Facts

Plaintiff, National Therapeutic Services, Inc., an addiction treatment center, filed suit for disability discrimination after the City of Costa Mesa enacted Ordinances 15-11 and 17-05 in order to regulate the rapidly growing sober living industry within the city.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that the City of Costa Mesa's Ordinances were discriminatory under the Federal Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, Civil Rights Act and California Government Code Sections 11135 and 65008. Plaintiff contended the City discriminated against plaintiff by denying its conditional use permit and reasonable accommodation applications to allow plaintiff to bypass the occupancy limits as well as the 650 ft. separation requirement for three of plaintiff's properties. Plaintiff's argument hinged on the notion that recovering addicts were classified as disabled.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all claims that the City's Ordinances were discriminatory or that the City had acted inappropriately in any way. The City argued that there is no per se rule that states all individuals in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program automatically qualify as disabled for purposes of the FHA, ADA, and similar discrimination statutes. The City further argued that plaintiff must prove on a case-by-case basis that its clients suffered from an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, had a record of such impairment, or were regarded as having such an impairment.

Result

The court granted defendant City of Costa Mesa's motion for summary judgment. It found that plaintiff provided no evidence to support that any of its clients qualified as disabled to give standing to claim a violation of the FHA, ADA or FEHA. Moreover, the court granted the City's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's separate Section 1983 claim since plaintiff failed to explain any specific conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment as well as how that specific conduct served to establish a violation of federal rights. Lastly, the court granted summary judgment to the City as to plaintiff's retaliation claim, which was based on the City's separate lawsuit to enforce its ordinances, because the City's conduct was immune from liability due to the Noer-Pennington doctrine

Other Information

The court utilized the identical ruling in four other matters in seven federal actions against the City. All five matters have been appealed/will be appealed to the 9th Circuit once final judgment has been entered.