tenant problems involving washer/dryer issues, repair requests, disputed rental charges, neighbor disputes, and a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. She framed her federal hooks as a Fair Housing Act sex-discrimination claim and a § 1985 conspiracy-to-interfere-with-civil-rights claim, with 19 California state-law claims piggy-backed on supplemental jurisdiction.
This was the third time around. The court had already dismissed her First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Second Amended Complaint repeated the federal claims and the same general theory, prompting another motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
On the FHA claim, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the rental of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. The complaint alleged “discriminatory pricing” and refusal to rent two-bedroom apartments “based on the fact that she is a woman.” But the supporting facts contradicted those conclusions in important ways. The general manager Saitta blamed for the alleged actions was herself a woman, undermining the inference of gender-based animus. The Kilroy CEO Saitta blamed for failing to address her complaints — Angela Aman — was also a woman. And Saitta’s own pleading admitted that she was renting a two-bedroom penthouse unit, contradicting her claim that women were forced into one-bedroom apartments. The court would not credit conclusory allegations of discrimination unsupported by, and partly contradicted by, the alleged facts.
On the § 1985 conspiracy claim, the law requires both factual specificity about an alleged conspiracy and an “invidiously discriminatory animus” — typically race-based or class-based. Because the conspiracy claim was “inextricably intertwined” with the failed FHA claim and rested on the same underlying allegations of gender-based animus, the conspiracy claim failed for the same reason.
With both federal claims dismissed, the court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the 19 California state-law claims. The Supreme Court’s United Mine Workers v. Gibbs direction — that state claims should be dismissed when federal claims fall before trial — pointed in the same direction.
Key Takeaways
- Fair Housing Act sex-discrimination claims require factual allegations supporting an inference of gender-based animus. Conclusory allegations and allegations contradicted by the plaintiff’s own facts will not survive a motion to dismiss.
- Where the alleged decisionmaker shares the protected characteristic that the plaintiff says was the basis for discrimination, the inference of animus is weakened — though not impossible.
- Section 1985 conspiracy claims require both factual specificity about the alleged conspiracy and an invidiously discriminatory animus. They cannot be a generic add-on to a federal-discrimination claim.
- When federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal courts in California typically decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them so the plaintiff can pursue them in state court.
Why It Matters
Tenants frustrated with landlord conduct sometimes seek to convert ordinary state-law landlord-tenant claims (habitability, wrongful eviction, nuisance) into federal civil-rights cases by adding FHA or § 1985 claims. This decision shows the difficulty of that strategy when the federal hooks are not supported by concrete facts. Conclusory invocation of statutory categories is not enough.
For California tenants and their advocates, the case is a useful reminder that the right forum for most landlord-tenant disputes is California state court. Federal-court strategies should be reserved for cases where the federal-discrimination elements can be plausibly pleaded with specific facts. For property managers and apartment owners, the case is a useful citation when defending against thinly pled federal-discrimination claims attached to broader landlord-tenant disputes.