This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Housing Discrimination
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Claudia Ramirez and Rafael Ramirez v. Western States Land Development et. al.

Published: Dec. 16, 2006 | Result Date: Jun. 16, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC332578 Verdict –  Defense.

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Odion L. Okojie

David O. Iyalomhe


Defendant

Michael M. Pollak
(Pollak, Vida & Barer)

Matthew H. Fisher
(Da Vega Fisher Mechtenberg LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs are tenants of defendant's apartment complex in Sylmar.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants posted discriminatory rules prohibiting children's play, that they yelled and grabbed at children, and that one defendant manager sexually harassed plaintiff Claudia Ramirez. On that basis, they alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act, FEHA, the Unruh Civil rights act, California Civil Code section 51.9, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligent hire, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the rules were not discriminatory, that the rules were never enforced against anyone, that defendant managers never yelled at or grabbed at tenant's children, and that Ms. Ramirez was never sexually harassed in any way. Defendants created a safe and family friendly environment for all tenants at Seven Palms. Plaintiffs' story did not add up; they were proven to be friendly with defendants at the same time they suffered the alleged abuse.

Damages

At trial, plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount for medical expenses and emotional distress.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

In its ruling the court stated that the lawsuit was a "house of cards" - the plaintiffs' testimony was not believable; and there was no evidence that defendants enforced rules restricting children's play. The court found in favor of all defendants and against all plaintiffs. Also, on Oct. 30, 2006, the court awarded defendants $46,015 in attorney's fees. The award was made pursuant to Civil Code section 1717, on the basis that defendants were the "prevailing party" in the litigation; and pursuant to FEHA and the FHA, on the basis that plaintiffs' suit was "frivolous" within the meaning of those statutes. At trial, several tenants testified that the rules were never enforced and that children played freely all the time. Also, Ms. Ramirez admitted that, while the manager supposedly was sexually harassing her, she invited him to her husband's birthday party.


#110512

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390