The Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa

Case Name: The Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa

Type of Case: Housing discrimination

Court: Central District

Judge(s): U.S. District Judge James V. Selna

Defense Lawyers: Everett Dorey LLP, Seymour B. Everett III, Samantha E. Dorey, Christopher D. Lee

Plaintiff Lawyers: Brancart & Brancart, Christopher A. Brancart, Elizabeth N. Brancart

The city of Costa Mesa defeated a lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against people addicted to drugs or alcohol by arguing that the city's ordinances that regulate sober living homes are the only laws or regulations that protect the homes' residents.

When the city's lead trial attorney, Seymour Everett, spoke to jurors after the two-week trial, "the issue that was compelling to them was the benefit that the ordinances provided to people who suffer from addiction," he said.

The eight-person jury handed down a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the city on April 18 last year. The Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 8:19-cv-01710 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 6, 2019).

Ohio House claimed the city's ordinances violate the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and state and federal fair housing laws by discriminating against people with addiction, who are considered disabled under the rights laws.

Samantha E. Dorey

Costa Mesa began adopting its ordinances in 2014, and since then, it has been sued by eight separate sober-home operating companies, Everett said. Many operators have "misled the public" with the idea that Costa Mesa outlaws sober living homes, he said. To the contrary, city officials "work well with sober living home operators who abide by the city ordinance."

The ordinances require sober living homes to provide 24/7 supervision of patients. They must be spaced at least 650 feet apart. Operators cannot have convictions for sex crimes, arson, dealing drugs or violent felonies. Drugs cannot be used or sold on the premises.

And the homes must provide resources for alternate housing to any resident they evict. Otherwise, any recovering addicts who are "curbed" by the homes run the risk of becoming homeless or turning to crime or dying, Everett said.

The 650-foot spacing requirement prevents close grouping of sober living homes, such as a cul-de-sac that at one point had four sober homes among its eight houses. Such tight clusters, in effect, become mini-hospitals and hinder addicts' transition back into the community, he said.

Christopher D. Lee

During the trial, he told the jury that while sober living homes can obtain state licenses as addiction treatment centers, California does not otherwise regulate them. Ordinances like Costa Mesa's "in many cases are the only protections that someone who suffers from addiction has," he said.

Before the trial, the plaintiff won a motion in limine prohibiting the city's lawyers from bringing up any prior bad acts of the Ohio House operators or financial ties to certain regular vendors.

But when a chiropractor testified that the sober living home was a good neighbor, Everett, on cross-examination, brought out that the home frequently referred patients to him. That was "an obvious conflict of interest which resonated with the jury."

In his closing, he pointed out that while Ohio House claimed the city's regulations discriminated against its homes' residents, the plaintiff put none of the residents on the stand to testify about experiencing discrimination.

"Ultimately, the jury determined that the ordinance benefitted the disabled and did not discriminate," he said.

In a brief email, lead plaintiff's attorney Christopher A. Brancart noted that Ohio House had filed its notice of appeal in January and is scheduled to file its opening brief late next month.

-- Don DeBenedictis