El Dorado Estates v. City of Fillmore

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Standing
  • Date Filed: 09-02-2014
  • Case #: 12-55549
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Clifton for the Court; Circuit Judges Goodwin and Fisher
  • Full Text Opinion

A mobile park home owner suffers actual injury when a city creates unreasonable delay and added expenses during the application process for the park to subdivide.

El Dorado Estates (“El Dorado”) is a mobile home park for residents 55 years old and older in Fillmore, California. El Dorado applied to subdivide the park and sell each lot to its residents after the City of Fillmore (“City”) proposed to impose a rent-control ordinance. El Dorado brought suit for age discrimination under the Fair Housing Act alleging the City created unreasonable delays to the application process because it did not want El Dorado to open the park to all age residents. The City filed a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on the grounds that El Dorado lacked Article III standing because El Dorado suffered no actual injury. The district court granted the City’s motion. The panel disagreed with the district court and found that the City’s delay and additional requirements imposed on El Dorado was a concrete, imminent, and actual injury suffered only by El Dorado. The panel rejected the City’s argument that El Dorado only had a claim for discrimination if the park was prohibited from allowing all ages. The panel found that the approval or disapproval was not needed to show injury. El Dorado’s claim that the City delayed and added restrictions to the application process was enough to show actual and concrete injury. El Dorado would be able to show the City was the cause of the injury and a damage award would redress the injury for Article III standing. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Advanced Search