Facts

The plaintiff is Edward Kitson. The defendants are Wilson and Raymond Maa and Lucille Yee. In 1981, the plaintiff and a companion signed a lease. The lease was month-to-month and for a rent controlled apartment in San Francisco. The couple signed a second month-to-month lease in 1989. The plaintiff's companion moved out ten years later. In November 2002, the plaintiff became indigent and sought Section 8 housing assistance. The program terms required the property owner to sign an authorization voucher stating its willingness to participate in the program. In January 2003, the plaintiff turned the voucher in to his landlords, the defendants. The defendants refused to sign the authorization.

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming they violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code. The plaintiff alleged the defendants discriminated against him based on the source of his income. Further, the plaintiff claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the defendants disputed. There was nothing outrageous in their delay in authorizing the plaintiff's program participation. Their attorney advised them to obtain a release from the plaintiff's former companion first.

Four months after the plaintiff filed suit, the defendants agreed to accept him as a Section 8 tenant. The plaintiff claimed that during the time the defendants failed to execute the Section 8 voucher, the defendants would not meet with the plaintiff's friend authorized to discuss the issue on the plaintiff's behalf.

DEFENDANTS CONTENTIONS:
The defendants argued that the plaintiff never authorized them to discuss his financial affairs with his friend. Further, the defendants opined that they did not reject program participation. Rather, they agreed in January 2004 to participate. They even entered into a lease that May. They contended that they delayed because of concerns that the plaintiff's former companion still had rights to the apartment, as he did not notify the defendants that he planned to release his rights pursuant to the lease. The defendants claimed that when they obtained a release of the former companion's apartment rights, they notified the plaintiff that they would partake in the program. The plaintiff opined that it was unnecessary for the defendants to seek a release of his former companion's rights. According to the plaintiff, the lease could have been construed to be only in his name.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the Unruh claim was denied. Its motion to dimiss the cause of action under the code was granted.

Settlement Discussions

The demand was for $550,000, decreased to about $90,000 before trial. The C.C.P. Section 998 offer was $35,000, which was withdrawn before it expired.

Damages

The plaintiff sought about $5,784 to cover the difference in the rent he paid between January 2003 and January 2004. He also sought $120,000 in noneconomic damages.

Injuries

The plaintiff was 72 years old at the time of trial. He alleged he suffered from severe depression because of the defendants' refusal for approximately one year to accept him as a Section 8 tenant. Further, his quality of life depreciated. The plaintiff's expert witness testified that the plaintiff was very frail. The stress of worrying about a place to live affected him physically and emotionally. The defendants opined that the plaintiff did not present evidence linking their conduct to his emotional distress.

Result

The jury found for the defense on the plaintiff's Unruh Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. It found for the plaintiff on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and awarded him $12,500.

Other Information

The plaintiff moved for recovery of his attorney fees, totaling $132,579.16. He asserted that his suit compelled the defendants to accept the Section 8 voucher. Thus, the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the public. The motion was denied. Further, the plaintiff moved for recovery of his costs, totaling $6,996.66. The defendants moved to strike costs, but the plaintiff's motion was granted.

Deliberation

12 hours

Poll

12-0 (Unruh Civil Rights Act), 11-1 (FEHA), 9-3 (i

Length

nine days