1 Liam J. Garland (SBN 215466) Nisha N.

Vyas (SBN 228922) 2 520 South Virgil Avenue, Suite 400 Los Angeles, California 90020 3 Telephone: (213) 387-8400 Facsimile: (213) 381-8555 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Honorable United States District Judge

HOUSING RIGHTS CENTER and 10 ANGEL ROOKER, 11 12 vs. Plaintiffs,

ROSA MAGNUSON and CHRISTINE 13 AVERY, 14 15 16 17 I. 18 NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Defendants.

This action seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against

19 Defendants for their unlawful discrimination in the rental of housing against prospective 20 tenants based on their familial status. This action is brought pursuant to the Fair 21 Housing Act, 24 U.S.C. 3601, et seq., as well as related federal and California laws. 22 23 II. 24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 in that the claims

25 alleged herein arise under the laws of the United States, specifically the Fair Housing 26 Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. 1367 to hear and determine Plaintiffs state law claims because those claims 28
COMPLAINT

1 are related to Plaintiffs federal law claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related 2 facts. 3 3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C.

4 1391(b)(2) because the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this 5 district and the defendants conduct business in this district. 6 4. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief as well as

7 compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3612(o)(3), 3613 (c)(1), 8 and 28 U.S.C. 2201-02. The Court also has the authority to award reasonable 9 attorneys fees and costs to a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(2). 10 11 III. 12 PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Housing Rights Center (the Center or HRC) is a non-profit

13 corporation organized under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of 14 business at 520 S. Virgil Ave., Los Angeles, California 90020. The Centers purpose is 15 to actively support and promote equal opportunity and freedom of residence to all 16 persons without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, familial status, 17 disability, sexual orientation and source of income. The Center engages in activities to 18 identify barriers to fair housing in the Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and to help 19 counteract and eliminate discriminatory housing practices. To this end, the activities in 20 which the Center engages include, but are not limited to: (1) providing outreach and 21 education to the community regarding fair housing; (2) investigating allegations of 22 discrimination; (3) conducting tests of housing facilities to determine whether freedom 23 of residence and equal opportunity are provided; (4) taking such steps as it deems 24 necessary to assure such equal opportunity and to counteract and eliminate 25 discriminatory housing practices. 26 6. Plaintiff Angel Rooker is a citizen of the United States. As detailed below,

27 Ms. Rooker was a prospective tenant at Defendants apartment complex located at 35028 356 Pasadena Ave., South Pasadena, California (subject property).
-2COMPLAINT

7.

Ms. Rooker and her teenage daughter qualify as a family with children as

2 defined by 42 U.S.C. 3602(k). 3 8. Each plaintiff represents himself and the General Public pursuant to CAL.

4 BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200 et seq. 5 9. Upon information and belief, Defendants Rosa Magnuson and Christine

6 Avery have been the owners and/or operators of the subject property at all times 7 relevant to the actions alleged herein. 8 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each defendant was the agent,

9 employee, partner, co-conspirator, or other authorized representative of the other, and, 10 in committing the acts and omissions alleged hereinafter, were acting within the scope 11 of their agency, employment, partnership, conspiracy, or other authorized 12 representation. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any acts 13 of defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts of 14 each defendant acting individually, jointly or severally. 15 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that all defendants entered into a

16 conspiracy and agreement with the other defendants and/or subsequently joined said 17 conspiracy and ratified the prior acts and conduct of the defendants who had previously 18 entered into said conspiracy. Plaintiffs are currently unaware of when each defendant 19 joined said conspiracy, but, on information and belief, allege that all defendants have 20 knowingly, maliciously, and willfully entered into said conspiracy which continues to 21 this day. The purposes of said ongoing conspiracy include, but are not limited to, the 22 creation, maintenance and implementation of housing practices designed to discriminate 23 against persons on the basis of familial status, all in knowing violation of state and 24 federal law, and/or the knowing concealment of those discriminatory practices in an 25 effort to perpetuate those policies and practices. All of the defendants acts and failures 26 to act alleged herein were perpetrated in furtherance of said ongoing conspiracy. 27 28
-3COMPLAINT

1 IV. 2

FACTS 12. On October 8, 2003, Ms. Rooker saw a sign outside of the subject property

3 advertising a vacancy. That sign included the phrase, Adults Only. 4 13. Ms. Rooker called the phone number listed on the sign for the purpose of

5 inquiring about the rental. During a conversation with the Defendants and/or their agent 6 on the phone, Ms. Rooker was asked about her familial status and Ms. Rooker indicated 7 that she had a teenage daughter. Ms. Rooker was told that her teenage daughter was 8 old enough to live in the vacant second-floor apartment. 9 14. On October 10, 2003, Ms. Rooker contacted HRC to file a complaint of

10 housing discrimination. Ms. Rooker told the HRC about the Adults Only sign and her 11 experience at the subject property. 12 15. Soon after, HRC investigated Ms. Rookers complaint. The HRC

13 conducted a test in which the owner and/or manager indicated that a child in the second14 floor vacant apartment may pose a safety issue. 15 16. The HRCs investigation uncovered more evidence supporting allegations

16 of discrimination against families with children in the operation of the subject property. 17 17. The HRC is committed to ensuring freedom of residence and equal

18 availability of housing to all persons without regard to familial status, race, religion, 19 gender, disability, sexual orientation and source of income. HRC seeks to eliminate 20 prejudice and discriminatory housing practices, and defend human and civil rights by 21 law. 22 18. With respect to the facts set forth in this complaint, HRC has devoted

23 resources and efforts to respond to community requests for assistance in investigating 24 the discriminatory practices alleged herein. Those efforts include a substantial amount 25 of hours spent by various HRC staff members surveying the other tenants at the subject 26 property, interviewing former tenants, educating the residents and tenants about their 27 fair housing rights in order to counteract the discriminatory housing practices, and legal 28 research by staff attorneys.
-4COMPLAINT

1 V. 2

INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS 19. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' discriminatory conduct

3 and their negligent operation of the rental properties described above, Ms. Rooker has 4 suffered economic loss, loss of time and effort, humiliation, mental anguish, severe 5 emotional distress, attendant bodily and physical injuries and conditions, deprivation of 6 their rights to equal housing opportunities and invasion of private right of occupancy. 7 20. Plaintiff Rooker has suffered loss of housing at the subject property by

8 defendants. Ms. Rooker has suffered other general damages in amounts according to 9 proof. Plaintiff family is also entitled to recover statutory damages up to a maximum of 10 three times the amount of actual damages, but not less than $4,000 for each violation, 11 plus attorneys' fees, as provided by CAL. CIV. CODE 52. 12 21. Defendants discriminatory and negligent actions have caused, and are

13 continuing to cause harm to Plaintiff HRC by frustrating its mission of identifying and 14 eliminating discriminatory housing practices against persons based on familial status in 15 the City of Pasadena and Los Angeles County generally. Defendants actions have 16 interfered with all of the efforts and programs of HRC by (1) forcing HRC to direct 17 these scarce resources to identifying and counteracting the Defendants unlawful 18 practices, and (2) frustrating its mission of identifying and eliminating discriminatory 19 housing practices against persons based on familial status. Defendants unlawful acts 20 and practices have caused HRC to suffer economic losses in staff pay, in funds 21 expended in support of volunteer services, and in the inability to prevent other unlawful 22 housing practices. Defendants actions have set back HRCs goal of achieving fair 23 housing for families with children by impeding their efforts to educate the public about 24 discriminatory housing practices and to provide counseling and referral services to the 25 public about housing discrimination. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\
-5COMPLAINT

1 IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2 3 4 5 22. A. FIRST CLAIM FAIR HOUSING ACT By all Plaintiffs Against All Defendants Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

6 paragraphs 1 through 21 above. 7 23. Defendants, by and through a pattern of practice of discrimination on the

8 basis of familial status, have violated the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 36019 3619, by engaging in the following discriminatory housing practices. Defendants: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24. B. SECOND CLAIM CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in B. A. Made statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling which indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(c); and, Made unavailable or denied a dwelling to persons because of familial status in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(a);

20 paragraphs 1 through 21 above. 21 25. Defendants, by and through a pattern or practice of discrimination on the

22 basis of familial status, violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, CAL. 23 GOV. CODE 12955(a), (b), and (c). 24 25 26 27 28
-6COMPLAINT

C. THIRD CLAIM CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT By Plaintiff Rooker Against All Defendants

26.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

2 paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 3 27. Defendants, by and through a pattern or practice of housing discrimination

4 based on familial status have violated Plaintiffs rights to fair housing under the Unruh 5 Civil Rights Act, CAL. CIV. CODE 51 et seq.. 6 28. Pursuant to CAL. CIV. CODE 52, plaintiffs are entitled to statutory

7 damages, among other remedies, of up to three times their actual damages as determined 8 by the trier of fact, but no less than $4,000 for each violation by each Defendant. 9 10 11 12 13 29. D. FOURTH CLAIM UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

14 paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 15 30. In committing the acts herein alleged, Defendants have engaged in a

16 practice of unlawful discrimination in the operation of the subject property based on 17 familial status, and therefore have engaged in acts of unfair competition or unlawful 18 business practices as defined in CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200. Defendants have 19 profited from the aforesaid conduct and are consequently required to disgorge their ill20 gotten profits by making restitution to the victims of their conduct. 21 31. In bringing this action for injunctive relief, each plaintiff is acting in the

22 interest of himself, herself, or itself and in the interest of the general public pursuant to 23 the CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17204. 24 25 26 27 28
-7COMPLAINT

E. FIFTH CLAIM NEGLIGENCE By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants

32.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

2 paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 3 33. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to operate the property management

4 company in a manner that was free from unlawful discrimination, and to hire, train, 5 supervise, and discipline their employees and themselves to fulfill that duty. 6 Defendants negligence harmed and continues to harm the Center by frustrating its 7 mission and forcing it to divert its scarce resources to combat Defendants unlawful 8 conduct. Defendants negligently violated that duty by discriminating against 9 prospective and in-place tenants based on familial status. Defendants violation of that 10 duty was the result of negligence, including but not limited to: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 VI. 25 26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray this Court enter judgment as follows: 1. Declare that the discriminatory practices of the Defendants as set forth E. D. C. B. A. Defendants negligent failure to train their employees and themselves regarding the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws; Defendants negligent failure to hire persons who were familiar with the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws; Defendants negligent failure to supervise their employees regarding compliance with the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws; Defendants negligent failure to discipline or terminate employees who failed to comply with the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws; and, Failure to operate the subject property in conformity with accepted industry custom and standards.

27 above violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.; California 28 Fair Employment and Housing Act, CAL. GOV. CODE 12955, et seq.; California Unruh
-8COMPLAINT

1 Civil Rights Act, CAL. CIV. CODE 51, et seq.; and Unfair Business Practices Act, CAL. 2 BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200. 3 2. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and all other

4 persons in active concert or participation with any of the defendants from continuing to 5 discriminate on the basis of familial status against any other person who is a tenant at the 6 subject properties or any other properties owned or managed by Defendants or a 7 potential applicant for tenancy in any of the apartment complexes in violation of the 8 above federal and state laws in any aspect of the occupancy of a dwelling. 9 3. Order that the Defendants provide equal housing opportunities to all

10 prospective and in-place renters, engage in comprehensive fair housing training, and 11 submit to monitoring of their practices and records in order to ensure compliance with 12 the fair housing laws. 13 14 15 4. 5. 6. Award compensatory damages to each Plaintiff. Award punitive damages to each Plaintiff. Award to Plaintiffs up to three times the amount of actual damages against

16 each defendant pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 17 7. Award any other such damages as may be allowed under all the above

18 federal and state statues. 19 20 21 22 Dated September XX , 2004 23 24 25 26 27 28

-9COMPLAINT

8. 9.

Award to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs in this action. Award all such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________ Liam Garland Attorney for Plaintiffs

1 VII. JURY DEMAND 2 3 Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby

4 request a jury trial. 5 6 7 Dated: September XX, 2004 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-10COMPLAINT

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________ Liam Garland Attorney for Plaintiffs