SoCal Recovery LLC et al. v. City of Costa Mesa

CASE NAME: SoCal Recovery LLC et al. v. City of Costa Mesa

TYPE OF CASE: Federal Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act discrimination on the basis of disability

COURT: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

JUDGE(S): Judge James V. Selna

LAWYERS: Brancart & Brancart, Christopher A. Brancart, Elizabeth N. Brancart; Law Offices of Steven G. Polin, Steven G. Polin; Seyfnia & Prybylo LLP, Garrett Prybylo

LAWYERS: Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Mary-Christine Sungaila, Jessica M. Weisel; Buchalter APC, Efrat M. Cogan; Everett Dorey LLP, Seymour B. Everett, Samantha E. orey, Christopher D. Lee; Jones & Mayer, Kimberly H. Barlow, James Touchstone

In the wake of complaints about the proliferation of drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers in the region, Orange County received the nickname "Rehab Riviera." Costa Mesa sought to stem the tide by passing two zoning ordinances in 2014 and 2015, requiring sober living homes to obtain conditional use permits and to be located more than 650 feet away from another such home.

In the case of SoCal Recovery, LLC, v. City of Costa Mesa, sober living homes alleged that the city's ordinances and permit denials in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, ruling that plaintiffs were required to submit individualized proof that each of their residents qualified as disabled in order to prove their discrimination claims.

At the end of 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider Costa Mesa's appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court's ruling, a ruling which held that sober living homes do not have to prove that individual residents are disabled in order to obtain a permit. Instead, the operators of such homes can provide other information, such as house rules and admissions criteria, to demonstrate its service to disabled residents.

Due to a variety of citizen complaints, the city had sought to regulate unlicensed group homes by creating a blanket rule that avoided evaluating the facilities on a case-by-case basis.

"Whether the city got complaints or not, it should not have been using a blanket rule; it should have been using its nuisance ordinance to attack misbehavior," said attorney Christopher A. Brancart, who, along with Elizabeth N. Brancart, represents SoCal Recovery LLC and Raw Recovery LLC. "The city has the tools in order to achieve their valid municipal objectives that don't require discrimination.... There is a long history in our country of attempting to preserve neighborhoods through discriminatory zoning, and that has been consistently, consistently rejected by the courts."

Elizabeth Brancart highlighted the extensive implications for those who work in the disability rights field, as the ruling applies to all communal housing designed for people with disabilities.

"We were really happy that the U.S. Department of Justice came in and did an amicus brief," she said, "because they're responsible for interpreting and enforcing the ADA as well as the Fair Housing Act."

Christopher Brancart also underscored the pivotal significance of group homes as the final step on the road to restoration for those who have overcome substance abuse.

"The last important step in the continuum of care is that you move into a sober living home, which is a home that maintains its sobriety, and this community lives in accordance with rules," he said. "So that's where you solidify your sobriety before you leave and rejoin society."

Costa Mesa's city attorneys could not be reached for comment. Mary-Christine Sungaila of the Complex Litigation Group, one of the appellee's attorneys, also could not be reached for comment.

--Kathryn Stelmach Artuso